The Patriot’s Asterisk:
Why We Shouldn’t be Ashamed to be Patriots
Culture — By Joe Carter on April 8, 2008 at 12:13 am Recently a number of intellectual bloggers have been debating the concept of patriotism (see here, here, here, and here.) The conflict over such a mundane and seemingly uncontroversial term highlights the fact that we Americans have conflicted feelings about the word “patriot.”
To question someone’s patriotism is considered an insult, while to praise their patriotism is a compliment (except when it isn’t). Yet strangely, the only people who refer to themselves, completely without irony or qualification, as “patriots” are old veterans, paleo-cons, and pro athletes in New England.
Of course, people who do not fit into those three categories sometimes self-identify with that label. But when they do it is inevitably accompanied by an asterisk, denoting–whether expressed or implied–that the use of the word comes with a qualifier:
*Sure, I love my country but I that doesn’t mean I support ________. (George Bush, the war, etc.)
*That doesn’t mean I think America is better than other countries.
*Of course I would never, ever serve (nor let my child enlist) in the military.
*But I’m nothing like those Bible-thumping, flag-fetishizing, NASCAR-loving, types of “patriots.”
The need to invoke such conditionals raises the question of whether the person truly identifies with the term. A Japanese reporter once inquired of filmmaker Michael Moore, “You do not seem to like the U.S., do you?” Moore’s response sums up the sentiment behind the patriot’s asterisk: “I like America to some extent.”
Unfortunately, the asterisk isn’t completely without warrant. Just as the existence of NAMBLA has made it impossible to say one is a “lover of children” without the need to provide clarification, the co-opting of the term patriot by nativists, xenophobes, and domestic terrorists has caused some Americans to distance themselves from the label.
It is also true that patriot has to compete with other terms that we might rightfully believe take precedence. Christians, for example, not only owe allegiance to the state but also, and more importantly, to the Kingdom of God. Even when we consider ourselves loyal citizens of the U.S., we also embrace a form of cosmopolitanism in cleaving to the invisible, catholic Church.
Whatever unique and individual allegiances we might have, though, we corporately share a divided loyalty between America as our birthplace (or adopted home) and America as an ideal, a set of principles embodied in such documents as the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. While our bifurcated loyalty can make patriotic sentiments complex and dissonant, it can also prevent a love of America from devolving into blind nationalism.
This tension sets America–and our identity as a nation–apart in a peculiar way. As historian Walter Berns notes,
The late Martin Diamond had this in mind when, in an American government textbook, he points out that the terms “Americanism,” “Americanization,” and “un-American” have no counterparts in any other country or language. This is not by chance, or a matter of phonetics–Swissism? Englishization?–or mere habit. (What would a Frenchman have to do or believe in order to justify being labeled un-French?) The fact is, and it was first noted by the Englishman, G.K. Chesterton, the term “Americanism” reflects a unique phenomenon; as Diamond puts it, “It expresses the conviction that American life is uniquely founded on a set of political principles.”
Most Americans have so internalized this concept of America as both a geographic place and an abstract ideal that we sometime forget how radical it must appear to the rest of the world. Many were reminded of this when presented with this ad by Absolut Vodka:
The reason the ad sparked such controversy is because it was meant to appeal to the tiny minority of Mexicans (and Mexican-Americans) who support reconquista, the “reconquering” and return of California, New Mexico, and other parts of the Southwestern United States to Mexico. Of course, if their dream were realized it would simply make Mexico a much larger, third-world nation. You can move the border northward but without the culture, ideals, laws, and principles of America, San Diego is just another Tijuana. Presumably, the re-conquistadors would still want to take the land even though it would mean having to immigrate further eastward to find work.
The beauty and genius of our principles, though, is that there is nothing that makes them exclusively American. They are ideals that are not only available to all people but also, as political philosophers from Thomas Jefferson to Francis Fukuyama have contentiously argued, likely to eventually be adopted by all nations. To be a patriot then it to align oneself with all generations of Americans–past, present, and future–who claim that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
In his eulogy for the Kentucky politician Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln gave expression to what should be an applicable description of all American patriots:
He loved his country partly because it was his own country, but mostly because it was a free country; and he burned with a zeal for its advancement, prosperity and glory, because he saw in such, the advancement, prosperity and glory, of human liberty, human right and human nature. He desired the prosperity of his countrymen partly because they were his countrymen, but chiefly to show to the world that freemen could be prosperous.
Berns says that for Clay (and Lincoln), “country and principle were one and the same.” Perhaps in Clay we can find a useful model for ourselves; a way to be a patriot without an asterisk.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
65 Comments
ucfengr — you wrote:
I would tend to think that if God thought love of country a bad thing, he would have at least cautioned us against it. That he didn’t should lead Christians to believe that it is not always inconsistent with faith in Christ.
I am not sure that I agree that love of country is not cautioned against, but even if I did, I can imagine many activities that are not expressly mentioned in Scripture, but that we may infer are “bad thing[s]” based on principles, rather than specific prohibitions. Pornography; trafficking crack cocaine; child slavery; backdating stock options; dumping garbage on your neighbor’s lawn. Even to get to a pro-life view on abortion requires interpretation of lyrical passages, rather than a straight “thou shall not condone abortion”.
On the other side, there are many, many references that urge believers to set aside every weight (Hebrews), consider everything other than faith in Christ but loss (Philippians), take up the cross, etc. Flip through your New Testament and on literally every other page you’re likely to find a similar exhortation. You’ll find nothing urging you to love your country.
Is a love of math or technology “a dead and useless weight”? What about love of a TV show? Is it your opinion that we, as Christians, are commanded to jettison all things that don’t directly contribute to the furthering of the Kingdom?
From I John 2:
15: Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17: And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Maybe it can be parsed to not include “your country” or “your TV show” or “cool technology”, but I don’t see how. Or maybe it is indeed, as Nick pointed out, why we need an asterisk after all [*].
Now, we all struggle differently; we each have our own dead weights. My struggle is not with putting faith into human institutions or wasting time in front of a television set — but with a fine bottle of aged Speyside whisky (and another one after that, and so on) among sundry other shortcomings, both more and less observable, ranging from trivial to probably fatal. But unlike patriotism, no one is suggesting that these choices are consistent with a Christian walk when put on public display like a red-white-and-blue lapel pin…
–miliukov
smmtheory — you wrote:
Does it mean nothing that the theme of nations runs all throughout the Old Testament? Does it mean nothing that Jewish national pride manifested in being God’s chosen people?
I think that the Old Testament’s “theme of nations” is totally irrelevant under the New Covenant. I also think that “Jewish national pride” (whatever that means) is equally irrelevant because of the sacrifice of Christ’s blood and his resurrection. The books of Acts and Romans are very clear on this point.
If you want to try to go back to living under the OT law for justification, bear in mind that the Sabbath starts sundown Friday; BBQ ribs are not the menu; and the United States is Gentile nation.
From chapter 3 in his epistle to the church in Galatia, Paul is writing about the New Covenant (worthwhile to read the whole passage of course, I’m excising just a bit here):
28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29: And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
If you take this passage seriously (and similar ones elsewhere in Romans, Ephesians, etc.), can you really claim that patriotism is useful? Perhaps not sinful, as such. Perhaps. But certainly beside the point.
I also wanted to pick up on this point that you raised, which is a good and interesting one, about the Israelites:
They maintained their national identity even in captivity to Babylon, which I believe was totally unheard of at that time.
To me, this is evidence of God’s sovereignty, and blessing, rather than the Israelites’ “patriotism”. If it were mere patriotism that kept the nation together, presumably maintaining national identity wouldn’t have been “totally unheard of”. Rather, it was supernatural; not political.
–miliukov
Being an American patriot can create a lot of problems for a missionary living in another country in light of present day American foriegn policy.
As a missionary in Ukraine, I used to be somewhat proud of my American citizenship but nowadays I am more inclined to not let someone know I am an American in order to avoid unnecessary tension.
Even simple healthy patriotism can be a stumbling block for the gospel in a foreign country. Not to state the obvious, but a lot of people in the world don’t like America these days. Some American missionaries can’t let go of their patriotism for the sake of the gospel and thus distance themselves from their audience, which I did for a long time and find myself doing still.
Oclarki, Re your Comment # 45. I agree with you one hundred percent. Very thoughtfully and eloquently stated.
I would add there are atleast some justifications for seeing our country as a type of modern day Roman Empire, yet there is much that is good about our country too. What I mean by country is it’s people and values.
I just re-read my previous posts, and I’m not sure I got the tone exactly how I wanted it to be. I’m not trying to be combative or derisive — apologies are in order, because it probably came off that way.
Still interested in hearing opposing views though.
There it’s settled, even Rockefeller is patriotic. You’ve all seen it from ucfengr’s own keyboard!
Of course he is. Everyone and everything under the sun is patriotic. Taking a giant dump on the flag and wiping your arse with a copy of the Declaration of Independence is patriotic. Everyone and everything, with one exception; actually loving your country is not patriotic. Loving your country is an indication that you are a low-bred NASCAR fanatic, who probably voted for Bush, and that is not patriotic.
Some day ucfengr will stop playing the victimization card. Some day.
For the record, if Rockefeller does indeed take a dump on the flag and wipes with a copy of the Declaration of Independence, I will say that is unpatriotic. Feel free to post a YouTube link when you find it.
Otherwise, I think it’s a good thing to resist the temptation to make patriotism be only about the things you agree with.
Of course he is. Everyone and everything under the sun is patriotic.
This is what really bothers him, isn’t it? A definition of patriotism that cannot easily be turned into a partisan club to bash over the heads of one’s opponants. Yet why is that such a bad thing? Critics of political correctness would define racism or sexism in such a way that very few people (and almost no public figures of any importance) could be called racists or sexists.
Those who think patriotism is a good thing, though, would do well to be on guard against turning it into a club that only the politically correct can join.
Really? I wouldn’t feel the need to qualify that statement at all. I would assume my best friend or my wife knew what I meant.
But would everyone else? I didn’t specify who I was telling.
I wasn’t qualifying my beliefs (i.e. asterisking them), I was qualifying their’s
By qualifying theirs, you are, IMO, indirectly qualifying yours If you just qualify yours directly, people are less likely to have mistaken assumptions about unspoken aspects of your position, and you are less likely confuse things by mistaken assumptions about theirs. Obviously, this isn’t such a problem with McVeigh. No one is likely to think that an unqualified statement of patriotism means you agree with McVeigh. Other situations (where people are more likely to say “I love my country but…”) may be less clear.
Loving your country is an indication that you are a low-bred NASCAR fanatic, who probably voted for Bush, and that is not patriotic.
For someone who has seemed very sensitive about people misreading his comments, you have a surprising penchant for putting words in people’s mouths and assuming the worst about their motivations.
IMO, it is patriotic to love your country as it is. It may be virtuous or immoral, depending on what your country does, but it is patriotic.
It’s also patriotic to say you love your country but you dislike X about it or you love your country but another country currently does Y better. I see it as analagous to saying you love your brother but you wish he didn’t smoke/drink heavily/use drugs. What comes after the “but” doesn’t mean you don’t love your brother. You wish intensely that he didn’t use drugs because you love him. You might even organize an intervention, and if he perceives it as hostile that doesn’t mean you don’t love him.
What is unpatriotic is thinking your country is wrong and not caring.
Patriotism doesn’t require that one think one’s country is better than the others. “My country right or wrong. If wrong to be set right’ implies that there may be situations, perhaps frequently, where other countries are right and ones own is wrong. A patriot loves his country not because it is better than all the others, but even if the others are better.
So when we have some people who are patriotic and think the country is pretty much OK and other people who are patriotic and think the country needs a major change in direction, it just makes sense, for clarity of communication, to add the asterisk to statements about patriotism.
I don’t because it was God’s promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed because of him. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of that promise, the blessing of all the nations.
On the contrary, I think we (as Christians) are called to patriotism toward the Kingdom of God. If we are half-arsed patriots to one, we’ll probably have a tendency to be half-arsed patriots to the other.
I think it is also evidence that patriotism (at least in the case of the Israelites and Americans) was/is not wholly political. There is the common thread of ideals and principles that transcend material existence too. As such, I don’t think that patriotism is irrelevant to Christians.
smmtheory — Based on your comments, I am not sure that you understand the Gospel message very clearly. All in due course I suppose.
But if your patriotism makes your faith stronger, good for you. God bless.
–miliukov
ucfengr :
veryone and everything, with one exception; actually loving your country is not patriotic. Loving your country is an indication that you are a low-bred NASCAR fanatic, who probably voted for Bush, and that is not patriotic.
I hate to get all Otto Rank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Rank) on you, but “actually loving your country” in the context you put it seems to me to have the ring that someone would put on justifying loving their goat.
Whatever happened to one man one woman?
Darn! I meant Wilhelm Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich) above. That’s why they invented trading cards for European psychoanalysts!
Nick, I think your comment makes good sense. I wish more people understood that patriotism should not be the same as blanket approval. We expect something from those we love, and we should. Would I be doing my child a favor if I applauded her misdeeds? I love her unconditionally, but that won’t lead me to withhold criticism when she needs it. It is a poor love indeed that cannot afford the occasional sternly-worded correction.
xljfbvzr ijzewfg zacedplqm mbjqup sgzjkdtpy ekzipn oulyakqgz
xljfbvzr ijzewfg zacedplqm mbjqup sgzjkdtpy ekzipn oulyakqgz