A Fourth of July Question
A Posts entry from Thursday, July 3, 2008Why do “liberals” always feel compelled to define “patriotism” such that they can claim themselves to be “patriotic”? What good comes from this, aside from openly acknowledging wing-nuts and other idiots who accuse those on the Left of being secret Muslims and whatnot? I openly profess to not being patriotic and mostly ambivalent towards America. The only country that strikes me as remotely pleasing is Sweden, and that’s really just a Dr. Jacoby-esque fantasy.
Mark Elliot Cullen
Could it be… VOTES?!?!!!?!!?!??
Bryan Klausmeyer
That would only apply to liberal politicians. I’m talking about people that aren’t even running for office. I’ve known professors to do this as well, the whole “I too am patriotic, because patriotism means…” And some of them are Marxists mind you! Why should Marxists concern themselves with patriotism? The whole idea of patriotism seems to be to basically be a right-wing sham, a way for them to not have to call themselves “nationalists” while making their views basically seem like a priori ones.
Mark Elliot Cullen
Get ready, I’m about to blow your mind with some Hegel.
I think it might have to do with the dialectic of patriot being traitor. No one wants their ideas associated with being a traitor because there are large groups of people who will dismiss you based on that sort of label.
To avoid that, you redefine your beliefs as “real Patriotism” and the beliefs of your antagonists become “fake Patriotism”.
Bryan Klausmeyer
Well on the subject of Hegelian dialectics, it seems to me that the split between patriot and traitor is simply an antinomy that doesn’t move beyond the level of an abstract negation. At the level of content, both oppose each other in regards to one another: patriot is the one who loves his country; the traitor actively betrays it. But both terms rely upon the same formal frame of containing within them an attitude towards one’s country. To overcome this split one only needs to look beyond the confines of one’s attitude towards one’s country and consider a higher ethical duty, one that preserves the passion and intensities but directs them towards “the good,” a good that eclipses commitments to one’s “patria.”
This is why the whole “dialectic of patriotism” is basically self-defeating: it formally relies upon the considerations of the homeland over, say, a universal maxim which transcends it. And to take it a step further, it would only be appropriate to say that such a maxim would have to be the elevation of the deadlock immanent to the split between patriot-traitor, such that the only truly universal cause is one that is faithful to the fact that there is no universal without its exception, and the exception is precisely what escapes the patriot-traitor logic.
Mark Elliot Cullen
That wasn’t covered in the first 20 pages of Hegel for Dummies.
tina oitcica harris
[quote comment=”“]
That wasn’t covered in the first 20 pages of Hegel for Dummies.
[/quote]I would dare say anybody who has read Marx, Hegel and Trotsky would know “patriotism” is a weapon of capitalism to make the rest of the folks in a “country” work for the “country” — THEM.
However, I must confess there are symbols of the USA that move me to tears. I lived in Brazil for over twenty years. The flag, some movies… but like you, I wish the USA weren’t the acting country of oppression abroad as it has been since I can remember, that is, the 60s coup d’états in nearly all of South America.
Thanks, guys!
Bryan Klausmeyer
bryklaus@umich.edu
6 Comments