Here Lies the Nation

     The other day my colleague in our team-taught course in Western Civilization made an interesting point about the passing away of medieval Christendom.  He did not say that it was a good or bad thing that it passed away, and did not say when exactly the demise occurred, but rather showed the students how to identify signs that it had occurred.  So, for instance, when Pope Urban at Clermont preached the First Crusade, regardless of how one views what Bohemond and Godfrey and the other crusaders did, one must still be struck by the bare and remarkable fact that they obeyed the preaching.  This they did, as my colleague justly observed, despite the fact that it was not in the best interest of their own power at home, and despite the fact that they had no discernible desire for colonies or for empire.  Or consider the popular movement, endorsed by bishops and popes, that led to the declaration of the Truce of God and the Peace of God.  Warrior nobles chafed against any encroachment upon their liberty to pillage and lay waste to the lands of their enemies, but they at least sometimes and halfheartedly obeyed, refraining from attacking women and children and the aged, laying their weapons down during the penitential seasons and on certain days of every week, and in general allowing themselves unwittingly to be transformed into something remotely resembling the ideal of a chivalric knights.  People derived their prime sense of identity not from where they lived or what language they spoke, but from the faith they shared even with their enemies; they were Christians before they were Tuscans or Flemish.  By the seventeenth century, the source of a man's identity had shifted: Cardinal Richelieu, that eminence grise, was French first, French second, and French third, and that is why he assisted the Protestants in the Thirty Years' War, and why he arranged a peace between France and the Turk, allowing the Turk to push deep into Hapsburg territories in the east.  Had the Pope then decreed that there would be no fighting between Christian princes, the princes would have laughed.  Christendom as a cultural and cross-linguistic reality was dead, and the nation-state had taken its place.

     But now, he suggested, the nation may be going the same way that medieval Christendom went.  I agree, and I'm not talking about the power of multinational corporations-- and neither was he.  I mean that the virtue of patriotism, which is linked to a sense of belonging to this land, here, and loving it, a virtue that did not begin with the nation-state but could at least survive in it, is fading away.  A man calls himself a doctor or a lawyer, a golfer, a husband and father, a collector of postcards, even a Methodist, before he calls himself an American.  I have an old Army-Navy hymnal at home, and to look through it is to be astonished by the number and variety and quaint eloquence of its patriotic anthems, most of them now long forgotten.  Even our most common patriotic hymns have been reduced, in the lived experience and memories of citizens, to a single verse, usually only dimly understood.  Lines such as these from the hymn that used to be called simply America are almost incomprehensible now, not semantically but affectively, and would certainly never be written:
          I love thy rocks and rills,
          Thy woods and templed hills;
          My heart with rapture fills
               Like that above.

     When did it die, this love, this sense that at the deepest springs of my being I am an American?  Again, I'm not saying that we should feel this way; I'm only observing that we don't.  I don't know when the worm turned, but it has.  How many of the people running for the presidency do not really like America?  How many of them never have anything good to say about it?  How many bear hearts that do not beat warmly when they hear of Teddy and the Rough Riders, or Washington crossing the Delaware to surprise the Hessians at Trenton?  How many do not truly love the ways of Americans, even in such harmless things as food and sport, but rather agree when other peoples think them crazy or foolish?  For how many has the Constitution sunk below a thing of contempt, to become nothing but a dead letter, along with all other venerable American traditions?  I can name at least four or five candidates from both parties, including one of the most prominent candidates, who have never shown the slightest trace of actually liking America, let alone hoping that America is victorious in her struggles with other nations.  We've had such candidates before, but nobody would vote for them; they remained on the fringe.  They are not on the fringe now. 

     And that raises the question: if faith is not the source of a people's prime identity and loyalty, and if the nation is not, then what is?  What do we revere and obey?  We are made for reverence and obedience; something must occupy the altar or the flag.

Comments

[Ethan Cordray]

In the absence of such national identity,, it will be interesting to see whatt comes to take its place. I do not see anything that has done so now; rather, we have discarded all types of group identity for individualism.

However, as I believe there will be a major economic crisis in the next five or seven years, something will have to rise up to replace what has been discarded. Perhaps religion will reemerge, or else some form of fierce localism. Those of us who have not discarded all community, retaining at least our families intact, will be the ones to build the new society.

[Little Gidding]

What do we revere and obey? We are made for reverence and obedience; something must occupy the altar or the flag.

The Prince of This World?

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

Our new ideal, our new god, is also a trinity: Me, Myself and I.

[GL]

A man calls himself a doctor or a lawyer, a golfer, a husband and father, a collector of postcards, even a Methodist, before he calls himself an American.

Until the Civil War, many would have called themselves Virginians (as did Lee), or Missourians, or (insert the state of your chosing) before calling themselves Americans. Indeed, in many writings before the Civil War, one will find the phrase "these United States" rather than "the United States." Yet, this was a form of nationalism and patriotism, with its object identified as the state of once residence or nativity rather than the entire nation of which that state was a part. My Scottish and Native American ancestors placed their primary loyalties in their clans or tribes, but that too is something like a nation-state, just on a more local scale.

And that raises the question: if faith is not the source of a people's prime identity and loyalty, and if the nation is not, then what is? What do we revere and obey? We are made for reverence and obedience; something must occupy the altar or the flag.

Those are very important questions and ones which I must ponder before responding. My intitial reaction, however, is that our culture lacks any nexus of reverence and obedience at this time, which leaves a vacuum which will be filed. Perhaps the current nexus is self, but that cannot hold because, as you seem to presume (correctly I believe), man demands something outside and beyond himself to which to give reverence and obedience. As one ponders what that might be, assuming it is not a return to Christian faith, the prospects are potentially frightening. I look forward to seeing others speculation.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>What do we revere and obey? <<<

Something in the area of the groin.

[Chris]

Deacon Harmon beat me to it: we worship, venerate and esteem the self.

The religion is egoism. The prime virtue is high self-esteem (a pernicious euphemism for pride). The liturgy is self-worship. The highest prayer is the litany of "I am special." The saints and heros are the Paris Hiltons who are famous for being their witless, talentless, characterless selves. There is no holy writ since there is no authority, the only commandment being "Do what feels right."

[hugh comer]

The current itch.

[Beth]

A young man who works with our worldview program(teams of students who do school presentations on various worldviews) was telling me the other day that anime is becoming extremely popular now with the younger set; several of our students here are very involved in it. I know little about it, but he noted that even its mild forms are informed by Buddhist kinds of thinking. It seems to me that the age of science has passed (though many still cling to it as a god), and the age of self as center can only last so long -- the Romantics made a huge splash but the era of their dominance came to an abrupt halt with the aftermath of the French Revolution -- and the pendulum will most likely swing back to some kind of "religion." Not Christianity, but perhaps spiritism, Eastern mysticism, witchcraft both "light" and dark, etc.

I am generalizing, of course, but it does seem to me, strictly from literary/historical studies, that swings from "reason" to "self" to "religion" have occurred in history, and we are in the midst of one of them now. Sadly, I see a fair number of professing Christian students here on this Christian campus who are just as lost as anyone in the "world" and seeking something beyond the self (with which they are becoming satiated) -- and yet somehow they are not seeking this in the one they claim as Lord.

When I'm not the midst of grading papers and just angry with their sloppiness, I am profoundly sad about how much we have failed them in far more important areas than their minds.

"What rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?" It is not encouraging to consider the answer to Yeats' question.

[Joseph Stringer]

And that raises the question: if faith is not the source of a people's prime identity and loyalty, and if the nation is not, then what is? What do we revere and obey? We are made for reverence and obedience; something must occupy the altar or the flag.

Anthony, I would refer back to a previous Touchstone article which you may have written in the last month or two. It was on the sin of Sloth. I don't have it readily available, but the definition hit me right away. Elements of it included: . It described an absolute depression and apathy toward everything.

That really seems to describe much of our society today. We are frenetically chasing shallow ____(fill in the blank: relationships, sex, entertainment, etc.) while losing our souls. Emptiness occupies our alter. An emptiness of the individual: isolated, cut off, unredeemed, desperately seeking to find his own worth in the chimera of his "self fulfillment". We revere nothing, we obey nothing but our own impulses.

I can only pray that we can find those "deepest springs of our being" once again. We will find them only outside of ourselves: at the foot of the Cross.

[Beth]

Mr. Stringer, your comment put me in mind of a particularly powerful poem. Charles Baudelaire, in "The Flowers of Evil: To the Reader," describes all kinds of horrendous evils that men do (most of which I'd hesitate to post here), then ends with these lines:

"There's one more ugly and abortive birth.
It makes no gestures, never beats its breast,
yet it would murder for a moment's rest,
and willingly annihilate the earth.

"It's BOREDOM. Tears have glued its eyes together.
You know it well, my Reader. This obscene
beast chain-smokes yawning for the guillotine --
you -- hypocrite Reader -- my double -- my brother!"

("Boredom" is probably better translated "ennui" here, from what I understand.)

My students often truly understand this poem, saying it resonates with their lives. I find that chilling.

[Judy Warner]

I suppose it is no coincidence that our little ACC parish, which clings to a prayer book written in graceful English barely comprehensible to the average person today and discarded by the mainstream, also sings every week after the Doxology this verse from America, which is in our hymnal:

Our fathers' God, to Thee,
author of liberty, to Thee we sing;
long may our land be bright
with freedom's holy light;
protect us by Thy might, great God, our King.

[Roy Hill]

Somebody already beat me to it.

Only about 147 years ago, most of my ancestors would have counted "Arkansas" and not the "United States" as their country.

That's why so many non-slave owning "poor white trash" filled the ranks of the Confederate armies.

They weren't necessarily upholding slavery, as they didn't own any slaves. But their various "nations" had been invaded by those evil, pernicious Yankees.

It's also why so many members of the "Five Civilized Tribes" fought against the United States during the same time.

Just making the point that even in the fairly recent history of the USA that the concept of "nation" has changed quite radically.

[Gene Godbold]

I guess my circle of acquaintance is pretty limited. Most of the folks I socialize with and work with seem pretty patriotic, though in a low-key way. Granted, I work for a government contractor whose clients are the military and intelligence communities and my friends are church-going and home-schooling folks. But I think almost all of them could sing America with very little irony. I remember a program manager (of whom I am very fond) once commended a colleague's sacrifice of personal life with the following statement, "Mike, all I can say is that you're a true patriot." You could tell it was the highest praise she had to give.

[Ethan Cordray]

I'd like to add to the observations about individualism, which I think are right on, that an individualistic ethos is only possible in an economic and social system that faciliitates it. In the past, one needed family, tribe, nation and church in order to survive in civilization. We've very recently become rich enough in the West that it's possible to discard such things and not starve or get murdered. We look with puzzlement upon the persisting bonds of tribal kinship and religious fervor in the undeveloped world, failing to realize that for people living in sub-industrial conditions, those are things it is nearly impossible to do without.

I think we will see the reemergence of kinship, local patriotism, and communal religiosity, but only after we suffer the loss of our industrial wealth.

Of course, looking at the Third World, we can see that such things don't always work out for the best. The Christian virtues of forebearance, mercy, and kindness will be vital.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Our new ideal, our new god, is also a trinity: Me, Myself and I.<<<

Listening to the radio on the way to school this morning, my daughter remarked on the ubiquitous memorial services, "I don't like all this day of mourning stuff. I mean, it was a terrible thing, and I'm sad that it happened, but I didn't know these people, and I won't pretend that I'm devastated by this. It seems to me that it dishonors the people who died, because it really takes all the attention off of them, and puts it onto us, because we're 'grieving'".

And I said, "You understand perfectly--it's not about the ones who died, it's about 'me' and 'my feelings'".

[Gintas]

The basis of any social order is not an idea. The things that make for social order are practical: how we need and work with the people around us. Clearly Christian virtues influence that, and if most people have those virtues the order is a lot nicer. But Christianity does not describe for us the order. But an order of some kind there shall be. It won't be a libertarian world of radicalized individuals, which is no order. In fact, we can see that as we've adopted individualism, the order has been disintegrating.

BTW, the change from "these United States" to "the United States" was on the same order of what Bismarck did in Germany. Happened about the same time, too. So the late 18th century was a heave into the direction of huge monolithic state, not just here.

[Michael Simpson]

I think you've put your finger on something very real, and I wonder whether the world we'll come to see in the next few years will come to resemble the post-Christendom world of the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, with all sorts of different institutions, groups, ideas, etc. competing for our loyalties - and with the concomitant destruction that will inevitably bring?

[James Kabala]

I actually think it would be good if Dr. Esolen could call out which candidates he considers to have "not shown the slightest the slightest trace of actually liking America." It's not as if they read this blog and could have their feelings hurt.
I am also interested in his opinion on the latest dispiriting blogosphere debate, namely whether the Virginia Tech victims failed to show sufficient courage against their attacker. I can provide links to various sides of the debate if you want them.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I actually think it would be good if Dr. Esolen could call out which candidates he considers to have "not shown the slightest the slightest trace of actually liking America."<<<

First, let's be clear--"loving" and "liking" are not the same thing. Love is ontological, a psychological and biological bond between an individual and another individual, a thing, or an idea, in which one's sense of well-being is linked to the well-being of the other. On the other hand, "liking" is somewhat more superficial, a pleasure derived from being in the presence of another individual, or from an activity, or from an idea.

A parent must (or should) love his children--flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone, and all that--but he has no obligation to "like" his children. One's children can be utterly miserable individuals, and one would still love them. On the other hand, they might be utterly unlikable for all that.

So, a politician may actually "love" the United States as a concept or ideal. That does not mean that a politician "likes" the United States, which is something we might determine based upon how he speaks about it or behaves towards it. What we're looking at in some is an inversion of Stephen Decatur: "Our country, usually wrong". When a politician cannot find anything positive to say about this country, when his suggestions for making it better involve a total rejection of everything on which the country was founded, I concede that he may actually love it, but it's hard to say he likes it.

On that basis, let's enumerate those who don't like the United States, based on past and present statements:

1. Hillary Clinton
2. John Kerry
3. John Edwards
4. Al Gore
5. Dennis Kusinich (but who cares?)
6. Harry Reid
7. Nancy Pelosi

We could go on, but what's the point? Now, there are Democrats who, though they want to change various aspects of the United States, do manifest a real liking for the place. Joe Lieberman stands at the head of that list (but do Democrats consider him a Democrat these days?), even Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. Their love for the United States does is not conditional upon the United States becoming the antithesis of what it has always been.

[Judy Warner]

When did it die, this love, this sense that at the deepest springs of my being I am an American?

This has died among most intellectuals, academics, residents of college towns and many places on the east and west coasts. Just 60 miles west of Washington DC, where I live, most of the people are very patriotic and would probably call themselves American before anything else. The number of people who are not like that is growing, of course, and huge arguments between the sides are carried out on the letters page of our local paper. Also on that letters page it is common to see various religious views presented and argued -- something the big-city papers wouldn't be caught dead printing. Love of God and love of country seem to be two sides of the same coin, and they have declined together as the ability to feel reverence has declined.

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart, I don't wish to be too kind, but might the prevalence of democrats on that list represent at least a little their recent status as the minority party, and their opposition to the current administration? Someone, and it may be the listed figures themselves, is overidentifying presidential policy with the essence of America.

That said, I'm sure there are vast swaths of the American population that those figures definitely do not like -- the majority of those who live south of the Mason-Dixon and west of the Appalachians, before you get to the Pacific.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The number of people who are not like that is growing, of course<<<

Because they keep moving out from DC. Real Maryland begins west of Frederick; real Virginia begins south of Fredricksburg. Everything east and north of those places is part of the Boston-New York-Baltimore-Washington axis of evil.

[Ethan Cordray]

Sorry, in my post above, "democrats" should be "Democrats." I do try to keep the terms distinct. Same for the other party.

[Gintas]

I don't think George Bush likes or loves America. He's always talking about ideas--freedom or opportunity--but I've never sensed he has affection for our home. It could be because I don't listen to president's speechwriters' speeches anymore. I think he loves Mexico...

[Francesca]

"How many of the people running for the presidency do not really like America? How many of them never have anything good to say about it? "

Nothing good to say about America? Or about the current administration? The two are quite distinct, particularly as the current administration does not enjoy much public popularity and therefore does not, at the moment, really represent "America."

As H. L. Mencken said, "The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.

[David Gray]

Other quotes from Mencken

"The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking."

"The priest, realistically considered, is the most immoral of men, for he is always willing to sacrifice every other sort of good to the one good of his arcanum -- the vague body of mysteries that he calls the truth."

"Deep within the heart of every evangelist lies the wreck of a car salesman."

"Why assume so glibly that the God who presumably created the universe is still running it?"

"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant."

[Francesca]

>>Other quotes from Mencken ...<<

Absolutely priceless! Loved them all! Thanks!

[David Gray]

>Absolutely priceless! Loved them all! Thanks!

Well then you are well identified.

[Tony Esolen]

I am not sure I've ever heard Chuck Hagel say anything affectionate about his country. Hillary Clinton has been in the public light for almost sixteen years, and I defy anybody here to claim he can even imagine that she would ever shed a tear at a rendition of the National Anthem or The National Hymn (God of our Fathers), or to recall a single sentence expressing utterly unideological warmth for simply being American. Since I've lived my entire adult life in academe, and since I grew up in the bitter aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, I have towards patriotism a kind of scorched imagination; I have to THINK myself into affection for my country. I have it, but it doesn't come naturally, as it should. Most academics do not identify themselves as Americans, but as followers of this or that ism, to which they are happy to subject their nation, to remake it in their fantasy-visions of Sweden or China or whatever their Disney happens to be.

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

The Mencken quotes are revealing in many ways. The intellectual skeptic or atheist always can make himself out to be superior to those knuckle-dragging superstitious Neanderthals (and his comments about priests are the most revealing) but the acid test comes when he or she confronts the coffin of the person he or she loved most in the world. What words of skepticism or doubt or scorn resound so loudly then?

I once attended a funeral at a Universalist/Unitarian church, and listened for over an hour to eulogies without a trace of transcendence. If I believed what they believed, I thought, why on earth would I go to any church? Better to stay home, read a good book, sip a fine whisky and be merry -- and never think about tomorrow.

[Francesca]

Anthony Esolen writes, "I can name at least four or five candidates from both parties, including one of the most prominent candidates, who have never shown the slightest trace of actually liking America, let alone hoping that America is victorious in her struggles with other nations. "

America is so large, so diverse, and so multi-faceted, that it's almost impossible to like or dislike every aspect of it. Perhaps what seems like "lack of patriotism" is merely a different profile of likes and dislikes. The nearest thing we may have to a national identity is to accept that we don't have one and we need to find some way to transcend our differences.

Nor would I interpret healthy disagreement as "not liking America." A true patriot is capable of being disappointed with the actions of his or her country, just as one might be disappointed with a beloved child who has failed to meet expectations. A loving parent would talk to that child, try to understand his perspective, and advise or admonish him where appropriate. Blind, uncritical patriotism disintegrates into nationalism.

In this respect, I quote from Pope John Paul II's 1995 address to the UN:

" ... we need to clarify the essential difference between an unhealthy form of nationalism, which teaches contempt for other nations or cultures, and patriotism, which is a proper love of one's country. True patriotism never seeks to advance the well-being of one's own nation at the expense of others. For in the end this would harm one's own nation as well: doing wrong damages to both aggressor and victim. Nationalism, particularly in its most radical forms, is thus the antithesis of true patriotism, and today we must ensure that extreme nationalism does not continue to give rise to new forms of the aberrations of totalitarianism."

[Judy Warner]

America is so large, so diverse, and so multi-faceted, that it's almost impossible to like or dislike every aspect of it. Perhaps what seems like "lack of patriotism" is merely a different profile of likes and dislikes.

The issue is not liking every aspect of America. Some of the people who love America the most deeply are also the most critical of some things about our country. But it is fairly easy to divide people into those who think there is such a thing as lack of patriotism and those who put the phrase in scare quotes. When you think of America do you feel warm or hostile? When you say "I am an American" do you feel proud or embarrassed? When something bad happens like the shooting at VT, or Abu Graib, do you think "What an awful act" or "This is a product of American society"?

I've been struck by the constant complaint from leftist politicians that the right accuses them of being unpatriotic. I've actually never heard anyone make that accusation. But it shows that these people are sensitive and defensive about their lack of patriotic feeling. They have a need to redefine patriotism as disliking the actual country but having some ideal of America that they would like to make it live up to (France, for example, or the Netherlands perhaps). When your country is at war and you hope we will lose -- this cannot be defined as patriotic no matter how much you twist the language.

The nearest thing we may have to a national identity is to accept that we don't have one and we need to find some way to transcend our differences.

In political discourse today, transcending our differences usually means accepting the left's view. Listen to Barack Obama talk about getting over partisanship. In every instance he means increasing the reach of government, loosening moral standards, and the rest of the agenda. But with a smile on his face. When real differences exist of the magnitude of our differences today there is no way to transcend them; we can only settle the issues, peaceably or violently. Let us hope it is peaceably.

[Chuck Shores]

If I live all my life in San Diego, California, I might tend mightily to view myself (subconsciously, even)as a San Diegan (Go Padres! Chargers!), a Californian (best of the 50) and an American (button-bustin' pride in our Navy & Marines).

If, however, I live a few years in San Diego, a few in Indianapolis, a few in Atlanta and few in Boston, my identity and allegiances would be quite different-- broader, less focussed perhaps.

And if I lived a few years anywhere in the United States, a few years in Kenya, a few years in Russia and a few years in India, my sense of belonging and loyalty might be broader still.

All this to ask: Is there a correlation between our sense of patriotism and our modern ability to travel and live in disparate places in our country and cthe world?

[Yaknyeti]

"All this to ask: Is there a correlation between our sense of patriotism and our modern ability to travel and live in disparate places in our country and cthe world?"

Certainly. I was a missionary kid, spending half my childhood in Nepal and half in America, and I have divided loyalties. For several years after coming back to America, I had trouble thinking of myself as American, due to the amplification of the misery of junior high with culture shock. Now that I've had more time to adjust, I find that I love both countries, and patriotism comes more easily. It just takes time to be settled and to form a bond with the people and places around you.

Ironically enough, when I was in boarding school with kids from a dozen other countries, I defended America strongly. It was my nationality, part of who I was. But when I moved back, suddenly I was the foreigner, and my loyalty slipped away.

[Francesca]

Judy Warner writes, "The issue is not liking every aspect of America. Some of the people who love America the most deeply are also the most critical of some things about our country. But it is fairly easy to divide people into those who think there is such a thing as lack of patriotism and those who put the phrase in scare quotes. .. When something bad happens like the shooting at VT, or Abu Graib, do you think "What an awful act" or "This is a product of American society"?
"

I put the phrase in quotes to suggest that what is *perceived* as lack of patriotism may simply reflect one's own biases. Is someone unpatriotic because he thinks America is going to hell in a handbasket because of Hollywood, abortion, and acceptance of homosexual unions? Or because of jingoism and guns? Perceptions depend on whose ox is being gored.

"When your country is at war and you hope we will lose -- this cannot be defined as patriotic no matter how much you twist the language."

I haven't heard anyone saying that they "want us to lose." I have heard people, at both extremes of the political spectrum, say that they don't believe we can win and expressing extreme disapproval of the current administration's handling of the situation in Iraq. There's nothing unpatriotic about facing reality and offering alternatives. Ad hominem attacks on a critic's patriotism are generally clumsy attempts to deflect scrutiny.

In this context, Keith Colbert made the tongue-in-cheek observation that "the facts have a left-wing bias." Speaking of Keith Colbert, did anyone see the recent Pew report that showed Americans most knowledgeable about current affairs are those that watch Comedy Central? Fox viewers came second last, just ahead of network morning show viewers ( http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003571876 .)

[David Gray]

>I haven't heard anyone saying that they "want us to lose."

One particular scoundrel stated we've lost the war. While our men are still fighting the war. I don't think FDR or Lincoln would have been so gentle with that scoundrel as our current president has.

[Francesca]

Chuck writes: "All this to ask: Is there a correlation between our sense of patriotism and our modern ability to travel and live in disparate places in our country and cthe world?"

I would think so. There's a healthy tension between the local and the global. Within the US, we carve out our own little microcosms, selecting geographical locations we find appealing and sub-communities that reflect our own values and interests. For most people, their main loyalties are probably to this group of immediate friends and family who are bound by common experience and beliefs. Then "the global village" concept reinforces our sense of oneness with all humanity and helps us understand and accept other cultures. Perhaps our identification with America, which falls between these micro- and macro-cosms, gets diluted in the process. However, I can only believe that we bring more to our country through true global understanding and a desire to foster symbiotic relationships between "the family of nations."

[David Gray]

>However, I can only believe that we bring more to our country through true global understanding and a desire to foster symbiotic relationships between "the family of nations."

"The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as his own wife."

Theodore Roosevelt

[Christopher Hathaway]

I don't think you can contrast love of country for liking of it. I think the two are synonymous.

One can love a person without liking him, because he has an ontological identity apart from his behavior and we desire what is best for him on the basis of that identity. Yet a country has no ontological reality apart from its actual characteristics. You cannot "love it" in the same sense a parent loves his child because when you claim to want it to be better you really want that for the sake of those in it.

Those who don't like their country are really loyal to an ideal which may have existed once, or which may never have existed, but which they believe is better than what their country actually is. They love those people and things who would be benefited by that ideal country.

Thus, if there is no present characteristic about one's country that evokes praise it is hard to say there is any love for country. This is neither a good nor a bad thing, necessarily. It may be that one's country has little to admire about it over any other, andit may be much worse than others. One can still be loyal to it as a matter of Christian obedience without any absolute approval of it.

However, it seems meaningless to say that this or that politician loves his country when he really seems to want it to be what it isn't. Can one claim to love God while not liking Him at all? Can one claim to love chocolate while hatinmg its taste? Can one claim to love something while wishing it didn't exist but that it was something else?

Besides, what kind of loving parent would claim that there is nothing about hid child that is worthy of praise? "I love my son, so let me list his faults" That's not love in my book.

[Francesca]

David the Gray writes, "One particular scoundrel stated we've lost the war. "

A lot of people are stating that, and doing so is quite different from stating that they "want us to lose." Most people hoped the invasion would result in the win-win situation of stable democracy in Iraq. If that was the goal of the war, we've failed tragically thus far and there's nothing unpatriotic about stating the truth.

Even Jeanne Kirkpatrick wrote:

"These twin goals of our foreign policy are, first, ensuring our security and, second, promoting democracy and human rights. An appropriate balance between the two must exist, and that balance must be determined within the unique circumstances of any situation. Yet, for democracy to take hold in a given region, it must be preceded by institutions that are receptive and willing to support democracy--because democracy requires security as a prerequisite. That is why, throughout history, if the single force of political stability in a region is removed without critical institutions in place to fill the resulting vacuum of power, the security of societies and their budding institutions will be precarious at best.

Unfortunately, what we face in Iraq today is a vacuum of power, a lack of stable institutions needed to govern, and the problem that the promise of democracy for which our nation stands may be lost in the essential scramble for safety and stability in the streets. This is one of the reasons I am uneasy about the war we have made here--for we have helped to create the chaos that has overtaken the country, and we may have reduced rather than promoted the pace of democratic reform.

...

Iraq presented a very different set of circumstances from Afghanistan, however. These are things we ought to have known and taken into account when weighing our decision to invade in 2003.

Iraq lacked practically all the requirements for a democratic government: rule of law, an elite with a shared commitment to democratic procedures, a sense of citizenship, and habits of trust and cooperation. The administration's failure involved several issues, but the core concern is that they did not seem to have methodically completed the due diligence required for reasoned policy-making because they failed to address the aftermath of the invasion. This, of course, is reflected by the violence, sectarian unrest, ethnic vengeance and bloodshed we see in Iraq today."

[Judy Warner]

I haven't heard anyone saying that they "want us to lose."

The Democratic Party is basing its political strategy on losing the war. When bad news comes out of Iraq, some of them can't hide their glee, because they believe that is good news for their party. Perhaps if a Democrat is elected president in 2008 they will suddenly decide they want to win the war.

Others on the left -- and I have read their comments on blogs -- think a defeat for America would be a great thing on its own. To them, this would be a well-deserved blow for a racist, imperialist, etc. etc. country. Yet if you say they are anti-American, they deny it.

[Gary Victor Hanson]

The question by Father Chuck Shores ( Is there a correlation between our sense of patriotism and our modern ability to travel and live in disparate places in our country and the world? ) is an interesting one because during the heyday of the British Empire, an Englishman always took a little bit of England with him wherever he went. He was always first and foremost an Englishman, even as a Christian missionary! Perhaps because I know my American history well, particularly its religious roots, the term "American" to me means "God and country," a very English attitude, wouldn't you say!!

[Francesca]

Christopher Hathaway writes, 'Besides, what kind of loving parent would claim that there is nothing about hid child that is worthy of praise? "I love my son, so let me list his faults" That's not love in my book.'

Did anyone suggest never praising his child? I'm guilty of thinking my own children walk on water and I'm quite enthusiastic in my praise of them, both to them directly and to anyone else who will listen:-) But I would be a poor parent indeed if I didn't occasionally correct them or suggest alternative behaviors to them. Mostly these admonitions are very minor and revolve around such things as amount of candy consumed, trying to teach more effective methods of conflict resolution, or even merely praising a flute practice session, but there have been occasions where I've had to draw a clear line. To be blind to mistakes made by one's child or to fail to guide one's child would be very irresponsible and would ultimately hurt the child. This is where I see an analogy with constructive criticism of one's country.

[Scott Walker]

David Gray has it right. I especially enjoyed his Mencken quotes, and he could easily have cited many, many more that demonstrate Mencken's contempt for the simple-minded believer. It seems evident that some of the current crop of pols feel disdain for many of their countrymen, which easily enough translates into disdain for the country. (This runs on both sides of the spectrum, BTW.) Surely I'm not the only American who gets the feeling that Hillary is addressing some not-too-bright third graders whenever she deigns to address us at all. Contrast this with Mr. Clinton. Part of his success as a politician is that, whatever his flaws, he likes Americans. Same with other Great Communicator presidents such as Reagan and FDR and Lincoln. Mr. Clinton has had his issues with the truth, but I think that in this, at least, he is sincere; he would actually enjoy eating a hot dog at a minor league ball game and shooting the breeze with the folks in the stands. Hillary might do it, but she would hate every wretched moment and couldn't wait until it was over.

[Francesca]

Judy Warner writes, "The Democratic Party is basing its political strategy on losing the war. When bad news comes out of Iraq, some of them can't hide their glee, because they believe that is good news for their party. Perhaps if a Democrat is elected president in 2008 they will suddenly decide they want to win the war. "

Personally I think the Democratic Party and Jeanne Kirkpatrick are right about Iraq and Hillary Clinton's initial support for the invasion should preclude her from ever being president. I think you'll find that Republicans were behaving in the same opportunistic way over Yugoslavia during Bill Clinton's presidency. I'll borrow from Mencken and say that politicians, not just evangelists, are mostly the wrecks of used car salesmen.

[Francesca]

Scott W. writes, "Surely I'm not the only American who gets the feeling that Hillary is addressing some not-too-bright third graders whenever she deigns to address us at all."

And am I the only American who gets the feeling that George W. Bush is himself a not-too-bright third grader whenever he deigns to address us at all?

Oh for a leader who could be honest, human, and competent all in one.

[Scott Walker]

Francesca, I would appreciate it if you could cite a couple of examples of Republicans behaving in the same opportunistic way over Yugoslavia during Clinton's presidency. I don't remember any, and as an Orthodox Christian citizen of a nation that was bombing a mostly Orthodox Christian nation, I have paid a fair amount of attention.

[Francesca]

Scott W. writes, "Francesca, I would appreciate it if you could cite a couple of examples of Republicans behaving in the same opportunistic way over Yugoslavia during Clinton's presidency."

Certainly. You might be interested in reading the comments of Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, George W. Bush, and Tony Snow, who dared to (I'm reaching for the smelling salts as I faint to the ground!) criticize the commander-in-chief in time of war, at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=24148

For example, DeLay in April, 1999: "There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

Snow: "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

Lott: "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

And then-Texas governor, George W. Bush: "Victory means exit strategy," he told the Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999, "and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

[Francesca]

"The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as his own wife."

Theodore Roosevelt

Bear in mind that 50% of marriages end in divorce.

[James Kabala]

On the Reid issue, I mainly agree with Ross Douthat, who wrote the following:

Here's my question: Is there any imaginable point in any imaginable conflict where Mark Levin [who called for Reid's resignation] would admit that the United States had lost a war? I don't mean to be flip, and I say this as someone who generally thinks that the U.S. hasn't necessarily lost in Iraq; we probably have, but the outcome is still sufficiently in doubt and the stakes sufficiently high that I want to give the "surge," however ineffectual it may prove (or may already be proving), at least a Tom Friedmanesque six months to work. But even allowing that Reid shouldn't have said what he said, it's still the case that the United States can lose wars, like any world power; that we may well lose this one (in some sense, at least); and that at some point, in this struggle or another, some American politician will say "we've lost the war" and be entirely correct. Given this reality, I wish Levin (and many of his fellow "till the last dog dies" Iraq War backers) would clarify whether there's any situation in which they would greet a U.S. defeat abroad with any response save a rote invocation of the stab-in-the-back narrative.

[Yaknyeti]

David Gray -
"The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as his own wife."

Theodore Roosevelt

Rubbish. More like saying that one should love one sibling (or parent) more than another.

Christopher -
Would "loving our community" be a better term? True, our sense of what our country is comes from the people we live and interact with, but this generic love that we extend from them to others in our region/ nation/ whatever is still a real love, in that it is devoted to the good of the community regardless of how good that community is. It is an extension of the love that we should develop for all humanity, but as has been eloquently argued in Touchstone, our inability to extend that love universally shouldn't stop us from exercising it to the extent that we can. (I believe that was Michael Bailey's article in Jan/Feb 2006).

I'm not in tune with politics enough to say who I think loves our country and who is simply taking advantage of it for personal profit. But I think the distinction can be made.

[David Gray]

>Rubbish. More like saying that one should love one sibling (or parent) more than another.

I imagine the Roosevelt quote looks odd also to those who do love other women as much as their own wife.

[James A. Altena]

David is 100% right in his quote from Teddy R. (plus those from Mencken, as funny as the latter could be sometimes). This does not exclude love of other countries in a proper sense, just as love of one's wife doees not exclude love of other women in a proper sense. But there must be a particular exclusiveness to the love of one's own country or wife; one does not love other countries or women in the same way and to the same degree.

Christians have a word and concept for this which as almost been forgotten -- fidelity. It has been watered down and replaced by the very different term "commitment." Like the difference between "relation" and relationship" (to which Dr. Peter Toon first pointed me and many others), fidelity refers to an objective state of exclusive relation and corresponding conduct, and is inherenlty permanent. Commitment refers instead primarily to a subjective emotional preference and is voluntaristic and contractual in nature, and thus can be abridged or broken.

To bring in the theological dimension more clearly, the union of man and woman as husband and wife in is the foundation of all other social institutions. Theologians have long recognized that, rightly constituted and considered, the relations of family, school, the workplace, and the nation are those of the fidelity of marriage writ large.

That does not mean thinking e.g. that either one's spouse or one's nation are perfect, putting on rose-colored glasses and denying their real and serious faults (or one's own). But one does not constantly criticze them in public to others and then protest or pretend that one really loves them after all. Fidelity thus entails a certain degree of reticence (and reserve is another Christian virtue too little remembered and practiced today). Geniune love will show itself forth in corresponding conduct. Unlike the cynical and unbelieving Mencken, the Christian man who truly loves his wife or country may be grieved for her, but he will never despair of her, for he believes in a God who became man and suffered and died for their redemption.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Francesca, my point about the absurdity of a loving parent not praising his child was in responce to the analogy of being critical of one's country as an act of love. If the parent only criticizes we wouldn't call that loving. At leats I wouldn't. Just so, if someone only criticizes his country's actual state I wouldn't call that love of country.

Besides, in order to criticize one's country one must have a standard by which to judge it. Very often that standard is of one's own making, so that you set yourself up as judge over your country. That is hardly love either. It is egotism dressed in idealism.

If you have ideals, that is good. If your country exemplifies, even if poorly, some of these ideals the that is cause for pride in and love of country. But if you can't find anything admirable in your country, don't call it love when you criticize it.

Yaknyeti is probably correct that such "love" is really at best love of one's community. But this is really the lowest level of patriotism and one hardly apt to inspire hymns of praise.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And then-Texas governor, George W. Bush: "Victory means exit strategy," he told the Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999, "and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."<<<

The answer is there before you, Francesca: the exit strategy is victory. That is the exit strategy of every war. Wars end under two, and only two conditions: either one side totally vanquishes the other, or both sides fight to mutual exhaustion, making further conflict inevitable. Negotiated settlements generally do not end wars, but merely impose temporary suspensions of hostilities. Witness the first Hundred Years War between England and Frane, which ended only with Englands expulsion from the continent; the "Second Hundred Years War", of England and the rest of Europe against France, which began in the 1690s and ended only with the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo; the two World Wars, in which Germany fought the rest of Europe for four years, accepted an armistice, and picked up where it left off twenty years later, ending only with Germany a pile of rubble; witness finally the Arab-Israeli wars, which are approaching their sixtieth year of ongoing hostilities, because the Arabs have never been allowed to suffer the consequences of their repeated defeats at the hands of Israel. The current war against Islamic jihadism will continue until such time as Islam is reformed or destroyed, or the West is transformed or destroyed. One might even say that this is a continuation of a struggle that began when the Persians of Darius the Great were first defeated on the Plains of Marathon.

[Francesca]

Christopher writes, "Besides, in order to criticize one's country one must have a standard by which to judge it. Very often that standard is of one's own making, so that you set yourself up as judge over your country. That is hardly love either. It is egotism dressed in idealism."

It would show a profoud lack of personal integrity if one standards were not "of one's own making." If not one's own, then whose? Being true to one's conscience may mean speaking out against one's country's actions or advocating for a group of one's countrymen who are marginalized. In fact, it seems egotistical to the point of narcissism to expect someone to remain silent because one disagrees with that person's views. Who'd want to live in Nazi Germany?

Human beings (gotta love them) are quite capable of regarding the expression of their own gripes about their country as the act of patriotic, red-blooded Americans, while seeing someone else's as subversive, traitorous, and unpatriotic.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>All this to ask: Is there a correlation between our sense of patriotism and our modern ability to travel and live in disparate places in our country and cthe world?<<<

Kipling wrote a poem about the "little Englanders" who were as skeptical of their country's greatness in the 19th century as we are of ours today. It began, "What know they of England, who only England know?"

I have found that those Americans who travel abroad return home with a much greater love and appreciation for our country than those who have never left, especially if their travels have taken them to some of the garden spots of the world which are often held up as exemplars for the way America ought to be.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It would show a profoud lack of personal integrity if one standards were not "of one's own making." <<<

The silliness of this statement defies belief. If taken seriously, it would mean that all bases for judgment must ultimately be subjective.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Bear in mind that 50% of marriages end in divorce.<<<

Bear in mind that this statistic is rubbish.

[Tony Esolen]

To turn the discussion away from the Iraq semi-war:

I am absolutely persuaded that love of country has faded almost entirely from the elites of at least one of the two major parties, and almost entirely from those who teach in our universities and our public schools. I am not "proving" that it has happened by noting how many prominent public officials and intellectual elites are hoping that America loses the war (and they are hoping; it is the only explanation for their refusal to celebrate any success, and their gleeful highlighting of every big turn in the death odometer -- something that we did not even do in Vietnam). I am saying that the fading of patriotism makes it not only conceivable but quite likely that large segments of the population, for their own political reasons, can hope that their country fares badly in war.
How do you measure this loss? Look at popular books, textbooks, popular music. Look at popular celebrations, parades, memorial services, or the dearth thereof....
I don't want to beat this horse to death, but I'm not fooled by the left. I've lived among them my whole life. If a victory in Iraq, or anything (this happens to be a big issue now, but it might someday be something else) should mean success for a party whose leaders want to repeal abortion "rights," you can be certain that much of the country, and a majority of college professors, would be pulling for a loss. Ideology trumps patriotism -- or sheer selfishness.

[James Kabala]

About Chuck Hagel: I am not a fan of his, much less a supporter of the Kerryesque idea that honorable service in wartime provides a permanent immunity from criticism, but surely a Purple Heart and three other medals should provide at least SOME inoculation against the strong charge of not liking one's own country.
And supporting the war because it is being conducted by a nominally pro-life President is as foolish as the reverse. Unfortunately, everyone except John Paul II, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and a few others seems to fall for that premise back in the fall 2002- spring 2003 period. (And those who foresaw what would happen were smeared by David Frum - a good writer but not pro-life - as "unpatriotic conservatives.")

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I am absolutely persuaded that love of country has faded almost entirely from the elites of at least one of the two major parties, and almost entirely from those who teach in our universities and our public schools.<<<

Well, I have been making the case for some time that we are moving into an era of "post-nationalism", a return to the situation that existed under the 18th century Ancien Regime, in that real power is held by a transnational elite, which shares the same worldview, values and interests. In the 18th century, it was the aristocracy of blodd; in the 21st century, it is the "meritocracy" of finance, the media and academics. On the whole, I think I would prefer the aristocracy of blood, myself.

The fact is, the current elites do not identify with their countries, but rather with their class, and since class transcends national boundaries, class interests may not coincide with national interests.. However, there is some hope, because the meritocracy lacks the legitimacy that sustained aristocracy for ten centuries. The meritocrats believe that they have earned the right to rule because of their intellectual achievements. Moreover, they feel that they owe their success entirely to themselves, and therefore they can ignore the wishes and interests of the "common people". Unfortunately for them, the common people do not accept this, and a backlash is beginning. While the elites think of themselves as "citizens of the world", seeking to impose order on the world through supranational organizations such as the United Nations or European Union, most people in Europe, the United States and elsewhere tend to think of themselves still as "Americans", Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, etc. In fact, the trend may be moving towards devolution into even smaller "nationalities" such as we are seeing in the UK (Scots, Welsh and English, not "Britons"), France (Normans, Bretons, Gascons, not Frenchmen), and Germany (Osties and Westies, and even Bavarians, Saxons, and Prussians, not Germans). In some countries, like Italy, the veneer was always rather thin: people think of themselves as Romanese, Bolognese, Napolitani, Siciliani, Calabrese, Milanese, etc. (except at World Cup time), and have very different concepts of identity and interest. Its even worse in the artificial countries of Eastern Europe, which is why they call it "Balkanization".

Intellectuals can function at the supranational level, but most people find it hard to generate deep attachments to such large entities. They need a connection to place, to a culture, a language, a shared experience, especially when modern communications technologies simultaneously atomize communities and amalgamate them into a single "global village". This is utterly alienating for most people (the United States and its social and physical mobility make it better able to tolerate this phenomenon than many European countries, where the majority of people live, work and die within 50 km of the place where they were born. For that reason, I don't think the "One World" idea has much traction in the long term, and will ultimately collapse of its own weighy incongruities.

[Francesca]

">>>It would show a profoud lack of personal integrity if one standards were not "of one's own making." <<<

The silliness of this statement defies belief. If taken seriously, it would mean that all bases for judgment must ultimately be subjective."

No, they must be honest. Individuals should be strong enough in their own belief system not to become lackies of the state or of more dominant individuals. Conforming to the German mold in the 1930s is but one example of what can happen when one suspends personal discernment. And what about the abortion debate? Should one bow to the infinite wisdom of the state's decision on this matter or should one try to protect the unborn if doing so is in accordance with one's individual conscience?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>About Chuck Hagel: I am not a fan of his, much less a supporter of the Kerryesque idea that honorable service in wartime provides a permanent immunity from criticism, but surely a Purple Heart and three other medals should provide at least SOME inoculation against the strong charge of not liking one's own country.<<<

Two words: Benedict Arnold.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>No, they must be honest. Individuals should be strong enough in their own belief system not to become lackies of the state or of more dominant individuals. <<<

And one derives one's own "belief system" how? Or are you just plain antinomian at heart?

[David Gray]

>Two words: Benedict Arnold.

I've more sympathy for Arnold than much of today's elite.

[Francesca]

"The current war against Islamic jihadism will continue until such time as Islam is reformed or destroyed, or the West is transformed or destroyed. One might even say that this is a continuation of a struggle that began when the Persians of Darius the Great were first defeated on the Plains of Marathon."

Since Darius lived several centuries before the birth of Mohammed, it's hard to imagine what Islamic jihadism had to do with his military campaigns.

[David Gray]

>Since Darius lived several centuries before the birth of Mohammed, it's hard to imagine what Islamic jihadism had to do with his military campaigns.

Well if you're the typical product of a US public school that is likely the case.

[Judy Warner]

And one derives one's own "belief system" how?

You learn how in values clarification class in public school. That's where you get to decide which person you throw out of the lifeboat. That defines your values.

[Francesca]

"And one derives one's own "belief system" how?"

I'm surprised you have to ask that. If one grew up in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, one would be taught the values of the state. In a Christian family today, one would learn predominantly Christian and biblical values. Jim Jones had his own methods. To achieve a mature conscience, all that one is taught needs to be processed and considered against the background of one's knowledge and experience.

[Francesca]

"Well if you're the typical product of a US public school that is likely the case."

You seem to know much less than you'd have us believe.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>For that reason, I don't think the "One World" idea has much traction in the long term, and will ultimately collapse of its own weighy incongruities.<<

Either that, or from the sheer infeasability of such an arrangement in an era of higher transportation expenses.

Stuart seems to be gesturing at the same economic aspect that I'm talking about: a transnational placeless elite class is only possible in a globalized trade economy. That, after all, is why people have to pay attention to the UN or the EU (as well as the World Bank, IMF, Davos Forum, etc.), because our economic welfare currently is supported by their function. Nobody would really care about that sort of thing otherwise.

I'm starting to think that we haven't got long before such things become a lot less important to us.

[Judy Warner]

I'm starting to think that we haven't got long before such things become a lot less important to us.

At the risk of sounding pompous, Ethan, that's what I thought too when I was your age. My first investment was silver coins because I was convinced I'd need them when the economy collapsed in the near future. Yet here we are chugging along, the economy better than ever.

[Labrialumn]

The globalist and 'post-modern' agenda of the educational establishment has been effective. If you are white, heterosexual and male, pleasure is to be your integration point. If not, then you have a group-identity supplied to you - female, black, asian, latino, homosexual, etc., for submerging your individuality into the group will-to-power.

Ignorant armies, clashing in the night, for the sea of faith has withdrawn.

Anime is popular because it is very good. Well, most of it. It does tend to be Japanese, and thus either Shinto or Buddhist in a very watered-down generic sort of way.

Francesca, you have clearly imbibed at a certain, non-Christian well. The current President, as much as I disagree with his immigration policy and his nation-building aims, graduated with honors, unlike his opponent, who flunked out of seminary. Perhaps you have prejudice against his Texan accent?

1/5 marriages end in divorce. The divorced then enter into a multitude of adulteries solemnized by Caesar and unfaithful pastors, skewing the statistics.

Stuart, the defensive war against the Jihadis is now in its 14th century.

Multiculturalism is official doctrine which must be believed in order to get past the 'gatekeepers' and become a teacher.

Ahh, yes, as the original blogger writes "the egregious Frum"

And that lack of legitimacy is why they must disarm the populace. They wish no one to watch the watchmen.

[peterspence]

>>Yet here we are chugging along, the economy better than ever.<<

People as chipper as Judy is about the economy should move to Detroit.

[Judy Warner]

Michigan is the only state besides Louisiana that is losing jobs. The governor blames the auto industry but she has created a business climate in which the only rational response is to leave, which people are doing in droves. If you judge the state of the American economy by single examples and anecdotes you're likely to go far wrong.

And you consider my pointing out that the economy hasn't collapsed "chipper"? Do you know what a collapsed economy looks like?

[James Kabala]

Has it really come to the point where failure to grovel before Bush results in equation with Benedict Arnold? Meanwhile, many conservatives (not Dr. Esolen or Mr. Koehl, I hope) rush to slobber over themselves to praise Joe Lieberman and Rudy Giuliani.

[David Gray]

>>>About Chuck Hagel: I am not a fan of his, much less a supporter of the Kerryesque idea that honorable service in wartime provides a permanent immunity from criticism, but surely a Purple Heart and three other medals should provide at least SOME inoculation against the strong charge of not liking one's own country.<<<

>>Two words: Benedict Arnold.

>Has it really come to the point where failure to grovel before Bush results in equation with Benedict Arnold?

Doesn't look like it.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>At the risk of sounding pompous, Ethan, that's what I thought too when I was your age. My first investment was silver coins because I was convinced I'd need them when the economy collapsed in the near future. Yet here we are chugging along, the economy better than ever.<<

I hope you're right, Judy, as the pain and suffering of a collapse would probably outweigh the benefits of a return to forgotten necessary values.

Still and all, we're going to have to do *something* about oil depletion, and I'm guessing from the so-far proposed alternatives that it won't be continue massive bulk global trade.

We'll see in a few years.

[Jenny Islander]

Quite a few people I know are not hoping that "America loses" or greeting announcements of yet another death of somebody from their home state with glee. They are hoping that the Powers That Be will recognize that this is not a winnable war and repeating death statistics because they must not be ignored or brushed aside.

[coco]

The only thing I saw recently that I would imagine makes Americans despair for their country is the two+ hours of solid commentary Fox news devoted to some guy called Alec Baldwin cussing over the phone to his 11-year-old daughter.

I presume they don't like him because he's liberal. But is this news???

The real discussion about what's up tajes place here. Chin up patriotic guys, don't let the Hildebeest herself get y'all down!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Doesn't look like it.<<<

Actualy, the point is military service, even when punctuated by wounds and decorations, is no guarantee of patriotism. Arnold was as responsible as any man (except George Washington) for the United States winning its independence. In 1775, he captured Ft. Ticonderoga, which gave George Washington the artillery train he needed to roust the British out of Boston. In 1776, his improvised fleet of gunboats delayed the British advance down Lake Champlain, preventing the colonies from being cut in half. In 1777, in won the Battle of Saratoga through an audacious act of insubordination, ensuring the surrender of John Burgoyne's army, foiling another attempt to divide the colonies in two along the Hudson River, and bringing France into the war on the American side. In the process, he suffered a crippling wound to the leg. And yet, within three years, he had betrayed his country and taken up arms against it as a British brigadier.

One might assume, listening to some people, that his prior service should have rendered him immune to all criticism.

As for Chuck Hegel, whatever he did in the military doesn't detract from the fact that (a) he's no strategist; and (b) very much a political opportunist, who (c) puts his own political career ahead of the good of the country. A very marked contrast from John McCain, a man with whom I seldom agree, but who has spoken out courageously about the need for victory in Iraq, much to the detriment of his political prospects.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I presume they don't like him because he's liberal. But is this news???<<<

On any given day, there is about 2 hours worth of real news available for broadcasting. Yet there are twenty-four hours in a day. This means that the remaining time has to be filled with something. Let's give weather forecasts and stock market reports their due, and add in another two hours per day for each. Now we have all of twenty hours to fill. So we'll put in an hour or two for sports, and an hour for movie, music and theater reviews. New we're down to just seventeen hours to fill. What's left? Celebrity fluff, car chases, and mass murders. As local news programmers have long said, "If it bleeds, it leads". But in this, television is merely following in the footsteps of its press elders, because this is what newspapers do and have always done, since Guttenburg figured out he could carve little backwards letters in lead blocks.

[Judy Warner]

In 1775, he captured Ft. Ticonderoga,

I thought Ethan Allen captured Ft. Ticonderoga, "in the name of the great Jehovah and the Continental Congress" -- a line that isn't as well known as "Give me liberty or give me death," but should be.

BTW, for those of you with children, there's a good book called Guns for General Washington about how the artillery was brought from Ticonderoga to Boston under conditions of great difficulty.

[Judy Warner]

Still and all, we're going to have to do *something* about oil depletion,

Like drilling where there's oil but where it is now illegal to drill, such as the barren wasteland of ANWR? At least one oil company is far along in developing a technique to extract oil from the oil shale in Colorado at a reasonable cost. Julian Simon said a while back that the ultimate resource is people; he wrote a book called The Ultimate Resource. That is, people's ingenuity has always kept up with our needs and always will if not hobbled by government. There will be other things down the line unless those who want us to de-industrialize are successful in banning such things. Or if those who profit from particular technologies, such as corn farmers, are subsidized so much as to distort the market.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>I have found that those Americans who travel abroad return home with a much greater love and appreciation for our country than those who have never left, especially if their travels have taken them to some of the garden spots of the world which are often held up as exemplars for the way America ought to be.<<<

Stuart,
Amen. I've loved visiting Siberia, and I love the Russians, but I love the US all the more.

It is easy for Americans to be patriotic because we do have the best country in the world, but isn't patriotism a virtue regardless of where you live? Shouldn't an Iranian love and be proud of his own country yet have a desire to make it better?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I thought Ethan Allen captured Ft. Ticonderoga, "in the name of the great Jehovah and the Continental Congress" -- a line that isn't as well known as "Give me liberty or give me death," but should be.<<<

One of Arnold's many outstanding grievences. Arnold held the commission and the command from General Washington, but Allen refused to cooperate. Rather than let the mission fail, Arnold went with Allen without relenguishing his command, and was responsible for securing the fort and keeping Allen's thugs from looting the place. He later put it into a state of defense so the British could not take it back as easily as he had taken it the first time.

When captured by Arnold and Allen, Ticonderoga had only a skeleton garrison, belying its nickname, "Gibraltar of the Americas". The garrison commander did not even know about Lexington and Concord, so cut off was the place. And instead of "In the name of the Great Jehova and the Continental Congress" (most uncharacteristically respectful both of the Deity and the government), Allen is reputed to have called out to the garrison commander (who was not rousted out of bed), "Come down here, you mangy polecat!".

Allen and the Green Mountain Boys have received one of the best celebrity makeovers in American history. Far from being selfless patriots, they could best be described as self-serving opportunists and even terrorists. Vermont was not known as Vermont at the time, but rather as the "New Hampshire Grants", claimed by both New Hampshire and New York. The Green Mountain Boys, who profited mightily from the ambiguous legal status of their settlement, wanted to be under neither, and were known to lynch representatives of both colonies who tried to enforce the law there. Far from being fans of the Continental Congress, they merely went along with those of its decisions with which they agreed, and ignored or opposed those with which they disagreed. Their ultimate objective, achieved in 1790, was to have Vermont recognized as a state in its own right, so that they, of course, could be the top dogs.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Shouldn't an Iranian love and be proud of his own country yet have a desire to make it better?<<<

Everyone should love his country and desire to make it better. What characterizes our elites is a belief that our country not only is no better than any other country, but ultimately, the source of everything that is wrong with the world. So far past redemption do they see the United States, that only a radical "reimaging" of it can yank it out of the abyss into which it has fallen. The problem is, their view of the United States, of the magnitude and nature of its ailments, and of the remedies that must be adopted for its healing, bear no resemblance to reality as the vast majority of Americans see it.

It has been this way at least since the 1930s, when a surprising large cadre of bright young things turned away from the legacy of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, and adopted the faith of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. They walked the halls of the ivory tower, and they completed the long march through the institutions, bringing up another generation of naive dupes and opportunistic con men. Supporters of Naziism paid a price for their ideological beliefs after 1945. Supporters of communism never did. Thus, we see incongruities like Augusto Pinochet being indicted by Spanish prosecutors at the same time Fidel Castro, a man whose crimes dwarf those of the Chilean dictator, feted as an honored guest by the Spanish government. Closer to home, we see morons like Dennis Kusinich and the Vermont State Senate, moving to impeach the President and Vice President of the United States (apparently these people don't read the Constitution) because they don't like his policies, while simultaneously lauding a host of dictators and terrorists with manifest records of evil deeds, simply because the United States government opposes them.

Having seen their ideology utterly discredited and its standard-bearers tossed onto the ash-heap of history, these people are now in the midst of a decade-long temper tantrum because not only did we not do what they wanted, but prospered greatly by doing the exact opposite. This will probably continue until the last one of them goes to whatever reward awaits those who hold dialectical materialism as their god.

[Francesca]

Bobby writes, "It is easy for Americans to be patriotic because we do have the best country in the world, but isn't patriotism a virtue regardless of where you live?"

As long as good will doesn't stop at one's country's borders, and as long as it doesn't involve sheep-like servitude to political office holders, patriotism can be a virtue, or at least can be relatively harmless. When it prevents love of mankind from transcending geography, we have a problem.

[Judy Warner]

Allen and the Green Mountain Boys have received one of the best celebrity makeovers in American history. Far from being selfless patriots, they could best be described as self-serving opportunists and even terrorists.

Ethan, I'll bet you thought you were named for a great patriot. Now you know you were named for a terrorist. Might as well change your name to Osama.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>As long as good will doesn't stop at one's country's borders, and as long as it doesn't involve sheep-like servitude to political office holders, patriotism can be a virtue, or at least can be relatively harmless. When it prevents love of mankind from transcending geography, we have a problem. <<<

Francesca,
Trust me, most of the folks on this blog do not have a sheep-like servitude to office holders. Get them started on Bill Clinton of Jimmy Carter sometime; they sound like me when I talk about Bush, and it's not very attractive. Being part of a country is like being part of a family. The family is your and you love it--even when you think its wrong.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As long as good will doesn't stop at one's country's borders, and as long as it doesn't involve sheep-like servitude to political office holders, patriotism can be a virtue, or at least can be relatively harmless. When it prevents love of mankind from transcending geography, we have a problem.<<<

Blah, blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah.

We should all be as enlightened as Francesca, until reality comes and hits us on the head.

I can easily see her fitting in with the Oxford Union crowd back in the 1930s (another low, dishonest decade), when they resolved that "This house will not fight for King or country".

[Francesca]

"Trust me, most of the folks on this blog do not have a sheep-like servitude to office holders. "

I hope you're right. I have had someone suggest, however, that it's egotism to oppose the wisdom of the state or to think for oneself (although I gather this is only when one is in disagreement with certain pre-approved views.) To that I would offer Mark Twain's observation:

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. ~Mark Twain

[Francesca]

>>I can easily see her fitting in with the Oxford Union crowd back in the 1930s (another low, dishonest decade), when they resolved that "This house will not fight for King or country".<<

Then you have a very prejudiced and restricted mind. How about not fighting for Hitler or Fatherland?

[David Gray]

>I have had someone suggest, however, that it's egotism to oppose the wisdom of the state or to think for oneself (although I gather this is only when one is in disagreement with certain pre-approved views.)

I didn't see anyone do that.

>How about not fighting for Hitler or Fatherland?

Thankfully I'm quite certain nobody here has faced that choice.

[Francesca]

Bobby writes, "Being part of a country is like being part of a family. The family is your and you love it--even when you think its wrong."

Now that I can relate to!:-) As a Catholic, albeit one who thinks Mencken is utterly hilarious, I can see all the problems and feel quite disillusioned about the leadership on occasions, but I could never leave my dysfunctional, Catholic extended family.

On the topic of nationalism, patriotism, and the "family of mankind," this address by John Paul II really is great:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1995/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_05101995_address-to-uno_en.html

[Francesca]

">How about not fighting for Hitler or Fatherland?

Thankfully I'm quite certain nobody here has faced that choice."

No, and I doubt anyone here was in the Oxford Union in the 1930s either, but that wasn't the point.

[David Gray]

>No, and I doubt anyone here was in the Oxford Union in the 1930s either, but that wasn't the point.

I don't think it was that you didn't get the point; you just didn't like it.

[T. Chan]

Still and all, we're going to have to do *something* about oil depletion, and I'm guessing from the so-far proposed alternatives that it won't be continue massive bulk global trade.

We'll see in a few years.

Mr. Cordray:

Good to see someone bring up peak oil and the bubble economy.

[Tony Esolen]

Stuart and Judy and Ethan have been hitting nails on heads (which I should be doing, down in my basement, building a workshop for my son). I've notably avoided saying anything about George Bush; I think he is a fairly good president in most things, as presidents these days go, and probably underrated. He is about the worst politician I have ever seen: had he the political sense of a common dog, he would make hash of his enemies. He does, I believe, love his country well enough to avoid, for temporary political gain or damage control, the disaster of allowing a war to be managed by plebiscite. I don't know whether he made the correct decision to fight Iraq. I do know that if it was the correct decision, we'd never hear about that from the media. I think it is clear, though, that HE at least thought he was making the correct decision, because at the time when he made it he had nothing to gain politically and everything to lose. There have also been several junctures since then at which he could have pulled the troops out, without much political damage, but never did -- he is in the war to win, which is the only way to fight a war. At the very least, he understands how disastrous it would be were we to lose this war. Emperor Valens, phone home from Adrianople and tell them to start roasting oxen for the Goths.

But all that aside -- I did not write this post to complain about politicians who want us to lose the war. I am merely noting a fact: they do indeed want us to lose the war. Americans did not celebrate the taking of Saddam Hussein -- or did I miss the bonfires and fireworks? If there were no war, if there were no George Bush, it would still be abundantly true that a large number of people in this country, and a majority of the elites, have no strong emotional ties to it, do not love it, do not relish its quirks, would not risk their lives for it, cannot sing its anthems without feeling foolish, and define themselves and their interests without regard to it. That is a simple fact. And the diminution of patriotism crosses party lines.