Curious to follow the discussion in this thread regarding patriotism and whether liberals have any. This, of course, has long been the cudgel which the right has used to beat up on the left, and it’s been effective. Or rather, it was effective - before Iraq.
Because the quagmire in Iraq (Now with 50 percent less death!) is an absolute, direct result of the right’s “patriotism.” Which is to say, the right’s belief in American exceptionalism and the evangelism that all too often accompanies this.
If the United States of America isn’t merely a great nation but the greatest nation ever to exist on the face of the earth; if our ideals aren’t merely laudable but the greatest ideals ever formulated by man; then it’s a short hop to argue that we have a moral obligation not to keep this greatness to ourselves - but to spread it around the world; to endure whatever hardships we must in order to impart our supreme way of life to the backwards residents of, say, Iraq. And maybe ultimately Iran.
This is a bedrock of what passes for “conservatism” these days, but make no mistake: This is not an actual “conservative” view. Indeed, this is Wilsonian liberalism. But moreso than that - it’s nationalism.
The right doesn’t seem to quite grasp that there’s a great difference between patriotism and nationalism. They claim the former, but what they actually practice is the latter. Liberals, by contrast, have plenty of the former - it’s just that they shun the latter like the plague which it is.
We may define patriotism as a love for one’s country: A love for its professed ideals, a love for its heritage. A great reverence for the Founders and the widsom their written words imparted (even when they, personally, were unable to live up to those words); a great love for the land and a belief that its people will do the right thing.
Nationalism, on the other hand, is more blind. It would, per Cindy McCain, insist that the United States has always been a place to be proud of, even in its darkest moments; and indeed, that those darkest moments ought not be part of the discussion whatsoever; that to merely acknowledge their existence constitutes a betrayal of the country.
Ours, the nationalist stipulates, is not merely a wonderful nation that sometimes falls short of its professed creed; it is, rather, a pinnacle, the pinnacle. Yet the nationalist fails to consider that virtually every other nation that has stood astride the international trash heap - Great Britain and Germany, France and the Soviet Union, and that’s all in just the past century - have believed, and enunciated, the very same thing about their own country. And the nationalist says, well, they were obviously wrong. But we are right.
A liberal patriot sees this view as dangerous - realizing the places to which it must inevitably lead, such as Iraq. For if those other nations were wrong and we are right - then we have the right. Then we have the obligation. Liberal patriotism is certainly nowhere near as triumphalist as conservative nationalism. But I’ll take a little humility over hubris - and the nemesis is ultimately invites - any day of the week.
