Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Watching Obama's inaugural address reminded me of an essay written by Peter Beinart in Time magazine last summer about conservative and liberal conceptions of patriotism. I thought he really nailed the key difference in how right and left tend to think about patriotism. For far too many on the right, patriotism is about mere symbols, about having a flag pin on your lapel and getting weepy eyed when the national anthem plays.
This is why, for example, one of the primary Republican attacks on Michael Dukakis in 1988 was that he vetoed a bill requiring teachers to lead students in saying the pledge of allegiance. For much of the right, patriotism is mostly about ostentatious displays of emotionalism and loyalty - and the ability to exploit such emotionalism for political gain. But Obama presented a very different version of patriotism in his inaugural speech.
I thought Beinart really captured this distinction well:
On the surface, defining patriotism is simple. It is love and devotion to country. The questions are why we love it and how we express our devotion. That's where the arguments begin.The conservative answer is implicit in the title of John McCain's 1999 book, Faith of My Fathers. Why should we love America? In part, at least, because our forefathers did. Think about the lyrics to America ("My Country, 'Tis of Thee"): "Land where my fathers died,/ Land of the Pilgrims' pride." Most liberals don't consider those the best lines of the song. What about the Americans whose fathers died somewhere else? What about all the nasty stuff the Pilgrims did? But conservatives generally want to conserve, and that requires a reverence for the past. What McCain's title implies is that patriotism isn't a choice; it's an inheritance. Being born into a nation is like being born into a religion or a family. You may be called on to reaffirm the commitment as you reach adulthood--as McCain did by joining the military--but it is impressed upon you early on, by those who have come before.
That's why conservatives tend to believe that loving America today requires loving its past. Conservatives often fret about "politically correct" education, which forces America's students to dwell on its past sins. They're forever writing books like America: The Last Best Hope (by William J. Bennett) and America: A Patriotic Primer (by Lynne Cheney), which teach children that historically the U.S. was a pretty nifty place. These books are based on the belief that our national forefathers are a bit like our actual mothers and fathers: if we dishonor them, we dishonor ourselves. That's why conservatives got so upset when Michelle Obama said that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" (a comment she says was misinterpreted). In the eyes of conservatives, those comments suggested a lack of gratitude toward the nation that--as they saw it--has given her and the rest of us so much.
Conservatives know America isn't perfect, of course. But they grade on a curve. Partly that's because they generally take a dimmer view of human nature than do their counterparts on the left. When evaluating America, they're more likely to remember that for most of human history, tyranny has been the norm. By that standard, America looks pretty good. Conservatives worry that if Americans don't appreciate--and celebrate--their nation's past accomplishments, they'll assume the country can be easily and dramatically improved. And they'll end up making things worse. But if conservatives believe that America is, comparatively, a great country, they also believe that comparing America with other countries is beside the point. It's like your family: it doesn't matter whether it's objectively better than someone else's. You love it because it is yours...
If conservatives tend to see patriotism as an inheritance from a glorious past, liberals often see it as the promise of a future that redeems the past. Consider Obama's original answer about the flag pin: "I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said last fall. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism." Will make this country great? It wasn't great in the past? It's not great as it is?
The liberal answer is, Not great enough. For liberals, America is less a common culture than a set of ideals about democracy, equality and the rule of law. American history is a chronicle of the distance between those ideals and reality. And American patriotism is the struggle to narrow the gap. Thus, patriotism isn't about honoring and replicating the past; it's about surpassing it.
If Reagan best evoked conservative patriotism, many liberals still identify their brand with John F. Kennedy, a leader forever associated with unfulfilled promise. If Reagan conjured the past, Kennedy downplayed it, urging Americans to instead grab hold of the future. He liked to cite Goethe, who "tells us in his greatest poem that Faust lost the liberty of his soul when he said to the passing moment, 'Stay, thou art so fair.'" Americans risked a similar fate, Kennedy warned, "if we pause for the passing moment, if we rest on our achievements, if we resist the pace of progress ... Those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future."
Obama's political persona is also deeply bound up with youth, promise and liberation from the constraints of the past. In McCain's life, patriotism is about replicating and honoring what came before: the son and grandson of admirals becomes a war hero. In Obama's, patriotism is about escaping what came before: the grandson of an African farmer becomes the embodiment of the American Dream. If McCain's identity has been shaped largely by inherited tradition, Obama's is largely the result of personal invention, a deeply American concept. Obama chose a profession, a city, a religious identity, even a racial one, mostly on his own. His first book is called not Faith of My Fathers--how could it be, since in so many ways he has created his own faith?--but Dreams from My Father, since Obama imagined a father he never knew and from those dreams constructed a life. If some conservatives worry that America's recent immigration wave is fracturing the nation, Obama represents the liberal faith that assimilation is relatively easy and that newcomers don't divide America; they improve it.
Obama's election would, like Kennedy's, represent a triumph over past prejudice. The election of an African American, like the election of a Catholic, would be a sign that America is--as Michelle Obama implied--a different and better nation than it was before, one more worthy of the patriotism of all its citizens. Liberals are more comfortable thinking about America that way: as a nation that must earn its citizens' devotion by making good on its ideals. For conservatives, the devotion must come first; politics is secondary. But for liberals, patriotic devotion without political struggle is often empty. Liberals think lapel pins are fine if they inspire Americans to struggle to realize the nation's promise. But they worry that those symbols can become--especially when wielded by people in power--substitutes for that struggle and thus emblems of hypocrisy and complacency.
Conservatives tend to be particularly moved by stories of Americans showing extraordinary devotion to our patriotic symbols. McCain tells an especially powerful one about a fellow prisoner in North Vietnam named Mike Christian, who stitched a U.S. flag on the inside of his shirt and was brutally beaten by his captors in response but immediately began stitching it again, even with his ribs broken and eyes swollen nearly shut. Of course, any sane liberal would find that story stirring as well. But liberals more often lionize people who display patriotism by calling America on the carpet for violating its highest ideals. For liberals more than for conservatives, there is something quintessentially patriotic about Frederick Douglass's famous 1852 oration, "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?," in which the great African-American abolitionist refused to celebrate the anniversary of America's founding, telling a Rochester, N.Y., crowd that "above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them."
On this issue, I am firmly with the left. My allegiance is not to a nation and much less to a flag, but to a set of principles. When my country supports those principles, I support my country; when it fails to do so, I do not support it. America can only be great if America is good, if our actions are in line with the ideals we so loudly proclaim. It is a cliche, but it remains true that actions speak far louder than words.
Politics
Comments
Great essay. I've long suspected that patriotism, as the right defines it, is little more than displaced authoritarian allegiance to parental figures.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 26, 2009 9:09 AM
"For much of the right, patriotism is mostly about ostentatious displays of emotionalism and loyalty - and the ability to exploit such emotionalism for political gain."
One could easily substitute the word partiotism with the word religion in that sentance.
Posted by: mr P | January 26, 2009 9:24 AM
The comment attributed to the English author, Samuel Johnson, is most appropriate when applied to many conservative thinkers. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Posted by: SLC | January 26, 2009 9:24 AM
Grrr, Ignore the misspelling please.
Posted by: mr P | January 26, 2009 9:25 AM
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Well, yes, except that it has lately become the FIRST refuge...
Posted by: woody | January 26, 2009 9:41 AM
The family analogy isn't too far off - I got over the notion that my parents were perfect when I was pretty young, but that doesn't mean I love them any less.
Posted by: WScott | January 26, 2009 9:44 AM
Al Franken said something similar in Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them. I paraphase:
A conservative treats America like a four year old treats his mother. America is perfect and the source of everything good in the world, and if you insult America the conservative will beat you up in the playground.
A liberal treats America like an adult treats his spouse. America may not be perfect, but the liberal loves America anyway, for all its strengths and weaknesses.
Posted by: Brandon | January 26, 2009 9:45 AM
And I didn't even notice the typo until you pointed it out. ;)
Posted by: WScott | January 26, 2009 9:49 AM
I'm curious, Ed, what set of principles do you claim allegiance to, and what ideals do you loudly proclaim? You don't mention them.
Posted by: aaron | January 26, 2009 9:59 AM
Are you a new reader Aaron? Ed has written a lot about his principles and ideals. The selection of topics in this blog constitutes a good index to them.
Posted by: barkdog | January 26, 2009 10:05 AM
"When evaluating America,...{conservatives are] more likely to remember that for most of human history, tyranny has been the norm."
Really? Modern Humans appeared approximately 120,000 years ago, and until Americans (miraculously) invented democracy and freedom, it never existed before anywhere in the whole world? And, of course, they have concrete evidence to prove this absolutely.
Do the words 'arrogance', 'ignorance', and 'hubris' even begin to cover the Right's folly?
WScott - "I believe it {America} is right more often than most. America's principles set a pretty high bar." Yes sure is a high bar alright, a war, incursion, 'police action', invasion, or sponsored coup even 14 months for the last 220 years. Certainly a hard act to follow.
Posted by: DingoJack | January 26, 2009 10:16 AM
WScott - "I believe it {America} is right more often than most. America's principles set a pretty high bar." Yes sure is a high bar alright, a war, incursion, 'police action', invasion, or sponsored coup even 14 months for the last 220 years. Certainly a hard act to follow.
Kind of taking WS out of context a fair bit there DJ. I think you missed the following part the fact that we don't always measure up to our own standards just means we as a nation aren't perfect. The important thing is that we keep trying to reach those ideals, which means (here's the liberal side) it's important to admit to ourselves when we fall short.
Back to what seems to be your original point which is that we are an easy act to follow. Please identify out of the roughly 200 countries in the world those that are profoundly better, not simply in relation to the low point of the Bush administration, but over the last 100 years. We have many failings over history, but we also have many successes. I would argue that those successes are couched in the principles and ideals America was founded upon.
Posted by: Lorax | January 26, 2009 10:31 AM
Re Dingojack
I think the time has come to remind Mr. Dingojack that, absent US intervention in the 2nd World War, Mr. Tojo and Mr. Hitler would have conducted triumphal marches through the streets of Melbourne and Sydney.
Posted by: SLC | January 26, 2009 10:36 AM
I fall somewhere in the middle. Even when my country is wrong I know it has this unerring ability to right itself.
Posted by: yoshi | January 26, 2009 10:42 AM
For me the guiding principles of “America” are ensconced in our founding documents.
A patriot glories in our successes, deplores our failures, and strives to make tomorrow better than today.
At times, we salute the flag with tears streaming and at others shake our heads in disgust at our fellow Americans.
Posted by: Jim Spencer | January 26, 2009 10:48 AM
I believe this essay says some very important and true things -- particularly about conservatives and symbolism. But let's keep some balance here. American liberals have "parent issues" too. Their politicians profess that they know best how to spend your money, and that it's their duty to "take care" of people with those purloined funds.
I'm tired of both sets of dysfunctional parents. I don't need either one of them, and think overall we'd be better-off without them.
Posted by: Jim Babka | January 26, 2009 10:57 AM
I think you mean without the Russians, SLC.
Posted by: Matthew | January 26, 2009 11:08 AM
Maybe you missed my point (sarcasm does tend to take over) - American IS NOT the best country in the world. It ranks at lower than many other European countries on Health care, life expectancy, dedication to peace, aged care, and many other indicators, in fact it rated around number 10 in the general happiness scale.
A little less pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth, and swearing to preserve some bits of paper, and little more actually facing the fact that America hasn't always been John Wayne riding in to (slaughter the Indians and) save the day, might help America to understand why everyone hates your policies so much.
After Hubris comes Nemesis. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 26, 2009 11:16 AM
Perhaps Mr SLC, should take some refresher courses in history.
Mr Hitler didn't want to break up the British Empire, America was Hitler's next target.
Mr Tojo had no intention of taking Australia (a losing proposition if ever there was one), as well the Churchill, Curtin and Roosevelt administration knew, since they had broken the Japanese "blue" naval codes. -DJ
Posted by: DoingpJack | January 26, 2009 11:33 AM
And for some of us,
(America) must live up to its citizens' devotion by making good on its ideals.
The devotion is there, for too many reasons to enumerate. I have no doubt that my children are unconditionally devoted to me; the question isn't whether I earn that devotion but whether I repay it by being worthy of it.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 26, 2009 11:42 AM
Posted by: Taz | January 26, 2009 11:46 AM
Yaz - All 120,000 years? Really? Sources please :) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 26, 2009 11:48 AM
One reason I have been recently recommending Dispatches so strongly to bloggers who may not know it -- and put it on my list of 'Ten Blogs President Obama should read daily" is because of discussions like these.
I find myself closer to Lorax and WScott on this one, DJ. Because yes, it is true that "until Americans (miraculously) invented democracy and freedom, it never existed before anywhere in the whole world?" Okay, it is slightly exaggerated, but not by much.
I didn't contribute to the 'republic not a democracy' thread, but the key there was that America is -- and really was the first -- a "Constitutional Democracy." We were the first to put our basic idea of government into this type of Constitution -- and, with Marbury v/ Madison, gave courts the right and duty to enforce this even against the government. It wasn't a vague statement of principles like the Declaration. It was 'the law of the land' that every one, even the 'ruler' was under.
And that was new -- and was such a powerful example that the cry of many revolutionaries in every country in Europe -- and eventually elsewhere -- for the next hundred and fifty years was "Give us a Constitution!"
Of course it wasn't perfect. Slavery was the biggest blot on it -- but when we changed this we didn't 'rewrite the Constitution' to eliminate all mention of the past errors -- as we coukd easily have done in an Orwellian fashion.
How easy it would have been to simply eliminate the '3/5 Rule.' Instead, every honest teacher of AmHist from 4th Grade up has to show her students how that ugliness got into the Constitution, has to accept that America once accepted slavery. But she also has the chance to show how it was possible to make the change without replacing the Constitution with a 'new, improved' model -- and without needing a violent revolution.
(I've said, here, the accurate statement that the only time I have had what others would call a 'religious experience' was when I walked into Constitution Hall -- this was before it became an 'exhibit,' when it was just a room that had been kept intact -- and saw those physical reminders, the chairback with the painted sun that truly did prove to be a 'rising sun,' of the stories I had read about its writing. I could, almost literally, feel the presence of the '55 Men,' Franklin, Madison, James Wilson, even the magnificently drunken Luther Martin, that somehow came up with a document both new in principle and flexible enough to accept the changes that time was bound to bring.)
DJ, you mention some of our 'mistakes' -- and exaggerate them, since I hope you will agree that in many of them we were on the 'right side.' (I even accept the 1st Gulf War, where we had a simple aim, accomplished it, and ended it -- though Bush's abandonment of the Kurds was a black eye.)
We aren't perfect, and you are, almost subconsciously, accepting the Conservative premise that 'if we ain't perfect we should be condemned ' (which they respond to by insisting we always have been 'perfect' which is nonsense).
But remember some of the ideas that started in America. We did produce a Civil Rights Act and a Martin -- and while we may not have lived up to it, it remains as a goal to move towards. (At the same time, the 'oh-so-civilized' England -- and I am an Anglophile -- was far more 'chauvinistically' racist, and has only begun to change this -- sometimes overreacting -- in recent years.)
Stonewall happened here. Yes, other countries may have moved faster on gay rights once we got the ball rolling, but was it not our example that caused people to think about the topic?
Feminism really started here -- and in England, but the philosophical underpinnings were explicitly laid out by American authors. (Did anyone, anywhere, allow women to vote before Wyoming Territory did so? In France -- and, I believe. Belgium -- women couldn't vote until after WWII.)
For that matter, even something as obvious as requiring handicapped people -- by law -- to have equal access to public buildings was, I believe -- correct me if needed -- an American innovation. "Title IX" was also an American invention -- how brilliant a move to simply require womens' sports to receive the same funding as men, and how much of a difference it made.
These are just some of the reasons why 'my country, right or wrong,' as the Conservatives shout, is not merely unPatriotic but profoundly 'unAmerican.'
The glory of America, and, I'd argue, the true justification for the patriotism that i proudly proclaim, is that we know we will be wrong, we accept that the idea of 'right' and 'wrong' will change over time -- such a slap to the Bartons and Scalias -- but we created a system that could always be improved without 'ripping it up and starting over.'
And that's a damn good thing to be proud of.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 26, 2009 11:49 AM
DJ, what do you have against strawmen? You initially went after WS, however in no place that I see did WS state that America IS the best country in the world. (In fact, not going over every comment in detail, I do not believe anyone here said that.) So, Im not sure who you are arguing with, GW? Newt Gingrich? the voices in your head?
Sure, several European countries rank better in this that and the other thing. Again, no one said America was perfect (this latter point is still true even if we all believed America is the best, best ≠ perfect). But my point is so what? Using different indicators, America would out perform anyone of these European countries. America only ranks at #10 in the happiness scale (whatever the hell that means), well 10 is better than ~190 other countries. But I would posit, that if a country existed that ranked #1 in all the happy feel good categories you wanted to present, it would still be a good thing if the people of that society strived to improve anyway.
That said, I realize comments of the nature "we won WWII, so shut up!" do not serve to win TeamAmerica any friends. However, take them for what they are. One person's opinion and not the foundational principles of an entire country. I usually appreciate your comments DJ, but methinks you are enjoying the old America-bashing a bit more than is necessary. Of course, that is in vogue these days, but it makes me wonder if there's not a little "see how crappy America, now I dont have to critically look at my country" mentality.
Posted by: Lorax | January 26, 2009 11:54 AM
Taz - mea culpa
Perhaps "In all human history,I suspect, tyranny has been the norm." or "I assume, that for all of human history tyranny was the norm." Can we know the status of all people, everywhere at all points in time? - pedantically DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 26, 2009 11:57 AM
There is a tendency among conservative 'patriots' to confuse symbols with the things they symbolize—a distinct failure to understand that symbols have no intrinsic meaning. When you attack the flag, you're attacking freedom itself. We see something similar in the fundamentalist thinker’s approach to a text. The failure to recognize the difference between the symbol and the symbolized blinds the reader to the possibility (and inevitability) of differing interpretations. The irony is that concretists who love symbols, in and of themselves, actually have a very brittle understanding of what is symbolized because there is no room for exploration of meaning. Meanings are immutably cast in stone.
Another irony (for Christianist conservatives) is that the New Testament repeatedly warns against this way of thinking. Slavish adherence to the letter of the law over the underlying intentions of the heart is no virtue. Prayer in the closet is preferred to public prayer and ostentatious piety. The metaphor in one instance is drinking from a cup that is clean on the outside, but filthy on the inside. By definition, fundamentalism is all about an externally clean cup without regard for the contents of the cup. This is the kind of thinking we see in a person who is outraged by missing lapel pins, but unbothered by government-sponsored torture.
Piaget would simply call this sort of thinking pre-formal or early formal. Children under age 11 tend to have difficulty understanding that there is a subject (me or you) in between the symbol and the thing that is symbolized. If you have children or work with children you also know that no amount of explanation overcomes this inability to recognize the role of subjectivity in perception.
Posted by: Dr X | January 26, 2009 12:02 PM
DJ:
Almost all (at least 95%) of the past 120,000 years is what we would normally call "prehistory" and there was comparatively little, bordering on "none" of what I would be willing to call "government" during that time. Over historical times, when we have evidence of governments, the vast majority of which I have any knowledge fit pretty well IMHO into the category "tyranny".
Do you have any reason to dispute this?
Paul
Posted by: prn | January 26, 2009 12:07 PM
DJ -
You certainly expressed it better. And no, I'm not even going to try to defend it. My general knowledge of history suggests it's true.Posted by: Taz | January 26, 2009 12:11 PM
Re Matthew
1. The former Soviet Union contributed jackshit to the defeat of Japan.
2. The former Soviet Union would have been defeated in 1941 without the aid shipped to them by Great Britain at great cost. See, "The Naval War Against Hitler," by Donald MacIntyre.
Posted by: SLC | January 26, 2009 12:16 PM
Oh you call it tyranny and poof it is so.
The question is would those people, at that time, call it so. And how do we know that it was tyranny? What is it? how do we measure it? and so on.
My beef isn't with 'tyranny' but with the tyranny of sweeping statements. - ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 26, 2009 12:18 PM
As a Michigan resident, I've always been proud of this:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishmentPosted by: Taz | January 26, 2009 12:18 PM
When my last post was written, Lorax's letter was the 'last up' so to respond to later postings.
There are tempting side issues, the proper credit to assign the US and the USSR in the victory in WWII -- both were important, but realize that Stalin's guillibility towards Hitler did a lot towards giving him his early chance to move forwards -- and we share some of that guilt.
As for the persistence of tyranny pre-1776, I can think of no persistent 'counter-example' that was more than momentary, and the result of two conflicting elites attempting to 'buy support with offers of freedom.' Or they were tribal/traditionalist societies that might have permitted some choice in rulers, but bound its members far more strongly to 'custom dating from time immemorial.'
(This will get my fellow-atheists mad, but I have to say it.) The only place I know of where the ideas that became the idea of America appear, in an early stage, pre-enlightenment, may be the Old Testament, and many "Founding Fathers,' while not accepting the religious nature, did take OT ideas as part of their model. And, as for the Enlightenment, we did just happen to be the first country that used such ideas to form a polity.
But my strongest objection to DJ's words are where he says
"everyone hates your policies so much." Many people. here and abroad DO hate "America's policies' so much, but it is because they love the ideas that are behind America and condemn it when we drift from them -- never as badly as with the recently ended period. DC Sessions has it right, we -- or the American ideals -- truly are loved throughout the world, despite the hate that is engendered when we drift away from them.
And we still are the country of choice for those who wish to escape persecution -- and one of the black eyes to progressivism was when the Beards attempted to reduce this to nothing but a desire for economic advancement. It has always been more than that, it has been 'people yearning to be free.'
This is long enough, let's see who joined in since my last long-winded post.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 26, 2009 12:22 PM
I think comedian Doug Stanhope said it best when he said, "Saying America is the greatest country in the world is like saying you're dating the hottest waitress at Denny's. It's really nothing to brag about."
Posted by: Jay | January 26, 2009 12:25 PM
While I don't wholly disagree, I think patriotism for conservatives is alot about "kicking ass" and being macho. They seem to make a festish out battling enemies and militarism.
Posted by: Sheldon | January 26, 2009 12:28 PM
Woody:
Yer later to the party, sport:
"PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first."
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911.
Posted by: NJ | January 26, 2009 12:50 PM
(This will get my fellow-atheists mad, but I have to say it.) The only place I know of where the ideas that became the idea of America appear, in an early stage, pre-enlightenment, may be the Old Testament, and many "Founding Fathers,' while not accepting the religious nature, did take OT ideas as part of their model. And, as for the Enlightenment, we did just happen to be the first country that used such ideas to form a polity.
First, Im not mad...a little crazy maybe, but not mad. Saying the founding fathers took ideas from the OT seems a bit disingenuous. There are many ideas in the OT, most of them horrific. The idea that one or two may be tangentially related to some ideas in the Declaration of Independence is more likely correlative not casual. (If you have specific examples I would enjoy hearing them.) I think the writings on government, rule, and law of the Greeks and Romans played a big part (ie Plato: The Republic). Many political thoughts from the Europeans played a profound role as well. The Magna Carta comes to mind (1215, well before the Enlightenment). Many others exist, the bible not being one of them (although I do not discount the piety of the founding fathers, nor that they actually read the bible).
Posted by: Lorax | January 26, 2009 12:50 PM
Acoording to Wikipedia (whatever that's worth):
Current immigration rates (selected):
Germany 0.92%
Argentina 0.9%
Italy 0.82%
Burundi 0.8%
Jordan 0.62%
Canada 0.48%
Irland 0.48%
Australia 0.36%
New Zealand 0.36%
Angola 0.35%
Potugal 0.34%
USA 0.32%
Posted by: DIngoJack | January 26, 2009 1:01 PM
I agree completely. Instead of complaining about flag burning and lobbying for an amendment for example, we should rejoice as a people that flag burning is a protected act of free speech in this nation. It is the Constitution that public and military officials swear to support, uphold, defend, not the flag. It is the Constitution that defines us, the same Constitution that includes a provision for Freedom Of Speech.
Posted by: John | January 26, 2009 1:07 PM
Really? Care to provide enlightenment as to your sources for this claim? My readings would give the writings of John Locke a greater influence on the thinking of the Founding Fathers. The Old Testament has nothing to say about democracy, instead we only find support for monarchical dictatorships, moderated only by a sometimes wrathful, bloodthirsty deity. English common law with its origins in Romano-Brit culture had more to do with the thinking of Jefferson, Madison and others than any passage in the Old Testament
Posted by: Somerville | January 26, 2009 1:08 PM
The passage on liberals vs. conservative patriotism rings very true. And I side extrodinarily strongly on the 'liberal' side here (although I admit to a perculiar affinity for the symbolism of flag etiquette that I blame on Girl Scouts).
"Please identify out of the roughly 200 countries in the world those that are profoundly better, not simply in relation to the low point of the Bush administration, but over the last 100 years."
Measuring, wholistically, the precise level of virtue of a nation is a near impossible task. But the stains on our history are too dark to pretend we've always been among the most enlightened.
If I'd lived in America 100 years ago, I couldn't vote due to my gender (though I could have if I'd lived in Finland or Austalia... amusingly, even Estonia got women's suffrage before the US).
(as an aside to Prup(aka Jim Benton): "Did anyone, anywhere, allow women to vote before Wyoming Territory did so? " Sweden did, long before there was a Wyoming Territory. They took it away again, at various points. But their history on women's sufferage is really interesting).
If I'd lived in America 50 years ago, in many states I wouldn't be able to marry my partner because of anti-miscegenation laws (near as I can tell from wikipedia, the only country with comparable laws during the same time was South Africa).
Living in America today, in nearly all states I wouldn't be able to marry my partner if I'd chosen someone of my own gender (as I could in Norway, Canada, or even South Africa- interesting how some people can learn from their mistakes, while others can't).
To be clear, this isn't America-bashing. This is the delibrate destruction of an Idealized Perfect Fictional America. But frankly I don't care if America, despite these horrific abuses, was the "best" country for the last hundred years. If someone has really good comparative evidence and proves me wrong, I'd be happy enough to loose that battle.
However, I care deeply about the utterly disgraceful ways in which we are abusing human rights and our founding principles right now.
Posted by: Becca | January 26, 2009 1:12 PM
I rather suspect that depends on your definition of "immigration."
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 26, 2009 1:16 PM
D C Sessions - see gcim.org -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 26, 2009 1:33 PM
My only real criticism of the essay is that the author is thinking in terms that are too binaristic--is it really the case that we are dealing with "conservatives" versus "liberals?" Don't most Americans fall somewhere on a liberal-conservative continuum? But otherwise, excellent reading (and not surprisingly, my thoughts are aligned pretty neatly with the "liberal" of the equation).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 26, 2009 1:37 PM
Lorax:
Much to say. First, about the 'horrific ideas' in the Old Testament -- or better, Hebrew Bible. Yes, they are there, but I frequently start a session of 'head meet desk' when I see comments like yours, because they assume that Jews, even Orthodox ones, treat the Bible with the same mindless literalism as do the Christians they have probably grown up with.
Jews acknowledge these 'horrific ideas' and much of the history of Jewish theology has been devoted to 'trying to figure out what God really meant since he couldn't have meant what was written literally.'
This is aided by the difference between the Jewish idea of religious discussion and teaching and the Christian one. The ultimate example of Christian religious thinking might be the Catholic Catechism -- a set of questions, each with the 'right answer' that you are supposed to memorize and quote back. -- My arm still aches with the memories of the time I had to write five copies of the whole lesson because I got one word wrong in the answer.
Protestants have the same thing, only it is the 'right answers' given by the preacher that they are supposed to accept unchallenged.
This is anathema to Jews, who don't believe in 'one right answer.' Talmud study is based on each student studying the various rabbinical authorities on a particular passage, and then presenting his own answer, which might side with either authority, attempt to find a compromise between them, or argue a completely different position. And, while I've never taken a Talmud class, sadly, I would expect that most competent teachers would view a class that all came up with the same answer as a failure.
Jews do not see the 'understanding of God's plan' as something that should or can ever be 'final' until The End. Instead, it is something that is consgtantly evolving and changing as man grows in understanding. (You may not accept the religious premise, but it is a marvelous way of thinking, expecially compared to most Christian formulations.)
As for Jewish precursors to Democratic ideas, if you get a chance, check out two books by Max. L. Dimont, JEWS, GOD AND HISTORY and THE INDESTRUCTIBLE JEWS. Both are 'popularizations, true, and I think Dimont overstates his case, but in essence I believe he is right.
Dimont is, btw, a Reform Jew who states categorically that it makes no difference if God exists or if the Jews invented the ideas and then invented a God to serve as a mouthpiece for them -- an observation that fits in with almost everything we know about early writing. Traditional societies do not easily accept innovation, and, to make a specific new point, a writer was frequently required to say not "I think..." but "my Revered Teacher who you all know, taught me..." even if he is putting his own words into the teacher's mouth. Thus while we know Socrates existed from several sources, but, despite Plato's claims, we credit Plato and not Socrates with his ideas -- we really don't know what Plato actually taught. (And the same with some of the epistles that were credited to Paul, or Peter, or John, but which were later creations using the name of the Apostle as justification.)
As for your examples, the Magna CartaS -- there were several -- were originally settlements of disputes between the monarchy, aristocracy and clergy, only later seen as 'democratic.' (We forget how frequently one group attemoted to play members of the other group against their leaders, thus the Aristocracy might grant freedom to lesser clergymen to counter the effect of the Bishops -- and Bishops would play 'lesser' lords against the 'greater.' One result of this was frequently a 'trickle-down' of freedom to the commoners, but that wasn't the main intent.)
As for Plato, as I've frequently stated, his ideas were perhaps the most antithegtical of all to modern Democracy -- and even more to the possibility of science. Yes, some of that traces more to the 'neo-Platonists,' but I'd argue they got the original ideas 'righter' than Platophiles would like to think. Plato's 'idealism' was far more the basis of totalitarians on right and left who claimed -- as hitler did -- to be the embodiment of the "Platonic ideal' of the 'will of the people.'
As for the European ideals, i specifically credited them, but pointed out that America was the first place to attempt to actually put them into practice.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 26, 2009 1:40 PM
One last response to Somerville before mundanity pulls me from the computer. Have you actually read the Old Testament, or just selections you were directed to by either preachers or atheists?
No, can't take the time right now, but think about the treatment of Kings in the OT and in Medieval literature and see which is more supportive of monarchy. (Remember the Israelites were warned against having a King and ignored the warning. And if David and Solomon are shown in a moderately favorable light, but with their flaws as well, what other king is not shown as a failure, an apostate, or a cruel fool?)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 26, 2009 1:50 PM
colour me on the left, 'cept... i just don't "get" patriotism. (i, also, didn't "get" school spirit or any other such thing.) to me, patriotism = nationalism and i don't see it's purpose, other than yet another division among the world's peoples and a great way to foster "sports fan politics".
i have no pride in something i didn't do. i had no control over where i was born. i'm american because my mother birthed me here. it wasn't like i reached outta hand, waved and said, "squish me out here pls, kthx!"
*i* hold "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". *i* believe that humans have certain "unalienable rights". so do many other nations. so do many other people.
it's quite possible to admire things that have been done both by america and within america, without having to resort to "patriotic" nonsense.
~waves the only flag she owns: POWERPUFF GIRLS FTW~
Posted by: arin | January 26, 2009 1:51 PM
Prup stated: "America was the first place to attempt to actually put them into practice."
Oh you Americans are so cute.
Yes, America invented democracy - well apart from Ancient Athens, Rome, Novgorod, Iceland (their Thing has been running since the 11th Century, when was the US formed again?) and the like. And of course you were the first to put democratic ideals into practice, unless you were a women, Black, Hispanic & etc, Don't get me started on 'secret ballots' and 'preferential voting' -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 26, 2009 2:00 PM
SLC,
"The former Soviet Union contributed jackshit to the defeat of Japan."
This isn't quite true, as it's quite certain that the Soviet Union ending their neutrality pact was a contributing factor in the eventual Japanese surrender.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 26, 2009 2:01 PM
Damn that site sucks. No organization, just loads of "part_1.pdf" links. I have other things to do today, but will suggest that these free-floating numbers sans definitions are not really much help.
All of the others that I could find using your (spell-corrected) figures were dead ends on sources and definitions. I will note, though, that the CIA [1] somehow has Afghanistan come up with 21/1000 compared to the USA at 2.92/1000. Drawing any sort of conclusion from that is ... challenging.
[1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2112.html
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 26, 2009 2:03 PM
Sadly, for some people patriotism means "Let me tell you how fucked up YOUR country is."
Posted by: WScott | January 26, 2009 2:04 PM
Prup (aka Jim Benton) wrote: Because yes, it is true that "until Americans (miraculously) invented democracy and freedom, it never existed before anywhere in the whole world?" Okay, it is slightly exaggerated, but not by much.
Claiming to be first in anything is always problematic. Certain states in ancient Greece could make that claim with much more accuracy.
...that America once accepted slavery. But she also has the chance to show how it was possible to make the change without replacing the Constitution with a 'new, improved' model -- and without needing a violent revolution.
Slavery wasn't ended because a piece of paper was signed or the Constitution was changed, it was ended because of a violent revolution in which over 600,000 people died.
Posted by: tomh | January 26, 2009 2:06 PM
Prup seems to have a lot to type, but has an odd twist that seems fevered and illucid.
"1. The former Soviet Union contributed jackshit to the defeat of Japan.
2. The former Soviet Union would have been defeated in 1941 without the aid shipped to them by Great Britain at great cost. See, "The Naval War Against Hitler," by Donald MacIntyre." Posted by: SLC | January 26, 2009 12:16 PM
1. true...especially since we spend up the use of the A-bomb to KEEP the soviets from getting a chance to sieze more territory.
2. not true. aid was limited to tinned beef and radios for a long time. only later us trucks made a big difference.(I would have to check out the book but this is my memory)
More important was the "The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact between the Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan signed in 1941, This freed up the siberian troops that turned back the Wehrmacht a the gates of Moscow. On top of the mistakes that Hitler made, that saved the soviets.
Posted by: Kevin | January 26, 2009 2:15 PM
"The former Soviet Union contributed jackshit to the defeat of Japan."This isn't quite true, as it's quite certain that the Soviet Union ending their neutrality pact was a contributing factor in the eventual Japanese surrender. Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 26, 2009 2:01 PM
err, yeah, sure,.. that and getting wacked by 2 a-bombs... If the threat of a million man invasion by the US did not make them give up I don't think losing manchuria and some islands was going to do it..
Posted by: Kevin | January 26, 2009 2:19 PM
An interesting debate. Although much of the "US is Great", "Not!" is tiresome, there are valid discussion points throughout.
However, Eurocentrist that I am, the article quoted had me thinking about the debates within the EU about Turkey's accession, and wondering whether this conservative orientation to the past (Christian roots, Napoleonic heritage, etc.) and liberal orientation to future (Spreading democracy and the welfare state, human rights, etc.) is applicable here too. Anyone care to discuss?
Ningu
PS - long-time lurker, first post. Great blog.
Posted by: ningu | January 26, 2009 2:41 PM
"(Did anyone, anywhere, allow women to vote before Wyoming Territory did so? In France -- and, I believe. Belgium -- women couldn't vote until after WWII.)"
Wikipedia to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage.
Before Wyoming we have the Corsican Republic, the Pitcairn Islands, New Jersey and South Australia.
wrt France, The Paris Commune extended voting to women in 1871 but after the fall of the commune it was restricted to men until 1944.
Posted by: Matt Heath | January 26, 2009 2:47 PM
I may look at those books, I have a backlog to read atm already. However, I am current reading The Federalist and the authors (Hamilton and Madison, so far) frequently discuss and note where certain Constitutional ideas come from and why, as well as the political and historical reasons to support a federal union. To date (not done yet), many texts have been mentioned but not the bible, old, new, Talmudic, or otherwise.
I appreciate not taking the time to list specific sources from the OT for our democratic society. However, I find it weak to address my specific sources with a such fine scalpel to make the point moot. The Magna Carta may have played the specific role you assert, however it had a foundational role. To ignore that the Magna Carta established that the king (aka leaders) was subject to the rule of law is important (although not to GWB), to skip over the fact that the Magna Carta is the source of Habeus corpus is disingenuous. If you want to argue that those don't apply because they were not adhered to or unequally applied fine. But that isn't the point, the point isn't whether these documents made a perfect society, but rather if they served as the foundational documents for our Constitution etc. Based on my readings from the founding fathers, Im right.
Posted by: Lorax | January 26, 2009 2:54 PM
DingoJack, referencing Wikipedia, suggests that 0.32% of the U.S. population that are immigrants. I think that is actually meant to be 3.2%, rather than 32/100s of a percent, correct?
But according to the Center for Immigration Studies, drawing from U.S. Census Bureau data:
The U.S. population was right about 300 million in '07, so 37.9/300 = 12.6% immigration, rather than 3.2%.
And as the formerly cited link notes, this proportion is growing.
That doesn't mean we're exactly immigrant friendly. Many of those immigrants are here illegally, many Americans are quite pissed about that, and our federal government has decided to build the mother of all walls along the U.S./Mexican border. But facts are facts (or, factoids are factoids), and the U.S. has a higher immigrant population than was previously suggested.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 26, 2009 2:58 PM
I think I will start waring a Constitution pin in place of a Flag pin.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | January 26, 2009 3:01 PM
Which is why I asked about definitions. The (much) lower number might refer to citizens, permanent residents, legal residents (including H1-B and student visas), etc.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 26, 2009 3:05 PM
"Mike Christian, who stitched a U.S. flag on the inside of his shirt and was brutally beaten by his captors in response but immediately began stitching it again, even with his ribs broken and eyes swollen nearly shut. Of course, any sane liberal would find that story stirring as well"
I must not be a sane liberal because I just don't see the point of doing such a thing. Aggravating your captors is fine, but I just don't think it's worth the beatings. When it really comes down to it, a flag is just a piece of cloth and a symbol is not worth my health.
Posted by: Eric | January 26, 2009 3:14 PM
the center for immigration studies is founded and funded by the john tanton network. as an anti-immigrant hate group, citing them is less than helpful in any discussion.
see: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=72
also,
"The Southern Poverty Law Center has described the founder of CIS and many groups associated with it as linked to several organizations that critics describe as being "openly racist."
CIS is one of several anti-immigration groups mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article [7], “In fact, CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, Project-USA and more than a half-dozen similar groups that Republicans have become disturbingly comfy with, were founded or funded (or both) by John Tanton, a retired doctor in Michigan. In addition to trying to stop immigration to the U.S., appropriate population-control measures for Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting China’s one-child policy, sterilizing Third World women and wider use of RU-486.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
Posted by: LOL@CIS | January 26, 2009 3:28 PM
Re Kevin
Let me quote from the MacIntyre book cited in my comment, page 265, 2nd paragraph.
But by taking advantage of her one great asset, command of the sea, Britain, in spite of her own desperate needs, could send material help particularly in the two weapons of which Russia was most urgently in need, tanks and aircraft.
Posted by: SLC | January 26, 2009 3:31 PM
I think whoever said the United States was the "first" democracy really meant "constitutional, representative democracy", thus excluding a pure participatory democracy like Periclean Athens. Actually, though, Michael Heath mentioned the first modern constitutional democracy: the Corsican Republic.
The King of Piedmont and Sardinia, unable to put down the rebellion in Corsica, and regarding the establishment of the Republic as a threat to monarchy in general, told the king of France that if he could conquer the island, he could have it. It took 10 years, but the one time the republicans came down out of the brush (the macchia; maquis in French) they were defeated and Corsica became part of France. Later the Prime Minister, Pascal Paoli, was the lion of progressive circles all over Western Europe, and the Corsican Republic was a great inspiration to the Founding Fathers in America (though not, unfortunately, as Michael Heath pointed out, on women's suffrage.)
Rebels in France have used the term Maquis to refer to themselves many times over the centuries, most recently in WWII, so the inspiration of the Corsican Republic hasn't died out yet. Unfortunately, one of the ministers in the government (I think he held several) also contributed his son, Napoleone Buonaparte, to French civilization, and I think we all know how that turned out. Also, the United States failed to follow in the footsteps of the Corsican Republic in formally designating as "Head of State" the Virgin Mary!
Posted by: Lurkbot | January 26, 2009 3:49 PM
Posted by: Matt Heath | January 26, 2009 4:37 PM
I would think that 600,000 dead qualifies as violent. Perhaps I misunderstand you, or perhaps youve just blocked 4 1/2 years of US history out of your mind, but I seem to recall a very violent episode that was required to make that change.
Posted by: Dave | January 26, 2009 5:07 PM
SLC,
I'm not saying you didn't read it (you have many good posts), and, without checking, I wouldn't say it was false, but..
"two weapons of which Russia was most urgently in need, tanks and aircraft"
Russia lost tens of thousands of tanks and none of it made a difference until the T-34c showed up in numbers. I have studied the eastern front for years and never saw any reference to tanks supplied by the British.
tinned meat..yes..and I do remember a little bit about planes, but they were not a factor in 41. was this a british author by any chance?
I recently re-read H Guderian and von Manstein's accounts of the war in the east and about 5 recently written biographies of germans on the eastern front...
here is something from dec 41, which has the word yet, implying that some were sent...
"Tanks and airplanes will have to be supplied in yet larger quantities, as, if Moscow falls, Russia will lack.." "..Statistics, released by the United States Department of Commerce, show that shipments to the Soviet Union in August, the latest month for which figures are available, amounted to $9,038,000 "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/1941/12/warfronts.htm
but the source is suspect. some numbers I saw say over 4 years of war the allies gave the russians 7,056 tanks and 14,795 aircraft while russian production was 105,251 and 157,261, respectively. whereas trucks and jeeps were 375,883 + 51,503 vs 197,100 so that really made a difference.
but it was a long time ago....
Posted by: Kevin | January 26, 2009 5:23 PM
@ Taz -
Where in MI, I live in Portage.
Dingo Jack -
First, yes, for all of human history, tyranny was rule. Even back in the prehistory (before roughly 30,000 years ago) the precursor to formal tribalism was pack mentality. The dominant male was in charge. Mind you, this is pre-language.
And while you note some very great civilizations that contributed greatly to the U.S. constitution, all the societies you list were primarily tyrannical societies. While they all had their moments, they were farther from the reality of the U.S. than the U.S. is from our own ideals.
Moreover, I daresay that few of us here actually see the U.S. as anywhere near our ideals. While some of us may argue about our superiority on the world stage, I think most of us admit that there is much we could be doing far better. At the same time, I think it's important to recognize that there isn't a country in the world that isn't quite a distance from perfection.
For my own part, ever since I discovered that the U.S. I grew up learning about in school, simply does not exist, I have sought to see that ideal I learned about become a reality. While my place in it may be small, while I fear the day will never come close - I want nothing more than to see that America become a reality. Because I can say with a great deal of confidence, that the America I learnt about in school, would absolutely be the greatest nation in the world.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 26, 2009 5:29 PM
Kevin:
I am NOT SLC.
I didn't make any comment about the Soviet Union and Japan -- all I said was the gullibility of Stalin made much of the advance of Hitler possible. According to most reports, especially Roy Medvedev, Stalin was not executing a 'brilliant tactical manuever' in the Ribbentrop Pact. He really expected Hitler to honor it, and was as surprised as anyone when Hitler invaded. (Medvedev argues that his response was simply to get drunk for a few days.)
But you have it right re Stalin and Japan. As far as I know -- my source is somewhat dubious and it is not an area I focused on -- the pre-War Japanese Government was divided between a "Strike North" faction (attack the USSR, make peace or declare neutrality with the US) and a "Strike South" faction (attack US, peace with the USSR).
The 'Strike South' faction won, the neutrality Pact was signed, and both sides kept it until after Hiroshima, when Stalin showed up, plate and knife and fork in hand.
(One problem with discussing the USSR is that I have long argued that Stalin -- if not Lenin with the NEP -- had abandoned the unworkable Communism. Stalin had substituted a 'neo-Tsarism" with a veneer of Marxian rhetoric -- and had basically declared "Marx meant what I say he meant." And the Russian people, culturally conditioned by the 'Caesaropapism' of Tsarist Russia even if they'd nominally abandoned the religion, gave Stalin much of the same "The Tsar can do no wrong, because he's sent by God. If we are suffering it is because of his 'evil ministers' and if he only knew what was going on..." (With both examples, this is a prime example of the reality-clouding ability of much religions.)
(Side digression. By most reports, Tsar Alexander was as true a believer in his own Divine Right as were his followers. And other rulers of the time were equally convinced their power came from God -- see some of Kaiser Wilhelm's more hilarious effusions. The great result of WWI was to finally end 'monarchy' (not 'Constitutional Monarchy') as a credible form of Government, as the Islamic Caliph, Tsar Nicholas, the Hapsburgs, and Kaiser Willy each watched their pretensions disappear one after another -- interestingly enough, each Monarch based his claim to 'Divine Right" on a different religion.)
Back on topic, or wherever the topic has got to. Various claimed precursors of American Democracy. Novgorod? Even if you ignore the 'traditionalism' of the society, there is considerable dispute as to how 'democratic' this was, and there was still always the Prince and the nobility (boyars) who may have been the true controllers. I think we give the socity far too much credit if we see it as anything resembling a democracy, simply because it was possible for mob rule to 'retire' the Prince.
As for Iceland, I don't know enough to argue it, but there is little doubt that it had almost no effect on events elsewhere. (Was it one of the governments John Adams studied? Possibly, but remember, contrary to your statement, this was not continuous, but the Althing was a re-establishment in 1845 of an earlier 'parliament' that had existed until 1799, and even in it's reestablished form was -- in the original English fashion -- a formal group of 'Advisors to the King' not a true independent branch.)
I do agree that Athens was something of an early model for America. I'd also argue that every time we have celebrated a positive change in American Democracy, we've celebrated a move away from Athens.
Both Democracies were, originally, all-male, property-based, slavery-based (though not racial slavery -- however Greeks were not known for friendliness to non-Greeks in general), and only the upper classes could vote. (Thoguh there was a much greater proportion of people voting, I believe, even in early America.) We've changed every one of these, but Athens never did -- and while this might be blamed on the shortness it existed, the US had the Constitution, which provided an 'expansion slot' that Athens never had.
(Of course, we also, out of necessity, accepted a representative rather than a direct Democracy, and, again, the Constitution and the Supreme Court provided a break on the unfettered popular will. Imagine for a minute if we had adopted the idea of 'ostratization' (sp?) in the Greek sense. What American political figure we revere or even respect wouldn't have gathered enough shards in his urn to be banished from the country? Who would have dared suggest changes, if this was a possible result -- even if we ignore Aristedes the Just, banished because people were tired of hearing him called that.)
No, I'm sorry, but I will repeat the phrase that annoyed some, though i can't find where I said it or if I quoted it. Yes, America (miraculously) invented Democracy -- in the sense it is used today. Maybe specifically "Constitutional Representative Democracy."
Oh, and one side note. No we did not 'need to have a Revolution to abolish slavery.' What is true that the chance to do it came -- I'm not sure that it is the only way it could have come -- after a failed Revolution against a government that threatened no more than to limit slavery to where it already existed. But that is considerably different from the idea of starting a revolution because it is the only way that a change could occur -- what John Brown tried, sadly and horribly. The North did not start the Southern Revolution, and fought in defense of the Union, not to abolish slavery until well into the war.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 26, 2009 5:30 PM
Posted by: Lurkbot | January 26, 2009 5:41 PM
LOL@CIS,
Argument by ad hominem--brilliant. I don't agree with the Center for Immigration Studies' ideology, but their data is taken from the U.S. Census Bureau (as I noted), and to make a rebuttal you have to rebut that data, not just say "they're bad people." That's what intelligent debate is about. You failed.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 26, 2009 5:43 PM
"err, yeah, sure,.. that and getting wacked by 2 a-bombs... If the threat of a million man invasion by the US did not make them give up I don't think losing manchuria and some islands was going to do it.."
Try actually reading what I wrote. My exact words were that the Soviets ending their neutrality pact was a "contributing factor" to the Japanese surrender, which it certainly was. It in no way conflicts with the notion that the a-bombs were also a factor and/or even the dominant factor.
Though one problem with the conventional wisdom on this issue is that the Japanese had already shown their willingness to sacrifice many cities to conventional firebombing. My personal opinion is that the A-bombs were the dominant cause of the surrender but by no means were the only thing that broke their resolve, or could have broken their resolve.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 26, 2009 6:58 PM
@ SLC
"1. The former Soviet Union contributed jackshit to the defeat of Japan."
Without the pressure on Germany by having to fight on two fronts, it is unlikely that the Allied invasion of France in 1944 would have been attempted, much less succeeded. The European war would likely have dragged on for another 5 or 10 years, diverting most US resources from the Pacific theater to Europe. Even the atomic bomb would have had much less effect lacking the forward air bases from which to launch bombers.
"2. The former Soviet Union would have been defeated in 1941 without the aid shipped to them by Great Britain at great cost."
Great Britain, after Dunkirk, was virtually broke - it relied a lot on the US lend/lease program to continue its war efforts. Most aid to former Soviet Union came from the US via Arctic shipping routes. The cost was indeed great.
Posted by: Alan | January 26, 2009 7:45 PM
Tyler, read what I wrote. I don't think that the breaking of the treaty had ANY effect on the Jap williness to surrender. None. We had a huge fleet offshore and thousands of airplanes burning their cities to the ground and they were not ready to surrender. The idea that Russia had even the smallest influence on them seems to me unfounded.
Posted by: Kevin | January 26, 2009 8:47 PM
"Kevin:
I am NOT SLC."
ha say that again....
Kevin:
I am NOT SLC.
Posted by: Kevin | January 26, 2009 8:50 PM
Re: Influences on American Democracy -- no mention so far of American Indians. Check out Iroquois.net, specifically the page titled "The Six Nations: Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth."
(http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/index.html#fn1#fn1)
(Edited) quote: The people of the Six Nations, also known by the French term, Iroquois Confederacy, call themselves the Hau de no sau nee (ho dee noe sho nee) meaning People Building a Long House. Located in the northeastern region of North America, originally the Six Nations was five and included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. The sixth nation, the Tuscaroras, migrated into Iroquois country in the early eighteenth century. Together these peoples comprise the oldest living participatory democracy on earth. Their story, and governance truly based on the consent of the governed, contains a great deal of life-promoting intelligence for those of us not familiar with this area of American history. The original United States representative democracy, fashioned by such central authors as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations.
To add to this: They had a written Constitiution, impeachment, and women ran the show (elected the Chiefs)
Posted by: Chasbo | January 26, 2009 8:50 PM
Posted by: Dave | January 26, 2009 9:01 PM
"Patriotism, though it is based upon the natural and indeed instinctive love of home, has been elevated in the modern world into an unparalleled congeries of imbecilities. What it demands of the individual citizen, as a practical matter, is that he yield not only his judgment but also his property and even his life to whatever gang of scheming politicians happen to be in power."
--H.L. Mencken
Posted by: Jeff | January 26, 2009 9:12 PM
"We had a huge fleet offshore and thousands of airplanes burning their cities to the ground and they were not ready to surrender."
The first surrender offer came in July of 1945, about a month before the Soviets broke the treaty and invaded Manchuria. Granted that it wasn't the unconditional surrender the Allies demanded, but it did show a willingness the surrender.
Also keep in mind that losing Manchuria wasn't the only likely consequence of war with the Soviet, as Stalin's advance would be highly unlikely to stop there.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 26, 2009 9:30 PM
Chasbo:
The Iroquois did all of that? No wonder the europeans had to exterminate them.
To any readers:
Re: The effect of the russians on the conduct and outcome of WWII. It's much too complicated a situation to say for sure what might have happened if the russians has sat it out or had not joined with the Nazis and the Chrysanthemum throne in the two treaties. It is fair to say that the russians got more than a little help. It is also fair to say that the Kriegsmarine was very busy dealing with the Murmansk Run and thus was able to lend much less in the way of naval forces to either the Japanese or the Italians, which came back to haunt them--this is not conjecture on my part, it is information from German naval planners and their commanding officers.
Posted by: democommie | January 26, 2009 9:55 PM
It rather reminds me of Euripides' play "Medea". The key scene (in my view) is the one where Iason and Medea argue at their front gate over who is the worse parent.
I always wanted to put into Iason's mouth the words:
"Yeah, at least in my plan, the kids would be alive!"
But that's my modern morality being projected into an classical world. Euripides' audience would have thought such a statement as irrelevant, or impious or perhaps insane.
"The past is a different country". Imposing your modern morality and definitions onto it can be fraught with danger*. The question is how did they see their world?
As for prehistory - that's my point in a nutshell. PREhistory, therefore no written record, therefore a great deal of uncertainty in exactly how society was organised. I would suspect you might be right in some cases (Alpha male dominated bands, living lives that are 'nasty, brutish and short'), but not in others.
I'm not disagreeing with the whole, just one very general, sweeping statement. -DJ
PS Which would you say was more 'democratic'? Sparta or Athens? Why or why not?
Posted by: DIngoJack | January 26, 2009 10:47 PM
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 26, 2009 9:30 PM
Tyler, what are we arguing about here? The reasons why the Japanese surrendered unconditionaly as the Allies demanded?
If so, I say its the bomb 99% and 1% is for everything else including buring their cities and a massive invasion fleet off shore. and the russians..
Posted by: Kevin | January 26, 2009 10:50 PM
@JamesHanley: no, the "epic fail" is all on you. cite a source that has credibility, if you're going to bother to cite one. it's simple, easy. even you can handle it.
Posted by: LOL@JamesHanley | January 26, 2009 11:05 PM
DJ, I usually find myself agreeing with you, but you don't seem to have stopped to process the words "norm" and "principles" before firing off this reply. This troubles me.
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 26, 2009 11:37 PM
Emphasis mine:
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 26, 2009 11:50 PM
Ackyroth - Cheers for that. Now I know that Sparta wasn't a tyranny (TWO kings). :)
I thought it would have mentioned that a tyrant is similar to dictator. A person appointed to hold supreme power during a particular problem, war or disaster, or someone given supreme power to solve a particular problem (I guess what you might call 'a czar'). -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 27, 2009 12:22 AM
"Re Dingojack
I think the time has come to remind Mr. Dingojack that, absent US intervention in the 2nd World War, Mr. Tojo and Mr. Hitler would have conducted triumphal marches through the streets of Melbourne and Sydney."
This is horseshit.
A slightly more believable counterfactual would be to suggest that without Australia and the rest of the Dominions supporting the UK prior to DEcember 1941, the triumphal marches would have occurred in Washington and New YoRk.
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 27, 2009 2:24 AM
Hi. Occasional reader (American) here and I felt like commenting. A lot of the discussion in comments plays into a conservative mindset, namely, ranking the countries. With characteristic emphasis on competition, the right in this country sees America, by definition, as the greatest nation. Hence criticisms of our policies or past are seen as attempts to knock us down a peg. At the same time, America's lapses can always be excused by pointing out our successes or other nations' failures. So who cares if we torture or wiretap? At least we're not the Russians, and anyways, we invented democracy and beat Hitler so who are you to criticize? Naturally this isn't about historical facts but about deniability: as long as we're plausibly better we are justified.
To a liberal mindset like my own this is stomach churning because we're not competing with other peoples, we're competing with our own ideal of ourselves. It is frankly BS that we always get it right in the end or we eventually right ourselves. I'm hopeful that we're glacially moving towards a better future, but that doesn't in the least excuse us in the present.
The analogy to families is apt enough. But the conservative attitude is a kind of ancestor veneration and tribal identification that reminds me of feudal societies and mafia/street-gang dynamics. Essentially you gain protection and acceptance in exchange for loyalty and opposition to the enemy.
Posted by: Escher | January 27, 2009 2:28 AM
"Re: The effect of the russians on the conduct and outcome of WWII. It's much too complicated a situation to say for sure what might have happened"
No! No! No!
It's actaully very simple.
Defeating the Axis was good.
America is the source of all that is good in the world.
Therefore America was responsible for defeating the Axis.
Anyone who says different is a a dirty freedom-hating foreigner.
Or a traitor.
The difference between far too many American liberals and Conservatives when it comes to patriotism is that the liberals preface their ignorant bigotry with "Well, OF COURSE, America's not PERFECT..."
Much of the time I prefer the less hypocritical conservative stance.
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 27, 2009 2:44 AM
Ian Gould:
I know part of that is snark, but I'm not sure where it switched off.
Posted by: democommie | January 27, 2009 6:26 AM
DJ -
PS Which would you say was more 'democratic'? Sparta or Athens? Why or why not?
Honestly, that's a moot point. While both were democracies, both were also tyrannical. Tyranny is not just defined by having a single ruler. The law was simply the will of the majority of voters, which in itself was far from the majority of adult people in either state.
I would also argue that while the U.S. had an underlying rule of law that nominally restricted the majority's ability to lord over minority, we were still a tyranny for much of the early history of our nation. But even early in our history, we had a stronger foundational rule of law than any other nation at the time. Though it was far from perfect in practical terms, no one man was above the law.
Given the opportunity, I will try to go into this in more depth at my own blog. But I have been rather focused on a discussion of eugenics and I'm really busy with school, so I'm not making any promises.
The question is how did they see their world?
No, it's really not. The question is how did their world compare to ours, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument. Your original point had nothing to do with the contemporary views of those living in ancient cultures, it was a direct comparison of the U.S. to those cultures. There is little question that those states were far superior to other states of the time. That does not mean that they weren't tyrannies.
As for prehistory - that's my point in a nutshell. PREhistory, therefore no written record, therefore a great deal of uncertainty in exactly how society was organised. I would suspect you might be right in some cases (Alpha male dominated bands, living lives that are 'nasty, brutish and short'), but not in others.
There isn't as much uncertainty as you seem to think there is. We have innumerable examples in the animal kingdom today. While some are better/more diverse than others, the fact is that survival without complex language requires a certain level of tyranny.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 27, 2009 7:43 AM
Re Alan
Without the pressure on Germany by having to fight on two fronts, it is unlikely that the Allied invasion of France in 1944 would have been attempted, much less succeeded. The European war would likely have dragged on for another 5 or 10 years, diverting most US resources from the Pacific theater to Europe. Even the atomic bomb would have had much less effect lacking the forward air bases from which to launch bombers.
I agree that the Normandy invasion would never have been attempted in 1944 absent the massive German commitment against the former Soviet Union. However, I would point out that all of Germany would have been in range of B29s flying from bases in Britain (AFAIK the B29 was never committed to the European theater) so that the nuclear bomb could have been employed against Germany in 1945. However, Mr. Alan is correct as it would have been 1947 or 1948 before sufficient nuclear bombs would have been produced to completely destroy Germany. It should be noted that the German nuclear program never got off the ground so they would have been unable to retaliate.
Posted by: SLC | January 27, 2009 8:46 AM
For those who want the info on B-29's, one source:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-296.html
Somewhere in my pile of books I have a thickish volume on Hirohito. The author of that book is convinced that it was Hirohito himself who made many of the decisions, that he was not some "gilded hostage" to the likes of Tojo. The author also states that Tojo's execution as a war criminal got the wrong man--that he believes it should have been Hirohito. Interesting book.
Posted by: democommie | January 27, 2009 9:30 AM
Beinart: "Conservatives know America isn't perfect, of course. But they grade on a curve. Partly that's because they generally take a dimmer view of human nature than do their counterparts on the left. "
No, they aren't grading on a curve; they prefer to sweep things under the rug, or justify them as good. Only as a third choice do they resort to 'others did worse'.
Posted by: Barry | January 27, 2009 10:30 AM
Brandon said, paraphrasing Senator (!) Franken:
I would say rather more like a parent loves their child. If the child does wrong, we correct him/her. If they show a pattern of destructive misbehavior, we may have to practice tough love; but it is love nonetheless.
Posted by: BaldApe | January 27, 2009 10:55 AM
BaldApe--
I don't think this is a very apt analogy for the simple reason that most parents love their children unconditionally, as you note in your comment. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly do not love my country unconditionally, nor do I think anyone should. The other difference is that, since countries do not exist apart from the people who inhabit and administer them, new leadership and different political trends can help steer a country back onto a path that one considers more conducive to liberty or personal happiness. If a child has been fucked up by its parents from an early age, recovery can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, depending on the level of damage. A nation is much more malleable than a human being.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 27, 2009 12:11 PM
Sadie Morrison said:
"I can only speak for myself, but I certainly do not love my country unconditionally, nor do I think anyone should."
You're not a conservative, are you ;-)
No analogy is perfect. What I was trying to get at is the responsibility citizens have to keep their country in line rather than accepting everything about their country just because it is their country.
I'm not a conservative either.
Posted by: BaldApe | January 27, 2009 12:26 PM
One of my favorite essays on the subject was written by Ralph Nader:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/NewPatriotism_RNR.html
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | January 27, 2009 12:50 PM
Democommie, if your book is JAPAN'S IMPERIALIST CONSPIRACY -- this is the same source I used but referred to as 'dubious.' It's a great read, very thought-provoking, but every comment I've seen implies it should not be read if the salt shaker is empty.
(If it isn't, please let me know what it is.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 27, 2009 12:57 PM
Hey SLC....
this site backs me up re the tanks. hardly seen in 41, not many ever, and mostly ineffective and not as good as the russian designs...
http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Vehicles/russian/lendleasetanks.htm
Posted by: Kevin | January 27, 2009 4:13 PM
Prup:
This is an aside and not especially relevant to the conversation, but Title IX was about gender equality in federally funded education programs. It was not written to have anything to do with sports. That it later came to be the driving legal factor in the phenomenal rise in participation and interest in women's scholastic and collegiate sports is a happy unanticipated consequence to all of us female athletes.
Posted by: Cassidy | January 27, 2009 5:06 PM
Prup:
I think that is not its title. It is really buried in my effects which are in storage while I renovate my shack. But when I next see it I will try to remember the title.
Posted by: democommie | January 27, 2009 9:54 PM
SLC:
Why SLC, you're a conservative! I never knew.
Posted by: llewelly | January 28, 2009 7:18 AM
Duwaune - Your projecting your morality and values onto the past again, please see my comment further upthread about Medea.
Your point about tyrannies not being defined by how many had power see Azkyroth @ January 26, 2009 11:50 PM. More than one tyrant is an oligarchy or the like, by definition.
If Athens (or Sparta) could be a tyranny and a democracy at the same time (which, as I said, it can't by definition) then any country can be both. Judging states by out standards is simply a measure of relative tyranny, which is, in itself, an activity fraught with the danger of exaggeration. We could interpret a society though the lens of the modern world, while being too immersed in our own world to be impartial.
As to animals and prehistory, what are you saying? Medieval kingdoms were run like troops of baboons? If you are referring to Goodall's observation of Gorillas, that only goes so far. Animals in the forests of Niger and the Congo, didn't show the same behaviours. It could be that they are aberrant behaviours. Anyway animal behaviours are analogies, not histories. (I was thinking more along the lines of modern humans, not so much pre- or protohumans) -DJ
PS Please tell me when you have posted on this on your blog I'd love to read it.
Posted by: DingoJack | January 28, 2009 8:38 AM
DJ, (Off Topic)
When my wife came to this country, she chose Medea as her anglicized name.
I never got that. I always told her that wanting a name from mythology and choosing Medea is like wanting a biblical name and choosing Judas or Jezebel.
Maybe she meant for it to make a precautionary impression on her future husband and kids.
The real flaw in her plan was that virtually everyone in the U.S. pronounced it as "Media." Surprising, given our nation's success in providing everyone with a classic education.
Posted by: heddle | January 28, 2009 8:47 AM
DJ -
I am projecting on purpose. In the context of this conversation, we are making direct comparisons, so not only is it reasonable to do so, it's essential.
More than one tyrant is an oligarchy or the like, by definition.
If Athens (or Sparta) could be a tyranny and a democracy at the same time (which, as I said, it can't by definition) then any country can be both.
But that is exactly the point. Democracy in and of itself is almost always going to be a very bad thing. And while the U.S. is far from perfect, the only thing that keeps us from being infinitely uglier is our constitution.
Don't hold your breath for a post on this. I have a lot on my plate at the moment. I am going to try to get to it, but I am not sure how long it will be. In the mean time, feel free to wander over anyways. I have a couple posts about eugenics, a few on addiction and the drug war, as well as some odds and ends. Mostly I will be focusing on addiction and our social/political addiction paradigm, as I am working on a paper on that topic.
I'm going to school now, so my blogging will reflect that a lot. Although intriguingly enough, my humanities class is discussing ancient Greece at the moment, so I may get to democracy sooner than later.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 28, 2009 4:39 PM
DuWayne:
I often disagree with your take on things, but I just gotta say this. IIRC you've stated in the past that you do woodworking/carpentry for a living? Well, I'm gonna say that you are easily the smartest friggin' carpenter/woodworker I've met in years--and I know some really smart folks who make a living with their hands. Okay, now I'll go back to being disagreeable with someone--there must be someone who posts on this blog that I can disagree with in a disagreeable way.
Posted by: democommie | January 29, 2009 8:36 AM