Posted on 10/29/2001 6:27:39 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
Though rationality certainly disappears among some people when their tribe is under attack, I fear this is being used as an excuse for shirking any form of loyalty whatsoever. Orwell's definition of patriotism is too brief, and seems to me a toothless one; it can't accept anything more than the most transient loyalty. A man without such loyalties is quite fit for a journalistic trade, but I fear such a man is not rooted enough to be of great use. He is like a homeless fellow who, after dispensing some wisdom here and there, will not accept an invitation to shelter for fear he'll be compromised, and so his few insights are left in abject vagrancy.
I was thinking much the same as Restorer--but with the extension that Democrats and even Republicans have a core of this nationalism. Or am I stating the obvious here?
Are all political parties basically nationalistic at the heart?
I may sound stupid, but a good way to learn is to ask.
But those who cannot ever admit the shortcomings of their own side are doomed to have their opinion become irrelevant to any thinking person.
I had an extended discussion a couple of weeks ago on FR with a Catholic who was essentially unable to admit that anything evil had ever been done in the name of Catholicism by ardent Catholics. I finally asked him/her why the Pope seemed to have no such difficulty and received no reply.
There is only one Man, I believe, who has been without fault. The rest of us shouldn't get overly defensive when accused of wrongdoing.
We should, however, focus on the net record of an organization or individual. Another friend of mine is a Socialist (really!) and he assigns blame to America for essentially every negative trend in recent world history. America ain't perfect, but it has probably a better record of doing good than any other powerful government has ever had. (It isn't difficult for Switzerland to avoid conflict with others.)
A subset of "paralysis by analysis."
The True Believers and the Over Analyzers are both needed by a free society.
Ha. I was just about to comment that the sorry state of the British intelligentsia in late 40's, described by Orwell, is directly responsible for their willful and outright criminal abandonment of the British Empire. We may end up recolonizing the Third World just to pick up the mess that Orwell's masochistic nationalists had left.
Ayn Rand might have something to say about that
An invasion of a nation that has no representative government is just: Defense of Liberty: Just Intervention
I like the civil self mockery in the first sentence--for surely the English word for longeuris analysis?
I was rather rivetted by the length of time he spent analysing (not always accurately) Chesterton's "nationalism" given the breadth of the subject he was covering. Something was stalking Orwell there, I think; something that he was trying to beat back with a garlic-dipped pen.
There's an overall quaintness about the article. A not-nice quaintness. In his fiction Orwell always escapes time and place--but not here. The dreary fact is that his intellectual and emotional ilk have run the show in England and America for the past 60 years--and what has it come to? What, perhaps, was it inevitable that it would come to?--
Domestically: A permament "inquisition" against naughty forms of nationalism from kindergarten through the glass ceiling. And in foreign affairs--that grotesque parody of the reason and probity prescibed by Orwell known as "humanitarian bombing" and "non-violent" economic sanctions.
Thank you again for an untimely, timely article.
But does allegence only mean being nationalist?
Readers, judge for yourself: Lepanto makes an appearance on this thread
From what I read of it, Orwell looks like he was right.
On Chesterton: I think perhaps Orwell got close to home with that one for some people here. By comparing political Catholicism with Communism, he wasn't talking about how the two would actually rule, but the effects on the thought of British intellectuals at the time of his writing and earlier. It was on that point only, the nationalist loyalty transposed to a "unit" outside of England, and the use of thought as just a means to score points for that unit.
Here is my problem: why precisely is Orwell speaking of internationalism as though it were the "good view"? He defines patriotism as "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people." So our local devotions are in no way to be infused into local law, lest we "force" our views on others? This is simply repeating that "cosmopolitain diplomacy" of English Labour gentlemen and American Liberals, and it is that internationalist democracy which motivates, for instance, our bombings in Yugoslavia or our forays in Somalia, or the UN's lobbying for "liberal" abortion laws. Not exactly "defensive," is it? Despite his disavowal of ComIntern, I fear Orwell would allow a castrated sort of localism only within the context of a worldwide government, thus destroying any possibility of Federalist republicanism. Has he written any "Notes on Internationalism"?
He's not, really, just noting that they don't have that view, if indeed such a view is possible. He talks about the "need for a Fatherland", so maybe he doesn't think it is possible. In spite of your jump to the conclusion that rejecting group membership as the big, or only, issue means world government, the more fanatical supporters of globalism fit into his analysis nicely. They also illustrate that the object of loyalty doesn't have to exist in the real world.
You quoted me out of context. I was talking about the idea that colonialism is more virtuous if we don't gain from it. Rand wasn't big on altruism, as I recall. On either the thread you linked to or one like it, she was quoted as saying that a free country has the right to attack an unfree one, and so the only consideration that matters is whether it's in the free country's interest. That consideration still matters. Their need for a decent government doesn't constitute on obligation on our part to provide them with one.
|
If someone who had never heard of Rudyard Kipling stumbled onto this poem, he could easily take it as a criticism, and a pretty harsh one at that, of imperialism. Reading it, I want say the same thing anti-war protestors in the 60s said, "Hell no! I won't go!" I'd rather stay here in Illinois and post messages on Free Republic. (As an aside, if we do colonize the third world, I hope the people in charge don't read Plato, or that remark could come back and bite me.)
Indeed. This is the classic British post-Reformation Establishment description of the English Catholic, and has been used to smear every convert since Newman(if not Campion) with charges of divided loyalty and intellectual dishonesty. I am understandably wary of any article that repeats such a tired trope.
I take it, you agree with Rand that it's the national interest, not altruism, that is determinative for the just invasion. In the case of the third world, we might have a national security interest in some of these places; we, for example, would benefit from getting a say in how most Arab countries are run, as well as, of course, Afghanistan.
Would the Muslim nations benefit from American colonization? If we respect their culture (and we'd be foolish not to), they might; almost any civil structure out there would be an improvement over the sheiks, the Taliban, or the ayatollahs. (Which is the opposite side of Rand's "green light to invade an unfree nation" coin). The thing with objectivism is that it always meshes in nicely with conventional ethics. In the case on hand, an invasion of a Muslim land, which would oppress the legitimate Muslim aspirations, is not only unethical, but is not in our national interest.
But it looked like I was commenting on her position in intervention rather than her position on altruism.
I take it, you agree with Rand that it's the national interest, not altruism, that is determinative for the just invasion.
Not quite. It's determinative for the prudent invasion. If it were in our national interest to kill everyone in England, for example, it would still be unjust. It would also be unjust if it were our interest to kill everyone in Arabia.
I don't share Rand's view of altruism, since I'm a Christian, but I do agree with her that's it's a bad, and even immoral, basis for public policy. I don't hold the view on altruism many objectivists attribute to Christians, either. It's meritorious, but not obligatory. It is not meritorious, however, if the costs aren't born exclusively by the person or persons being altruistic, which is why the government shouldn't act altruistically.
Exactly. An invasion is just if the country being invaded has a government that usurps power. It is always a war on the government and not on the population. Once we know that the invasion is just, the question becomes, is it prudent? The national interest (of the country contemplating invasion) is determinative for that.
Although I don't subscribe to objecticist ethics either, I wholly agree with Rand's condemnation of "altruist" foreign policy. That is because a foreign policy is executed by the government on behalf of the entire nation. If the policy disregards national interest, then the government executing it abuses its mandate. Whether the reason to disregard the national interest is altruism doesn't exhonerate it, because the government then would act on behalf of foreigners at the expense of the citizens. Of course, in many cases altruist policy is also in the national interest (such as, many would agree, was the Marshall Plan), and then Rand should have no objection to it.
To reduce it to individuals, as a Christian I find myself motivated by an altruistic urge to do charity; however, if I convert my charitable impulse into an act of coercing others to do charitable acts, there is no charity in it for anyone. Thus Randian objection to altruism doesn't contradict Christian ethics.
The only thing I find annoying is the use of the very word "nationalism" which Orwell then goes to great lengths to re-define so that its new meaning has little or no resemblence to its accepted meaning. Because his interpretation is so much at odds with conventional usage, it would have been better if he appropriated some other term. In fact, he has one from his own pen : groupthink.
What you refer to is not "jingoism". And the person with sensitivities slighted and taking it as such is in error. Professing a love for your country is not "fanatical".
I have had in-laws that have spent 20 minutes ranting on how much better their country is than America, morally as well as simplicity in life-style, and would just rant louder when I pointed out FACTS to the contrary. THAT is jingoism, isn't it? A sort of "ultranationalism"?
After listening to these rants I walk to the phone, calmly asking what day of departure they prefer when I make their flight reservations BACK to the "land of plenty" they so desperately couldn't wait to leave some odd years back. The room becomes strangely quiet...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.