Patriotism: What’s Love Got to Do with It?


| 7/1/2008 9:54:59 AM


Tags: politics, election 2008, cultural criticism, Barack Obama, patriotism, political speeches, Time, Peter Beinart,

Obama and flag
There are a few things you can assume about those who run for president: They’re megalomaniacs; they have disturbing stores of energy; and at some point in their lives, they were bitten by the love bug called patriotism. Yet every election season, the candidate who dares criticize the country is put to the patriotism test. 

And thus Barack Obama found himself in Independence, Missouri, yesterday delivering his patriotism manifesto, “The America We Love,” flag pin tacked safely to lapel. In it, he dwelled on the historic legacy of both patriotic dissent and patriotism’s deployment as a political smear. He went on to personalize his own patriotism, describing it as a “gut instinct,” an “abiding love” rooted in his “earliest memories.”  

The speech was, as is Obama’s custom, an eloquent meditation on a value that pervades Americans’ lives and deepens our divisions. But it did not, as Obama’s speech on race did, shock with its candor and ability to articulate a unique moment and opportunity. Instead, we heard familiar professions of what it means to love one’s country.  

In fact, we err when thinking patriotism should be founded on love—that irrational emotion that most of us can’t even wrap our heads around in the confined spaces of our personal lives. This kind of claim usually fits easily into the liberals’ camp of the cultural war over patriotism, which Peter Beinart, in his recent cover story for Time, aptly characterized this way: 

Liberals are more comfortable thinking about America. . . as a nation that must earn its citizens’ devotion by making good on its ideals. For conservatives, the devotion must come first; politics is secondary.  

But removing love from patriotism isn’t to argue that patriotism shouldn’t be unconditional. It’s to say it shouldn’t be irrational. I prefer a seed from Obama’s speech that’s less dramatic than the narrative of love and more demanding: His description of patriotism as a “commitment.” For Americans, patriotism should be the meaningful acceptance of privilege, a sense of obligation not to the amorphous (and dangerous) concept of nation, but to one’s countrymen and -women, and to the world that’s so shaped by our choices and actions.

Jeffery Biss
7/3/2008 8:37:20 AM

The quote "Liberals are more comfortable thinking about America. . . as a nation that must earn its citizens’ devotion by making good on its ideals. For conservatives, the devotion must come first; politics is secondary." pretty much sums up why conservatives have trouble in an open society, they inherently hate critical thought. A democracy demands an open minded, thoughful, educated, and critical electorate but this is looked at as weak by most conservatives who demand unquestioning support. Conservatives weaken society by their knee-jerk adherence to ideology and symbol just as a stupid and ignorant electorate. Besides, what gave conservatives the right to dictate what is patriotic? Isn't that up to each American, even conservatives, to decide for him or herself? Maybe it's simply time to debate the issues, which is what democracy is about.


drjay1941
7/2/2008 5:28:06 PM

For me, patriotism is loving my country enough to see its flaws, where it falls short of its professed ideals and working to move it closer to those ideals.


Jake Mohan
7/2/2008 11:31:55 AM

I agree wholeheartedly with your final point, Sandra. I'm troubled by the ways in which principles such as democracy, freedom, and patriotism are exploited by those in power to justify their policies and silence dissent, especially when those in power are the very people violating those values--for example, limiting our freedom in the name of Freedom. That is why those principles must be examined and defined, so that this sort of exploitation cannot go unchallenged.


Sandra_2
7/2/2008 10:51:51 AM

Jake Sorry to have to disagree but they are not mandatory reading in all of our schools. My grandchildren, ages 8-18, have not actually read them. What kind of definition do you need to understand what love means...a deep abiding affection and respect, commitment... a willingness to fight for, support, protect. At my age, I don't need to constantly question my support for the founding principles of this country. There are other issues far more pressing to deal with, like how these principles are being ignored or manipulated to suit those in power.


Jake Mohan
7/2/2008 9:25:16 AM

Sandra: First of all, I'm pretty sure the Constitution and Bill of Rights are already mandatory reading for every public school pupil. More importantly, what do the words "love" and "freedom" mean to you? You've deployed them without defining them, so we're no closer to understanding what patriotism means to you. Without context, these are all just words--loaded words, yes, but not self-fulfilling prophecies with built-in substance. Shouldn't we constantly be defining, challenging and examining those concepts, as people of any faith should with their beliefs? Otherwise words like "patriotism," "love," and "freedom"--in any context--risk being little more than meaningless capitalized platitudes.


Sandra_2
7/1/2008 9:07:03 PM

Patriotism to me is my Love and Commitment to Freedom...our founding principal. The Bill of Rights and our Constitution should be mandatory reading for every school child.