Bring back patriotism

Following on from Peter’s note on the concept of American exceptionalism last week, I’ve been thinking about the topic of patriotism. It’s something that gets a bad rap these days in a way that it totally didn’t when I was a kid. Of course, some of that is place specific. I grew up in rural Indiana where we happily said the pledge of allegiance every day at school and where corporal punishment was still legal (or at least the principal at my elementary school thought it was). I now live in a very pleasant, affluent and all too smugly progressive part of Brooklyn where putting a flag in front of your house would quickly brand you a Trump supporter.

That’s not a good thing, in my mind. I think Democrats in particular need to re-embrace patriotism in a more public way. Certainly, the president is patriotic. While his D-Day speech might not have reached the heights of the one that the great Peggy Noonan penned for Ronald Reagan 40 years ago, it certainly evoked a kind of patriotic pride that I think most Americans feel when they think about their nation’s historic role in the second world war. That kind of patriotism, the kind that is about collectivism and service, is what we should be embracing.

Unfortunately, like so many things, the concept of patriotism seems to have become bifurcated. You have Maga supporters who flaunt their patriotism, and then you have urban progressives who are sort of embarrassed about the very idea of loving one’s country. It’s incredible to me, for example, that when people see active military personnel in public places such as airports, more of us don’t thank them for their service (though I’m glad that the airlines typically do). I think many of us have just become so rich and isolated from any kind of real struggle or conflict that we forget what sacrifice is.

I think it’s also important to remember the difference between nationalism and patriotism. I think some of our European peers sometimes see flag waving in the US as problematic, or inherently xenophobic. But that is, to me, like conflating the trade and economic policies of Joe Biden and Donald Trump (something that too many Europeans do as well). Just as “Make America Great Again” isn’t the same as “Build Back Better,” insularity and hostility to the “other” isn’t the same as being proud of being part of a nation of immigrants.

In fact, to the extent that patriotism helps bond citizens in a diverse liberal democracy together, it may be essential to maintaining a free and open society. I was at an American Compass event in Washington a few months ago and a staffer there pointed me to the book Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America, which is a 1998 collection of three essays (adapted from lectures) by Richard Rorty, a left-leaning academic philosopher. The first essay is “American National Pride: Whitman and Dewey”, in which Rorty distinguishes between a pragmatic progressive left, and a defeatist cultural left that can only criticise, but not build. Here’s a bit of the opening paragraph:

National pride is to countries what self-respect is to individuals: a necessary condition for self-improvement. Too much national pride can produce bellicosity and imperi­alism, just as excessive self-respect can produce arrogance. But just as too little self-respect makes it difficult for a person to display moral courage, so insufficient national pride makes energetic and effective debate about national policy unlikely. Emotional involvement with one’s country — feel­ings of intense shame or of glowing pride aroused by various parts of its history, and by various present-day national poli­cies — is necessary if political deliberation is to be imagina­tive and productive. Such deliberation will probably not occur unless pride outweighs shame.

Sounds smart to me. Peter, would you agree?

Recommended reading

• I was jealous that I didn’t write Bret Stephens’ D-Day op-ed in The New York Times, about how Europe needs to get its act together politically, economically and militarily. Bold, true words.

• This Bloomberg piece on how Detroit’s growing revival has been orchestrated by a handful of billionaires shows the promise of the city, but also the limitations of what can be done in lieu of a broader, more organic recovery in the larger community. And do read my colleagues Claire Jones and Eva Xiao on what Michigan’s boom says about the Biden economy.

• I’d agree with this NYT opinion piece by two Harvard professors arguing that the university, along with others, should say less about politics. Colleges are places to learn, and should be free speech zones. But that’s not the same as being advocates for particular positions, even when students (who are, let’s face it, the customers) are pushing for that.

• I must admit I took a certain perverse pleasure in writing my recent column about how management consulting, which has disrupted so many industries, is finally getting the sharp end of the stick itself.

Peter Spiegel responds

Rana, I had never heard of Rorty until you brought him to my attention, but I like his definition of national pride. A lot of what constitutes American national mythology is just that: mythology. But much of it is still worth aspiring to, particularly the notion that the US is a country based on ideas rather than blood, and that anyone can become an American simply by subscribing to those ideals. 

And yet, as you say, much of the left has abandoned the field to the nationalist, Trumpian right, which has co-opted the symbols that once constituted non-partisan patriotism, down to the flying of the flag. I found it telling that the Revolution-era “Appeal to Heaven” flag was quickly taken down from San Francisco’s city hall last month, once the city government realised it had been adopted by January 6 insurrectionists — and flown at Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s New Jersey beach house. 

On the day of last week’s D-Day 80th anniversary, the Pew Research Center put out a report showing that only 23 per cent of Americans still believe the US is, in the words of the early American preacher John Winthrop, a “city on a hill” that stands above other nations. And there are sharp divisions between Trump and Biden supporters: only 12 per cent of Biden backers believe the US stands above other countries, while 34 per cent of Trump voters do. 

The divisions are even starker when age is taken into account, with older Americans far more willing to believe the US stands out while only 4 per cent of Biden supporters under the age 34 believing in the notion. That supports your anecdotal perceptions about the declining acceptance of overt patriotism, particularly on the political left, over the last four or five decades.

Still, the sad state of American national pride is not without its caveats. For many overseas, the decline in the belief of American exceptionalism may be a welcome bit of humility for a country that has frequently allowed its national pride to turn into international arrogance on the world stage. And the Pew findings can be overstated: clear majorities of both Trump and Biden supporters agreed with the statement that the US is “one of the greatest countries, along with others”. That sounds about right to me.

Regardless, I find it hard to believe any American could watch the D-Day ceremonies and not get misty-eyed. You’re right that Biden was less than Reaganesque at Pointe du hoc, but in case you missed it, listen to US Navy Lt Cdr Katherine Miyamasu read a special version of the traditional naval poem “The Watch”, which she dedicated to American war veterans both living and dead during the D-Day commemorations. The very definition of national pride that we should all aspire to. 

Your feedback

And now a word from our Swampians . . .

In response to “Trump’s conviction and the end of American exceptionalism”:
“In regard to doubts about American exceptionalism: The core of American exceptionalism is the fact that the United States is the only country founded on an idea and with the idea having a basis in enlightenment philosophy. Because the ideals expressed by this idea and philosophy were not fully actualised at the founding does not change the fact that no other country in history has been created in such a manner. That makes it exceptional.

Second, and far more concerning, was the apparent support for “collectivism” over “individualism”. The Soviet Union was collectivist and it was an abject failure. But worse, collectivism in any of its forms, whether a government or groups such as those based on identity politics are anathema to the human spirit. Further, to use Trump as an example of an “individualist” is to distort the entire concept of individualism.

Thankfully there are still people in positions of influence who realise the great gift that individuality and individualism are. To quote Shilo Brooks, a professor at Princeton (of all places!), speaking to The Free Press, “I’m teaching more than just these books,” he added. “I’m teaching a way of making sure your spirit survives the pressures that are put on it and that you remain a unique individual.” — Henry D Wolfe