Map of life expectancy at birth from Global Education Project.

Thursday, July 11, 2019

The last refuge of a scoundrel . . .

Samuel Johnson famously said that of patriotism, as reported by his biographer Boswell. We don't know for sure who Johnson was thinking about but the quotation applies to uncountable people since Johnson said it in 1775. I believe it was Ambrose Bierce who objected that in fact, patriotism is the first refuge of a scoundrel. Please note that the logic of the statement does not condemn patriotism in general. Scoundrels might take refuge in many perfectly fine places.

Nation states are essentially imaginary communities. For them to function properly their inhabitants must have some form of shared identity and loyalty to the concept of the state. This is most urgently true of representative republics, which depend on public engagement and legitimacy. But many people make damaging errors in their understanding of patriotism.

The most egregious is in conflating loyalty to the nation with loyalty or obeisance to its current leaders. The latter is the definition of patriotism in North Korea. It also seems to be the definition adopted by the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, who has repeatedly labeled disrespect for his own person as treason. And that seems to be the definition adopted by many of his cultists, the so-called "base" which now constitutes the self-identified Republicans among the electorate.

A similarly egregious error is to think that patriotism means approving of whatever actions the national leadership takes in the international sphere, particularly military action. Dissenting from warmaking seems to many the most egregious violation of patriotism. Mark Twain has something to say about this.  Do read The War Prayer if you haven't already, but the idea is that his protagonist translates prayers for victory into this:

Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended in the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it —

For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimmage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

Another error, which can be nearly as egregious in its application, is conflating patriotism with symbolic enactments. This includes treating the nation's flag and other symbolic paraphernalia as sacred objects, and enacting rituals such as reciting a pledge, or adopting a particular pose and singing as the national anthem is played. Adherents of this vacuous ideology may even invent new symbols, such as requiring politicians to wear a flag lapel pin.

People may intend all sorts of messages by violating these ritual norms. For example, Colin Kapernick, who knelt rather than stand during the playing of the national anthem to draw attention to police violence. His point was that the nation's ideals were being violated. By kneeling, he was praying that they be upheld. That is true patriotism. But the NFL owners are so scared that NFL fans are shallow-minded idiots that he he's been unemployed ever since. (They're probably right.)

Here's a Faux News moron talking about the captain of the U.S. team that just won the World Cup:

I did notice during the, I guess, anthem, she didn't have her hand here, and we know that she kneels sometimes during the anthem. She said she's not going to go to the f-ing White House, which to me, was like, "Wow." And that's her prerogative, but I do think it's damaging U.S. Women's Soccer. . . . I think people won't watch if they see the team that's representing our country be unpatriotic, and I've spoken to people who over the weekend weren't watching, refused to watch, and I think that's going to have an impact on ratings.
She is in fact a much greater patriot than you, sir. There cannot be any more urgent duty of a patriot than to resist the current regime and bring it to an end.

UPDATE: And this just in . . .

14 comments:

Don Quixote said...

I consider myself a patriot of the USA, being that I support the current political stance of Robert De Niro.

Dr Porkenheimer said...

This is completely different that what you're saying.


https://grammarist.com/usage/patriotism-vs-nationalism/

Patriotism is the love and affection one feels for his country. The feeling of patriotism is based on the values a country espouses and the way it strives to improve. Patriotism is based on the belief in the inherent goodness of the system of government in a country, and the goodness of its people. The word patriotism is derived from the word patriot, from the Latin word patriota meaning fellow citizen, and the suffix -ism, meaning a system or doctrine.

Nationalism is the love and affection one feels for his country. However, nationalism is rooted in the belief that one’s country is superior to all others, and carries the connotation of disapproval of other nations or a rivalry with other nations. While patriotism does not disparage other countries, nationalism builds up one’s own country by tearing other countries down. Nationalism supports dominating other countries. The word nationalism is derived from the word nation, which comes from the Latin word nationem meaning origin or tribe, and the suffix -ism.


AND...

https://abcnews.go.com/International/photos/pharrell-cover-controversial-magazine-covers-16328228/image-16328306

https://jezebel.com/supporters-lighten-obamas-image-detractors-darken-it-5411865

Cervantes said...

Don't see how that's very different, although I wouldn't necessarily say it has to include the belief in inherent goodness of the system of government. A patriot can think the system of government could be improved. For example, there's nothing unpatriotic about thinking the U.S. would be better off with a parliamentary system of government, or proportional representation in the Senate.

Dr Porkenheimer said...


There is a line, somewhere, when your beliefs contradict the core values of the nation. For example, it's pretty obvious just from the Bill of Rights that the constitution upholds the rights of the individual. Each of the ten amendments deals with protection of individual rights against government intrusion.

So, I would argue that anyone who adheres to a belief system that promotes the rights of groups over individual rights could not be construed as patriotic. It's so antithetical to the structure that it's just not possible.

Your thoughts?

Cervantes said...

Yes. My opinion is that what you have just written is meaningless gibberish.

Cervantes said...

Although I would say that perhaps you have something meaningful in mind, I'm just not sure what it is. White supremacism, for example? I do think that the "imagined community" as I put it requires some set of shared values, although exactly what they are can evolve over time. We would no longer allow for defense of slavery to be consistent with patriotism. We now bury our war heroes on the confiscated lands of the traitor Robert E. Lee, yet there are people who call themselves patriots who wave his battle flag.

Upholding individual rights, in practice, requires protecting people whose rights are violated because of their membership in disadvantaged groups. That's why we have laws that specifically outlaw discrimination based on membership in certain groups. On the other hand there is nothing wrong with the word discrimination in general: it literally just means recognizing differences and choosing on the basis of some criterion or criteria. But discrimination based on bias is contrary to what we now consider to be our core national values.

Dr Porkenheimer said...


Of course our shared values evolve. And when they do, we update our codified rules, not just try to force change through mob rule. That's what the amendment process is all about. Outlawing slavery, granting the vote to women, etc. It's been done 27 times. However, this process insures that we, as a people, are are pretty much all on board with the proposed change.

So, how does that square with those who want change, but can't get everyone on board and, instead, foist it on everyone else?

This is where the friction comes. You have shared rules (laws) that we've all agreed upon and then you have those who don't give a shit about rules. They're our betters and they know best.

Cervantes said...

Well again, that's meaningless unless you say specifically what you are talking about. Obviously it doesn't take a constitutional amendment to embody cultural change. It can be embodied in laws, or just in custom. What are you talking about when you say people "foist" change on everybody else? Who is it that doesn't give a shit about rules? What are you talking about?

Mark P said...

Any time anyone uses "mob rule" in an argument I know immediately where they're coming from. In modern, American political discourse (if I can be so generous as to call it that), the term "mob rule" means majority rule. It's a term the minority uses to demonize the majority that is being suppressed.

I used to think the the US Constitution was one of the great documents of government, but that was when I was young and naive. I now recognize it for the steaming pile of white privilege it was meant to establish. It was a document intended to allow wealthy white men to set up their own, little domain while giving the masses the illusion of some control. That's why it recognized slavery, denied women's suffrage, established the electoral college, and provided for state legislatures to name senators. The electoral college and the Senate made sure the judicial branch was under the control of the real rulers. The House of Representatives was a sop thrown to the "mob".

Don Quixote said...

Bravo to the previous comment--more articulate than my own description from the other day:

"The USA is a Caucasian wealthy man's society, created by them for perpetuity. That's why the system doesn't work for others--minorities, women, and the dreaded negro whom the wealthy Caucasian men kidnapped to build their Caucasian playground that they now pollute and defile."

I see now, as a grown man who thinks critically, that the floundering fat cats were entitled Caucasian men descended from those who had stolen their land from natives, killed many of them in the process, and destroyed the lives of humans that began to be imported here in 1619 for the purpose of enslaving them and depriving them of their freedom, dignity, and safety--their "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--that which scumbags like Epstein, Barr, Shitler, Pence, Bannon, and others believe to be their birthright.

Time to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Time for a RE-DO! We can get it right the second time. Time to throw off the yoke of tyranny, now brazenly exposed for what it is. Just like the original founding assholes did. But this time we do it for the people, not the tiny, mean little mob at the tippy top. We can't fix this system with this system, anymore than we could rehabilitate a Cosby, a Shitler, or an Epstein.

Cervantes said...

Not sure what the 5th Amendment has to do with it, but okay. While I agree that the constitution is undemocratic, the prospects for changing it meaningfully are remote. I think that change in the political culture is the necessary foundation for political and economic reform. People need to awaken from their false consciousness and vote the bastards out within the existing system. There just isn't any alternative path. Then there are some reforms possible. An interstate compact that will make the winner of the popular vote president. Federal legislation on fair districting. A new voter rights act. Unfortunately current SCOTUS doctrine makes campaign finance reform very difficult but I believe some meaningful measures are possible. Stronger anti-trust laws and enforcement, a wealth tax, and meaningful taxation of large estates are conceivable. Universal, comprehensive single payer national health care and access to education would go a long way toward reducing inequality. So will massive public investment in a sustainable energy regime, that will create good jobs and redistribute the ownership of energy production.

There are many concrete goals we can work toward that will promote a more democratic polity. A better world is possible but we need to work on possible, meaningful steps, each leading to the next.

Mark P said...

I agree that it is unlikely in the extreme that the Constitution will be amended to eliminate some of the more undemocratic aspects. After all, that would require sacrifice for the common good. It's what should happen, but can't. What could happen, but probably won't is what you suggest -- voters taking control of their own government and electing representatives and a president who will work to make changes that actually benefit the country. Well, I suppose we can dream.

Don Quixote said...

Sorry--I meant, of course, Article V of the Constitution. I was riled up. We need a call for a new Constitutional Convention to rewrite it to work for "the mob." In other words, we need an actual democracy.

Don Quixote said...

You know, it's strange when I think of the behavior of this country, the USA, how many millions of lives have been destroyed in the name of commerce and Caucasian privilege. Because this blog is also highlighting, on a weekly basis, the inanity, the internal contradictions, and hypocrisy of the Pentateuch. But if one looks at those stories, well, our society has more than topped Sodom and Gomorrah. So one could justify, on a purely biblical basis, the current destruction of our society as designed by Bannon and implemented by McConnell, Shitler and their ilk. From a biblical standpoint, we just had it comin'.

But from sociological and political perspectives, our descent into chaos and fascism is a logical consequence of the refinement of an inherently evil--if I may use the term--system.

How classically hypocritical and loathsome it is that evangelical "Christians" claim moral ground, when it is they who enable the right-wing business people and politicians whose Macchiavellian deceits are bringing the walls of the country down. And the "Objecitivist" who claim moral high ground--the so-called atheists who have made a god out of their savior, Ayn Rand--are tragically, laughably, willfully ignorant. They who claim logic as the basis of their warped beliefs are the most illogical of all. But again, as Cervantes has stated, None so blind ...