SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading
« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Monday, July 4, 2011, 9:00 AM

Primary season is fully upon us, and now the Fourth of July is here. Seasoned political observers know what to expect from the candidates—a dozen or so very ambitious people, flag-pinned and furrow-browed, speaking earnestly about their love for America. Patriotic sentiment is a sine qua non for successful presidential bids, especially on the right—recall the overblown election-year dustup over candidate Obama’s inconsistent wearing of his lapel flag pin.

The fact that it was the liberal candidate whose patriotism was under question is significant. It is widely assumed, at least among conservatives, that those on the right are more patriotic than those on the left. This narrative contrasts rooted, rural, America-loving conservatives with cosmopolitan urban liberals who look down their sophisticated noses at flag-waving sentimentality. Like many stereotypes, these bear an element of truth. The cultural habits of so-called liberal elites can tend to be more European than distinctively American—one suspects that the average Yale professor would feel more at home in Paris, France than Paris, Texas. More importantly, anti-flyover-country snobbishhness is not a mere figment of the conservative imagination. During two years of study at Yale, my head was not-infrequently sent spinning by the ignorant dismissal of all things non-coastal by supposedly urbane Ivy Leaguers.

Granting all of this, the left-right patriotism gap is still not so clear-cut as it is often assumed to be, in part because the relationship between tribalism in general, and patriotism in particular, is a complicated one. Particularly in America. Edmund Burke, the eighteenth-century British statesman, critic of the French Revolution, and philosophical father of modern conservatism, defended tribalism in general by arguing that loyalty to our “little platoons”—things like family, region, religion, class—is in fact the “germ” of wider public affections, which ought gradually to grow to embrace our entire nation, and then all of mankind. According to Burke, these smaller loyalties come relatively easily. Love for things like nation and humanity do not. They must be cultivated over time.

If this was true of Burke’s England, it is true of our America, a nation that is dizzyingly vast and scattered. Americans sometimes speak of September 12, 2001 with a hint of nostalgia. For a little while we felt like a single, unified nation. But lacking an immediate, existential threat, what do we have to tie us together? What common thread connects a New York stock trader, a Montana cattle rancher, a California migrant farmworker, a Beacon Hill Brahmin? Put more generally, what constitutes our shared American identity, the thing that we love when we love America?

The traditional markers of national identity struggle to find purchase in America. A common history? That’s a bit of a stretch. America is a nation of immigrants, constituted by waves upon waves of new arrivals from multiple, far-flung points of origin. If anything, we share an adopted history, which is considerably less powerful than a biological one. A common language? Perhaps, but English is not only borrowed from the British Isles, it is increasingly the lingua franca of the entire global economy. Speaking English is not much of an identity marker these days. A common geography? Unlikely. The American landscape contains craggy coastline, verdant hill country, deserts, plains and everglades. The bayou is a very long way from the badlands.

But if things like blood, soil, language and history cannot bind Americans together, perhaps we can point to a shared philosophy. It has been suggested that American-ness is a uniquely abstract identity, one built on a set of common values like liberty, equality and fraternity. There is some significant truth to this. But of course, there is wide divergence in the manner and degree to which Americans embrace these values. And even further, the rather American-sounding trio of liberty, fraternity and equality was the rallying cry of the French revolution. Our “American” values, with minor variations, are now very widely shared. All things considered, many honest Americans struggle to understand who, precisely, we are.

None of this means that a thoroughgoing American patriotism is impossible. But it can be particularly difficult. Most of us are more animated by our local loyalties, our affections for the people, places and customs that we know best, whether we are liberal Bostonians, conservative Oklahomans, or something else entirely. And that’s fine. Edmund Burke, for one—ever modest about the human potential for change—would probably nod forgivingly.

And yet, if all this is correct, the question still remains: have conservatives in general outstripped liberals along the long path to American patriotism? Let’s say perhaps. But perhaps not so much as the politicians suggest. If one listens closely enough to some of the throatiest patriotic rhetoric on the right, it can come to seem that the actual object of affection is not America, but a very particular, idealized version of it – what’s referred to as “the real America.” So we hear that America is fundamentally a religious nation, or a land of small towns, or a land of innovation, opportunity, optimism, individual liberty, hard work, or whatever.

In fact, America is all of these things, and a great deal more. And while there’s nothing wrong with preferring certain parts of American culture over others, to pretend that one’s favorite parts constitute the real America—in contrast, say, to Manhattan or Berkeley—allows for a facile, dishonest patriotism. America is, among other things, a deeply western—that is to say, European—satellite. Brie, chablis and Flaubert are a part of our American patrimony, and to love them is not to scorn America. It is to love a different, if less central, part of it. A really comprehensive, authentic patriotism would need to embrace America as it actually is, including the portions that make each of us uncomfortable. That, Edmund Burke would tell us, is precisely why patriotism is so difficult.

So, then, in the humble spirit of an 18th century European writer, statesman, orator and intellectual, let’s all raise our glasses, flutes, bottles and cans to America the vexing, vast and, still, somehow, beautiful.

7 Comments

    Mary
    July 4th, 2011 | 9:44 am

    Harvard found that attending Fourth of July parades encourages voting and making political donations — and being Republican. They wrapped it up in claims that Republican parades may be biased, or that Republicans “appropriated” the symbols, but me, I suspect Ockham’s Razor points to something simpler.

    (See here.)

    Liam
    July 4th, 2011 | 10:48 am

    I’ve never understood the assumption that patriotism correlates to political conservatism. One sees a governor of Texas talk rather blithely about secession in a way that have gob-smacked Americans for generations, and yet here in New England, lots of ACLU-card-carrying libruls wave flags and sing patriotic songs (and even some of the more now-obscure ones, like O Columbia) and express love of nation at the Esplanade and on town commons all over the place.

    astorian
    July 4th, 2011 | 11:32 am

    There are very different ways of looking at this. Liberal AL Franken suggested that conservatives love America the way little kids love their parents, while liberals love America the way they love THEIR parents. That is, a little kid is sure that his parents are the most wonderful people in the world and will beat up anyone who suggests they have any flaws, whereas grownup love their parents despite seeing all their countless shortcomings.

    I, of course, see it another way. I’d say liberals are like the husband who belittles his wife constantly, telling her how fat and stupid she is. If you ask such a man why he married a woman he clearly despises, he’ll tell you (with a straight face), “I DO love her. I see the potential in her, and I love all the things she COULD be if she were completely different. I yell at her and insult her so that she’ll BECOME the person I love, rather than the awful person she is now.”

    David Marcoe
    July 4th, 2011 | 6:19 pm

    America is a bare-knuckle, hands-on, rough-and-tumble nation. That is to say, we are a nation of action, mixed with brash optimism and a bottom-up approach to how we do things. Principles like liberty and equality (though of a more limited, less radical outlook than that of the French Revolution, at least historically) play a role in our character–central as they are to our national creed–but Americans are identifiable by our approach to these ideals. We tend to be less theoretical and more practical; we already know what we believe, how the hell do we get it done? And postmodernism aside, Americans tend more toward common sense, with a thin patience for bullshit (especially theoretical bullshit). We have more of a sentimental attraction to common life, things of the hearth and home (whether that’s a family farm or a Brooklyn brownstone). We have a tendency of making gold out of dross. BBQ was original invented as a way of making tender meat out of poor quality cuts. Jazz was born out the redlight districts and boardwalks of the South, but was popularized in places like Chicago, Detroit and New York. We have an “up by your bootstraps” ideal and favor the underdog. Many Americans, from any different walks of life–businessmen, artists, scholars, scientists, soldiers–men and women of brilliance, were self-made and often self-taught. Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Henry Ford, Malcolm X, et al.

    These traits are identifiable in both the Right and the Left. What happened when the European import of Leftist radicalism hit the mainstream in the United States? It was commercialized! Tie-dye, lava lamps, psychedelic art, Woodstock…

    American culture has historically been a pattern, a tapestry into which other threads were woven, building upon it and enriching it’s complexity.

    Michael PS
    July 5th, 2011 | 7:44 am

    As a foreign observer, I do sense that there is a stronger civic component to American patriotism than one finds in Europe.

    I have known French Throne and Altar conservatives who regard the French Revolution as an unspeakable calamity, who regard the baptism of Clovis, rather than the fall of the Bastille as the defining moment in the nation’s history, refer to the republican symbol of Marianne as “la gueuse” [the beggar woman] and attend a Mass of Reparation on the 25 January, the anniversary of the “parricide” of Louis XVI, and yet they are fervent French patriots. It is difficult to imagine an American equivalent.

    Blake
    July 5th, 2011 | 7:44 am

    astorian your comment is absolutely hilarious, and so spot-on.

    Blake
    July 5th, 2011 | 7:54 am

    I always thought what bound America together was the set of shared assumptions that together make up our core institutions.

    If you hate those values and assumptions – and institutions – I don’t see you as very patriotic.

    I see shared rules as the essence of community. When people all live by the same rules (assumptions, call them what you like), they start looking an awful lot like a community.

    On the other hand – as liberal social experiments of the 1960s onward have so viciously taught us – giving one segment of an otherwise cohesive neighborhood the right to live according to a special set of rules rips that neighborhood into two smaller communities.

    Seeking unity (or assimilation, or whatever you want to call it), we have tried to force the results without paying attention to the causes. The EU apparently expected Germans to treat Greeks as equal, even though the Germans are also expected to carry a higher burden. The American left expects us to behave as a single community even as a mere hundred dollars a month can be all that separates the “poor” (who don’t work, and are eligible for all sorts of generous freebies) from the “working class” (who work upward of sixty hours a week, only to find the freebies are designed to be unavailable to people with jobs).

    When I hear about “American exceptionalism” I tend to think of competitive units – there is competition at the national level just as there is at other levels. And American exceptionalism is believing in America’s founding “code” – having faith that its core values are worth fighting for and will hold their own in any competition.

    Liberals seem to reject the idea that competition can be beneficial. Their whole ideology seems to be very worshipful of all things European, and not very fond of American.

    So I guess they view themselves as patriotic, but I have no idea what that could mean to them.

=