Samuel Johnson’s pronouncement about patriotism being “the last refuge of the scoundrel” has been widely misinterpreted – he was actually denigrating members of the Patriot Party – but nonetheless reveals a deep truth in its accidental wisdom. In our country, especially, the loudest patriots are also the most likely to advocate unenlightened policies.
We all know this. The response of some on the left has been to try to reclaim patriotism – ie we who believe in a better quality of life for American workers are the true patriots! It’s an understandable impulse, although there is something a little absurd in watching liberals fall over each other in trying to show how they love America every bit as much as the Republicans.
Regardless, it’s a strategy which, innately, ends up contradicting the spirit and and policies of progressivism, in my opinion.
What is patriotism, anyway? If it’s defined as love of one’s government, it’s easy enough to see how conscientious people – in this country, at least – would be revolted by waving the flag. (We are killing civilians in how many countries, at the moment?) If it’s defined as a love of a country’s people, landscape or culture, I end up a little confused because in any of these things there is plenty of good and bad. James Baldwin and the Grand Canyon may be great, but what is there to admire in toxic waste dumps and crass consumerism?
Probably many self-described patriotic liberals envision patriotism in the same way as they love their familiy; they take the good and the bad but are ultimately devoted to its welfare (often over the welfare of other families). Again, this is understandable, but ultimately nonsensical. There is no single America, no single community with a set of common interests. Corporate interests are contradictory to those of working people and their environment. It would be in the interest of American workers and unemployed to ally themselves with the working people of other countries against the multinational corporate agenda to best improve their quality of life.
Patriotism is and always has been the cloke by which the corporate political parties justify war for corporate profit; the national anthem is always played loudest when the sound of the bombs needs to be drowned out. We only end up making the job of the war-mongers easier when we give credence to the idea of a unified America in need of collective defense, rather a political entity of contradictory interests which are intertwined with the rest of the world.
The best in the American political tradition – civil rights, abolition, the union movement – did not acheive success when it “out-patriotized” the other side. It did so by appealing to people’s sense of decency and basic humanity. The history of the people – rather than the elites – of this country has been defined by righteous social struggle, and such movements weren’t – couldn’t be – defined by their patriotism. Frederick Douglass, an ex-slave, said, “This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn.” MLK called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”
When the left tries to usurp official propaganda for its own ends, it usually ends up in failure. We need a counter-narrative. Our political movement isn’t about making America the best, but uplifting all human beings by promoting universal peace, justice and environmental sustainability. Let’s broaden, not limit, our approach in making a better world.
Perhaps this makes me a raging anti-American, but I care a hell of lot more about the welfare of a Chinese sweatshop worker and Afghan refugee than I do about the profits of GE and BP.
Ultimately, when morally conscious people make appeals to patriotism, we either end up in a semantic debacle or inadvertently justifying future wars. Patriotism and humanism are contradictory. The more the left steeps itself in a love of all human beings and, indeed, all living things, the stronger our political movement will be.
******************
Yes, the social movement at the Capitol may have sung the national anthem a few times, but far more prevalent tunes included the anthems to humanity that define leftist musical culture. Songs like this:
And this:
And this:
What you are playing with here are mere semantics and it appear sophmoric in its tone and intent.
Actually your voice as a writer is reactionary, I have noticed that about your writing.
I can look at one of your titles and know what the content of your piece will be.
People who rant and shake their finger at their audience are selfish writers who are unconscious to that fact that they want something from the reader. The reader ends up resenting it.
Your reactionary stance is dull and predictable.
Why don’t you risk to take a stand on something instead of reacting to events and the written word. That would take courage. That would involve having a voice like Brenda Konkel.
My experience of dogmatic tones like yours is that you are the first who can’t take a stand on a life issue when justice is needed and you shake your finger with a punishing tone, but you really are simply talking to the coward inside of you.
Celebrate Freedom, read your predictable post.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is called an ad hominem attack. It seems this commenter does little else. (Not that everyone’s contributions aren’t appreciated!) When a commenter is unable to critique the arguments of a piece, they end up attacking the writer – usually in an off-base, irrelevant and silly sort of way, as was the case here.
Thanks again!
On this site, Teresa, you have called commenters, writers and those discussed in posts “lapdogs,” “shameless self-promoters,” “puppets,” “jokes of conformity,” “anti-thinking,” etc ad nauseum. You’ve said the former Mayor is “in need of lithium” and accused Alder Shiva of “focusing only on the Spanish Speaking” in a secret bid for mayor. You also accused her of bribery.
The one consistency in everything you’ve commented on is that you’ve made sure to let everyone know that you love Brenda Konkel (who I agree is awesome).
But it’s old and, frankly, annoying. I get it – you’re angry and don’t like much of anything. But here’s a suggestion: Just because you disagree with the premise of a piece or a belief a person holds (a comment of yours from a few days ago indicates that you are happily celebrating “Independence Day”) doesn’t mean you should go on a tangent attacking that person as they have no soul.
Peace!