Posted on 10/30/2001 8:56:40 AM PST by sheltonmac
This is a season of patriotism, but also of something that is easily mistaken for patriotism; namely, nationalism. The difference is vital.
G.K. Chesterton once observed that Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British imperialism, suffered from a “lack of patriotism.” He explained: “He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English.”
In the same way, many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be “the greatest country on earth” in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the 2nd-greatest, or the 19th-greatest, or, heaven forbid, “a 3rd-rate power,” it would be virtually worthless.
This is nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being “the greatest family on earth” (whatever that might mean) or for being “better” than other families. You don’t feel threatened when other people love their families the same way. On the contrary, you respect their love, and you take comfort in knowing they respect yours. You don’t feel your family is enhanced by feuding with other families.
While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it’s often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.
The patriot differs from the nationalist in this respect too: he can laugh at his country, the way members of a family can laugh at each other’s foibles. Affection takes for granted the imperfection of those it loves; the patriotic Irishman thinks Ireland is hilarious, whereas the Irish nationalist sees nothing to laugh about.
The nationalist has to prove his country is always right. He reduces his country to an idea, a perfect abstraction, rather than a mere home. He may even find the patriot’s irreverent humor annoying.
Patriotism is relaxed. Nationalism is rigid. The patriot may loyally defend his country even when he knows it’s wrong; the nationalist has to insist that he defends his country not because it’s his, but because it’s right. As if he would have defended it even if he hadn’t been born to it! The nationalist talks as if he just “happens,” by sheer accident, to have been a native of the greatest country on earth — in contrast to, say, the pitiful Belgian or Brazilian.
Because the patriot and the nationalist often use the same words, they may not realize that they use those words in very different senses. The American patriot assumes that the nationalist loves this country with an affection like his own, failing to perceive that what the nationalist really loves is an abstraction — “national greatness,” or something like that. The American nationalist, on the other hand, is apt to be suspicious of the patriot, accusing him of insufficient zeal, or even “anti-Americanism.”
When it comes to war, the patriot realizes that the rest of the world can’t be turned into America, because his America is something specific and particular — the memories and traditions that can no more be transplanted than the mountains and the prairies. He seeks only contentment at home, and he is quick to compromise with an enemy. He wants his country to be just strong enough to defend itself.
But the nationalist, who identifies America with abstractions like “freedom” and “democracy,” may think it’s precisely America’s mission to spread those abstractions around the world — to impose them by force, if necessary. In his mind, those abstractions are universal ideals, and they can never be truly “safe” until they exist, unchallenged, everywhere; the world must be made “safe for democracy” by “a war to end all wars.” We still hear versions of these Wilsonian themes. Any country that refuses to Americanize is “anti-American” — or a “rogue nation.” For the nationalist, war is a welcome opportunity to change the world. This is a recipe for endless war.
In a time of war hysteria, the outraged patriot, feeling his country under attack, may succumb to the seductions of nationalism. This is the danger we face now.
This is a well-written, terse attack on neoconservatism, and I suppose, a defense of paleo-conservatism.
The nationalist has to prove his country is always right. He reduces his country to an idea, a perfect abstraction, rather than a mere home. He may even find the patriot’s irreverent humor annoying.
Although reading Sobran is always a joy, I am distressed to see that he has apparently been hit with a case of Rockwell Flu, which causes the patient to obsessively rail against neo-conservatism, to the detriment of his judgment.
It's nationalism if we start it, it's patriotism if the other guys start it.
Couldn't have said it better. America is more than dirt and trees, it is ideas and believes. I love America because it is good and right and it is my home. It is the greatest nation on earth because patriots are willing to sacrifice to make it so.
It's long but EXCELLENT!
I believe it was Alexis de Tocqueville.
On occasion, I put a fragment of the original post in italics, just like I did now, to explain which part of the post my comments refer to. This practice shouldn't be novel to you.
Usually, it is sufficient, when responding, to point out a thing or two in the original post and not repond word-by-word. Many do that: put the entire original post in italics and sort of annotate it but I find this practice very irritating. If you think that I do not address something in your post as I should, feel free to focus on that and ask again.
TRAINED [...] What does that mean?
That is the word used by UnBlinkingEye but I heard it before. I am sure you can't just give a Stinger to someone and expect him to be able to use it without training, so I assume some training of the mujahedeen by us did take place.
Concrete purpose?
The purpose was "to facilitate their fighting the USSR", as my post #18 says. That is concrete enough, to my mind. It is true that now they use the acquired skills and some of the materiel against us, although I haven't heard of them having any success with the Stingers lately. Why they do it? Beats me. I don't think they should. I think they're wrong.
Legitimate purpose
The USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 after their attempt to install a pro-Soviet government there ended up in a coup. The mujahedeen were a classic case of indigenous guerilla trying to repel a foreign invasion; assisting such group is of course, legitimate. Besides, any effort to thwart the advances of Soviet Communism was a legitimate effort in the Cold War context.
Let me know if I left anything unanswered.
You: That is because what is currently termed "rogue nation" has a precise connotation: a nation that would assist terrorists is a rogue nation;
Me: We assisted and trained the Taliban and Bin Laden not to mention the KLA.
My point was that your above definition of a rogue nation could be applied to the United States given the fact that we assisted, armed and trained the Taliban, Bin Laden and the KLA. I can understand the thinking in assisting the fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, although now it has come back to haunt us, but our association with the KLA and the attack on Serbia is a national disgrace and war crime.
Close, but not quite a crime as we were ostensibly helping the Kosovar minority that was oppressed by the Serbs. Criminally, we get off on a technicality. It is a disgrace because we did more harm than good in an area unrelated to our national interest.
Hilaire Belloc in his book 'Survivals and New Arrivals' writes (and warns) a bit on Nationalism:
"But the essence of Nationalism, in its present form as a menace to religion, lies in this: that the nation is made an end in itself. When that mood appears, there is present, in the strictly technical sense of the word, Heresy; there is present false doctrine, and all the dangers of spreading and ramifying evil which spring from false doctrine as from one poisonous seed."
"Let us take a few tests and judge by them the quality of the thing."
"Go to a public park on two successive Sundays. On the first, stand upon a chair and declaim at length against the discipline of religion. Ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the right of a Christian society to enforce the practice of Christian ritual. Nothing will happen to you."
"On the second Sunday get up on a chair and declaim at equal length and with equal zeal against the country and its conduct in the late war. Praise enthusiastically some more specially unpopular foreigners-enemies for choice-laugh at the heroism of the troops, call them cowards and go on to denounce with vigor the obedience rendered to their officers and soldiers and sailors. A great number of things will happen to you. Even after the police have rescued you from the hands of the mob, the State will proceed to deal with you in a fashion which will enlighten you for good upon the limits of toleration."
written in 1929. Imagine what would happen if one were to 'take the test' that Belloc mentions above today.
Tell it to the Serbs.
Brigadier
What do you think would happen? I think, nothing would happen to the speaker in both cases. A veteran or two will swallow hard and move on.
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.