|
Recent years have seen a surge
in "patriotic feeling" across the US.
One expression of this is the flag, which is now routinely seen on cars,
shop fronts, windows, roofs, even jacket lapels. Many diehard
patriots refuse to see the
frequent immorality of US foreign policies abroad; criticizing them is held incompatible with
patriotism in some quarters; questioning the war on terrorism is to flirt
with treason. Zell Miller roared in the last Republican convention:
"nothing makes this marine madder than someone calling American troops
occupiers rather than liberators."
The more thoughtful or liberal
Americans might say that the above is clearly a crude and regressive view
of patriotism, that there are other, progressive ways of being patriotic.
They might say, for instance, that peace is patriotic (on lots of bumper
stickers), or demanding transparency and accountability in US foreign
policy is patriotic. Well-intentioned as these folks are, they are falling
victim to the same conceptual trap. What they ought to change are the
terms of the debate itself.
I believe there
should be no room
for patriotism in
the mind of the
thinking person.
Patriotism, by
definition, is
exclusive. It shuts
out some, focusing
one's loyalty on a
smaller group based
on territory. It's
even more incoherent
in a multicultural
state with lots of
identities,
disparity, and
conflicts of
interest. Just as a
thinking person
strives to rise
above nationalism,
so should he with
its cousin,
patriotism. British
author George
Monbiot has
argued that
there is no such
thing as liberal
patriotism:
And what, exactly,
would a liberal
patriotism look
like? When
confronted with a
conflict between the
interests of your
country and those of
another, patriotism,
by definition,
demands that you
choose those of your
own.
Internationalism, by
contrast, means
choosing the option
that delivers most
good or least harm
to people,
regardless of where
they live. It tells
us that someone
living in Kinshasa
is of no less worth
than someone living
in Kensington, and that a policy which
favours the
interests of 100
British people at
the expense of 101
Congolese is one we
should not pursue.
Patriotism, if it
means anything,
tells us we should
favour the interests
of the 100 British
people. How do you
reconcile this
choice with
liberalism? How, for
that matter, do you
distinguish it from
racism?
In his courageous
book,
Citizens of the Empire,
Robert Jensen observes: "patriotism is not only a bad idea but literally a
threat to the survival of the planet. We should abandon patriotism and
strive to become more fully developed human beings not with shallow
allegiances to a nation but with rich and deep ties to humanity." As
Monbiot notes
about his own feelings for his country,
I don't hate Britain, and I am
not ashamed of my nationality, but I have no idea why I should love this
country more than any other. There are some things I like about it and
some things I don't, and the same goes for everywhere else I've visited.
To become a patriot is to lie to yourself, to tell yourself that whatever
good you might perceive abroad, your own country is, on balance, better
than the others.. The world will be a happier and safer place when we stop
putting our own countries first.
Patriotism is
nothing but yoke for the simpleton and refuge for the scoundrel. The word
belongs in a bin with other words like prejudice, racism, bigotry,
chauvinism, sexism. There is no such thing as good patriotism. |
