The Far-Right's Patriotism Problem
Jonah Goldberg continues to demonstrate how the right-wing is manipulating public discourse in order to confuse and conflate patriotism with rabid nationalism. Make no mistake, this is a coordinated effort to deliberately replace substance with its symbol, meaning with an emblem, and essentially strip language down to nothing but trinkets.
This is not a new phenomenon of course. We have seen such careful linguistic choreography before, when past authoritarian ideologues have distorted language in order to stifle individualism and dissenting views.
For a people to be controlled, they must first be robbed of honest discourse and open debate. Distorting language and stripping it of real and honest meaning is the first tool and the best mechanism for transforming a democracy into an authoritarian state. An informed populace is a dangerous populace.
Symbols, however, and false-definitions can provide the appearance of information without the truth of it. Ideas, substance and meaning -- all things for which a symbol is simply a representation and a word simply a type of symbol -- are far more difficult to control. There is nuance in individual ideas. There are shades of agreement and disagreement and a whole spectrum of understanding and believing. Such a complex system cannot be controlled, and therefore, must be reduced to only its symbol and then distorted.
Symbols and words-as-slogans can be mass produced, mass delivered, and altered from their original meaning, until the symbol becomes its own thing and the substance on which it is based is entirely lost.
A word's usage too can be tweaked through false definitions and repetition, until it too becomes entirely the opposite of its actual meaning.
Patriotism is the word that authoritarians most like to distort and Goldberg demonstrates -- once again -- just how this distortion is created.
Obama's Patriotism Problem:
Here is what Goldberg writes today about the term patriotism and how Barack Obama, according to Goldberg, is not really a patriot at all:
"Barack Obama has a patriotism problem that even Monday's flag-waving trip to Independence, Mo., can't squelch. And it doesn't have anything to do with his lapel pin.--- snip---
In part because liberal commentators have such a hard time grasping why patriotism should be an issue at all, and the GOP is so clumsy explaining why it's important, the debate often gets boiled down to symbols. Like so much else about Obama, his position on the lapel flag changes with the needs of the moment. After 9/11, he wore it. During the debates over the Iraq war, he stopped because he saw the flag as a sign of support for President Bush. (He started wearing it again in May.) "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he added in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism."
Read that line again: "What I believe will make this country great."
Not to sound too much like a Jewish mother, but some might respond, "What? It's not great now?"
This sense that America is in need of fixing in order to be a great country points to Obama's real patriotism problem. And it's not Obama's alone."
Actually no one of rational thought has a problem with patriotism being an issue. In fact, patriotism should be THE issue. The problem is that Goldberg and those like him have no concept of patriotism actually means. More disturbingly too, they confuse patriotism with nationalism.
Miriam-Webster defines patriotism as "love for or devotion to one's country." Every other dictionary I have consulted provides a similar if not exact definition.
Nowhere does the term or the idea of patriotism in general require one to believe one's country is "great." Nowhere does the term or the idea of patriotism in general require a ban on dissenting views, on criticism of one's government, indeed even of one's nation.
An Example
Let us try a different approach to illustrate just exactly what is wrong with people like Goldberg and their ideas on patriotism.
A mother of a heroin addict, for example, is critical of her child's drug abuse and wants it to stop. The mother wants only the best for her child. Does the mother's criticism of the child's actions in any way illustrate that she does not love her child? On the contrary, it is because the mother loves her child and is devoted to her child that she wants her child to be better, greater than he/she is.
When someone is critical of their country and especially when their country strays from its course, it does not mean the person is not patriotic. It means that the person loves their country enough to want only the best for it. They want it to be greater than what it already is or they want it to be as great as it once was. But criticism of a country is not akin to being un-patriotic. Only a rabid nationalist would make such an argument and only Goldberg manages to continue to do it this badly. After all, this is the same man who authored "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning" and in all seriousness.
Nationalists, rabid right-wing advocates of symbol worship, on the other hand are entirely what Goldberg and his ilk define as patriots. It may entirely be possible that some of these boot-marching androids are simply ignorant and accept whatever canned-pro-America products they are sold. They are in essence, the perfect vessel for an authoritarian regime. But others, like Goldberg, who have spent their lives devoting themselves to the art of conflation, distortion, and revisionism, know exactly what they are doing.
Believe this or else
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism ~ George Washington
Goldberg proves my point entirely when he goes on to define patriotism and actually ends up defining nationalism (while claiming to be differentiating the two):
"Definitions of patriotism proliferate, but in the American context patriotism must involve not only devotion to American texts (something that distinguishes our patriotism from European nationalism) but also an abiding belief in the inherent and enduring goodness of the American nation. We might need to change this or that policy or law, fix this or that problem, but at the end of the day the patriotic American believes that America is fundamentally good as it is."
In other words, your government can do no wrong. You must never doubt your government or question its ways. So when my America began to openly torture people and publicly denounced the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," I should have been waving my little Chinese made American flag while admiring the inherent goodness of my government. According to Goldberg, it is not the defense of the Constitution or the liberty it guarantees or even a simple love of country that makes us patriots. No, for Goldberg and his kind, the "true patriot" must surrender their reason and their conscience, and simply know (without knowing in any meaningful way) that their government can do no wrong.
I am not a patriot by this perverted definition. What of my own conscience? Should I fully support that which is entirely abhorrent to me being done in my name by my own government? What if my own government is even ashamed of what it is doing - in my name - so much so that it publicly denies its actions and publicly denounces those governments who engage in the same types of actions? At what point do I have a right to say no Mr. Goldberg? At what point does the ugly truth become more important than the pretty lie?
No, Jonah, that is not the definition of patriotism. That is exactly what Il Duce demanded from his citizens; a total abandonment of self, conscience, and all things individual and human to the mechanism of the state, for the state could do no wrong.
That is what the Soviets demanded. That is what the Nazis demanded. That is what Franco demanded. That is what Pinochet demanded. But never for a moment is this type of perverted understanding of patriotism something that any of our forefathers demanded. Indeed, our entire country was based on the principle that the governed have a right, even a duty, to hold their government accountable. How then, can we hold our government accountable, Mr. Goldberg, if we believe that our government is inherently good? And if our government, representing and governing the country we live in, is inherently good, then why do we have a system of checks and balances?
No Mr. Goldberg, what you describe is not patriotism and what you criticize Senator Obama for is not the lack of patriotism. What you describe and what you demand is rabid nationalism.
Follow Larisa Alexandrovna on Twitter: www.twitter.com/larisa_a
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Very astute. Today Obama is featuring his call to service programs. This is patriotism of the highest degree. Anyone with kids, especially teens, can see the value of this effort.
This is why he has made such a point of honoring military service to the country in and of itself. By extension, we can honor non-military service to our country too, and reap the benefits. Young people now need to be called to service, put in situations where they meet youth from other parts of the country and learn where they fit in and how they are needed. This is patriotic.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "
Does this sound familiar?? It is the first part of the Declaration of Independance. An understanding of the Declaration of Independance makes true patriotism easier to understand. It is the people not the Administration that should dictate the trajectory of the nation.
Obama '08
Yea, but it really loses something when you consider that, at the time, blacks were only considered 3/5ths human.
My point??
If you want to embrace those times, you must take the good with the bad..
Frankly, I prefer documents like the US Constitution to be flexible and fluid, to change with the times and to have a big ol' heapin' helpin' of common sense...
Michale.....
Hate to burst your bubble but that 3/5 stuff is from the mid 1800s when the South, seeking to garner more seats in the House suggested that population totals (used to determine number of seats) include slaves. As this would give more representation to Southern slave states (without, of course, a corresponding right to vote by the slaves themselves) the Northern non-slave states sought to eliminate slaves entirely from the census count. The resulting compromise counted just 60% of the total slave population. My suggestion: don't betray your ignorance by talking about things you don't know. Your point? Sinking fast.
The Constitution is a contract between the several states. The Bill of Rights is an addendum to that contract and was meant to clarify those things that the Constitution would not abide (and powers not conferred upon the central government). That's why the 1st amendment does not "give" the right to free speech-it memorializes that "Congress shall pass no law..." restricting that right (which by implication we have as human beings). It is a highly common-sense rich document, forged by adults who had just completed a successful revolt against a strong central government. To suggest that the framers would immediately suggest an agreement between the states that would encourage formation and growth of an over-arching federal government is complete non-sense.
Without that document, it's likely they still would be.
What has changed? 20 million non-voting serfs imported by both parties now, or outsourcing work to 100,000,000 non voting serfs worldwide under Clinton-Bush?
Excellent! Let's have more of the logic of Larisa. If the Rabid Right had their way, we'd all be branded on our foreheads or wearing a black band on our forearm.
And if the Rabid Left had THEIR way, we would all be living in communes, not bathing at all and have ZERO technology..
So, what's your point???
Michale.....
NOW who's going all hyperbole-ic?
LOL.
Bathing is conservative? Who knew?
And if the Rabid Reich had its way employees would be chained to their workplace and be fed gruel thrown on the least filthy space on the floor. And tools like you would praise the efficiency of that business model.
"....So, what's your point???..." That your head would be illegal in a game of lawn darts.
It matters not which direction-left or right-that the bullet that kills you came from.
Today's totalitarianism is a two-headed beast. That this is realized in the present day neo conservative movement, goes directly to it's hybridized composition. It is only part Conservative. It's the mongrelized worst case from both worlds, right and left. That seems to be why so many people can't quite define it.
The tendencies and work product are nearly identical, whether created by an authoritarian politburo or an authoritarian imperial dictatorship: The People are enslaved and stripped of their rights.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/dubya_who.html
"Patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile."
-Stephen Maturin (Master and Commander series)
To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, Jonah Goldberg's brand of patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Get some US history under your belt, Larissa.
** Yes, ma'am. By jingo it's old time jingoism **
Oblivious to a collapsing empire, right-wing religion and proto-fascism spew their filth into vacant minds, obsessed with their own folly-driven gasoline costs. (The new KYSS -- Kill your SUV, stupid.)
Back when America’s overseas empire began -- remember Hawaii 1898, Cuba 1898, Philippines 1898-1907, the quagmire of its time -- the the right word for super-patriotism was 'jingoism'. 'Jingo' is a euphemism for 'Jesus.' As John McCain says, "Yes, by jingo, we need a war against those *gooks* in Iran." (McBush is a man of foggy mind and mixed metaphors.)
Why our Great White Fleet patrols the strait of Hormuz near North Iran-nam. And we continue to occupy the Philippine Islands in defense of our Chinese mandates in Iraqi. By jingo, John McBush is the last barely sentient vestige of TR.
Where are Mark Twain and the Anti-Imperialist League when they're needed most? Those of us who applaud the Bushites' unintended catalysis of imperial collapse must yet forestall the Cheney-McCain christo-fascist death-wish for Iran, due to expire at noon, 20 Jan 2009.
bipolar2
Lapel pin? Why not.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270251584586
But if not, why challenge what is in one's heart?
What other symbols of what is in our hearts should we be required to wear? A symbol of one's faith, to let everyone see you have faith, or not. There is a t-shirt for everything.
C'mon Larisa! You didn't expect them to do anything REALLY patriotic did you? Did you expect them to ENLIST and actually put their tushies on the line? Did you expect them to pay more in taxes, so that their great-grandchildren wouldn't have to pay for this? What are you smoking?
This little rant is a perfect example of what this article is all about.
Couldn't have said it better myself...
Michale.....
Nicely said Larisa. Always enjoy your posts.
In the New Yorker, Gopnik quotes the early 20th cent. British writer GK Chesterton:
"Saying 'my country right or wrong' is like saying, 'my mother, sober or drunk'."
:)
The far right's problem is that it considers all those with special dual citizenship and passports to be more patriotic than the average american whose commitment is the health and welfare of just the USA.
One woud think a true patriot would not have propagandized and promoted a 3/4 trillion dollar cakewalk into Iraq and is at present promoting the nuking of Iran.
This article addresses a couple of core issues I have with American attitudes toward patriotism. Central to that is the devotion to ideas, rather than symbols. It was in that spirit that I wrote and offered the following to my daughter's elementary school as an alternative to the Pledge of Allegience:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution
of the United States of America
And to the people that it defends:
Many cultures - one nation,
With liberty and justice for all.
Or maybe...
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution
of the United States of America
And to the nation that it defines:
Many cultures - one nation,
With liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution
of the United States of America
And to the country that it defines:
Many cultures - one nation,
With liberty and justice for all.
-- David H. Stern, M.D.
Torrance, CA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)
wj8DBQFIa2tABPgiIOu/GKoRAhz+AJoDwqt8ioKvyzxIJ8rgg+kOhzysnQCgs9/f
63XFbYbYxZlJMTLLz3peJ0c=
=hJv4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anyone who thinks enough of it to distribute it is free to do so without fee and with attribution. They will have my humble gratitude for doing so.
Nice. I think the first one is the best.
You shouldn't have to pledge your allegiance at all, and one can still be a patriot because after all it is about loving one's country and not blind obedience.
Love it.
Moron. Ya know what happens to any nation that has many cultures? (Do the freakin' research!) It breaks into many nations. Canada had to use force to stop Quebec from seceding. Yugoslovia broke up. Czechoslovakia broke up. The US stayed one nation only after a vicious civil war.
In the 1970s, someone wrote a book, "The Coming Balkanization of America".
Where do these ignorant yet self-righteous fools come from? They're as stupid as Bush supporters.
A very well written article. I enjoyed it very much.
My personal problem is not with rational and logical dissent. As you say, simply stating that your country can do no wrong is not patriotism. MY beef is with the illogical and irrational, with the hysterical and downright nasty attacks that actually WEAKEN our country.
THAT is not patriotism, that is ego...
I mean, seriously.. Naming a sewage treatment plant for our country's president is childish, immature and is NOT patriotic... Nor is it rational dissent.
Calling the president satan, devil incarnate or a war criminal is NOT patriotism and is NOT rational dissent.
Both actions plus many many MANY more actually weaken this country..
In short, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with rational dissent..
Just as there is VERY LITTLE of rational dissent coming from the Hysterical Left...
Michale.....
Well, Michale, let's give the hysterical RIGHT its due:
"Liberals Hate America"... I've been called a traitor for opposing the war in Iraq, on the grounds that it was the wrong choice of how to defend the land I love.
Or anything said by the vicious harpy Ann Coulter and the other Hate Hags on Fox News.
How about the Right Wing Noise Machine trying to convince you that Democrats and/or Liberals are sympathetic to terrorists, and would, instead of pursuing them, offer them 'therapy.' (Dick Cheney)
Or spreading the vicious rumor that Obama is a closet Muslim, and will if elected bring in the Taliban to rule America?
Or claiming Global warming is a 'massive fraud and hoax' being perpetrated by evil egghead scientists all over the world?
Or the claims, many quite recent, that if a Democrat is elected, America will be attacked by terrorists, but if a Republican is, we will not?
This rabid, baseless fear-mongering is not exactly rational discourse, now, is it?
(continued below)
OH you won't get any argument from me that the Right has it's own issues.. I am a registered NPA (No Political Affiliation) and have no party leanings whatsoever... With a few exceptions (4 to be exact) I am probably the most liberal one here...
"This rabid, baseless fear-mongering is not exactly rational discourse, now, is it?"
No it isn't.. Whether it comes from the Right OR the Left...
Some examples of the Left's fear mongering:
"Human Caused Global Warming will destroy the planet in 10 years!!!"
"The Bush Administration's terrorism policies will make us a Nazi Police state!!"
None of those have any place in rational discourse...
Agreed???
Michale.....
Michale.....
Reply to Michale, cont'd...
Bush has done so many horrible things (perhaps 1,000,000 deaths in Africa may have resulted from his 'abstinence-only, no contraceptives' policies in Africa, the treasonous outing of a CIA anti-terrorism agent, trampling the Constitution, etc. etc.) that simple rational dissent seems insufficient; that's why many have resorted to truly hyperbolic language to criticize this astonishingly inept 'leader'.
It is not Bush's detractors who have weakened this country, it is the divide-and-conquer strategies of Carl Rove and his ilk. To me, Conservatives are fellow Americans who are wrong about almost everything, but are still Americans. To them, I am 'the Enemy.'
That's what's wrong, Michale. And whether you like to hear it or not, the hindsight of the future will, I believe, agree with those of us who think Bush and his guys are, in fact, War Criminals, and will be remembered as such.
"Bush has done so many horrible things"
And here we go....
Please list the "horrible" things that Bush has done that there is INCONTROVERTIBLE proof to support...
"that simple rational dissent seems insufficient; that's why many have resorted to truly hyperbolic language to criticize this astonishingly inept 'leader'."
So, you are saying that the ends justify the means???
"It is not Bush's detractors who have weakened this country, it is the divide-and-conquer strategies of Carl Rove and his ilk. To me, Conservatives are fellow Americans who are wrong about almost everything, but are still Americans. To them, I am 'the Enemy.'"
And to you and your "ilk" Bush and Rove et al are "the enemy".... And so it goes and so it goes... That's my point..
BOTH political parties share the blame in this mess...
"And whether you like to hear it or not, the hindsight of the future will, I believe, agree with those of us who think Bush and his guys are, in fact, War Criminals, and will be remembered as such."
Many said the same things about Lincoln and FDR... They were wrong...
You might be as well... The fact that you cannot even CONCEDE of the possibility that you could be wrong shows me that you are not speaking from principles, but rather from ego..
Michale.....
M-dude,
Congrats on snaring some newbies with your slick psyops.
But let's not pretend, between the two of us HuffPo vets, that the left is more ludicrous in its overheated rhetoric than the right. It insults everyone's intelligence.
I don't have to pretend, because it's a fact.. I have just listed two of the many many examples..
Since 2000, the line that separates the Hysterical Left from the Hysterical Right, as defined by their actions have become nearly non-existent..
Hillary Clinton's campaign was using ROVE'S campaign tactics and even his DATA to attack Obama...
I mean, seriously...
You honestly expect ANYONE to buy into the ludicrous supposition that the tactics of the Hysterical Left are totally different from the tactics of the Hysterical Right??
Seriously??
Michale.....
For the record, I don't think I said that the Left is "more" anything..
I said that the Left is as equally guilty of things as the Right is...
Or, more accurately, the Hysterical Left is equally as guilty as the Hysterical Right is.
Michale.....
Calling Bush and Cheney war criminals is the most rational statement of dissent one can possibly make.
Unless you can back it up with proof that could be heard in a court of law, it isn't..
It's just a hysterical, irrational and unfounded accusation...
Michale.....
I have to disagree, Michale.
If a person commits war crimes -- whether he is the president or not -- he is, by definition, a War Criminal. Identifying that fact is not what weakens the country. The fact that such a situation exists is what weakens the country.
And failing to address that problem weakens it further.
"I have to disagree, Michale."
No problemo... :D
"If a person commits war crimes -- whether he is the president or not -- he is, by definition, a War Criminal. Identifying that fact is not what weakens the country. The fact that such a situation exists is what weakens the country."
Agreed...
Now all you have to do is show me the proof that Bush is a war criminal and my entire post falls apart..
Just remember. We're talking about proof that would satisfy a court of law. NOT proof that would satisfy public opinion...
Michale.....
I think people want change so bad that they really are paying attention to the spin and aren't buyting the BS as much. People see McCain and another Bush we don't need. They see that the republicans really don't have anything going for our future. We must have change inorder to move forward.
Jingoism is the word for it.
Our founding fathers left us and the rest of the world thousands of documents and hundreds of quotes that warn us about despotism, authoritarianism and fear and what these things can do to our fragile democracy. It is up to us to find them, read them, study them and live up to them. Jonah Goldberg is clueless, just one more kool aid drinker in an ocean of kool aid. He is just another reporter wilh an opinion instead of facts whereas our elected politicians swore an oath to protect and uphold our Constitution which many of them have willfully failed to do which puts us all at risk and lends creedence to those like Goldberg who are slightly less than patriotic themselves.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
