You have opened up an interesting topic.

Let me start by saying that historically the political left in the USA was not particularly against patriotism, and the political right was not closely identified with patriotism. What we see today grew out of the cold war and the struggles against communism.

Since we were in a life or death struggle with the radical left, then naturally those who could have no enemies to the left had to of necessity identify themselves with non or even anti patriot positions.

If you go back in time though, you will see that the conservative, or traditionalist, or even more the libertarian, has often had a hard time being patriotic in one sense. In the sense that although he might love his country he does not love, and perhaps does not trust it’s government. And at least one strain of conservatism has always been somewhat isolationist and even pacifistic in nature.

I believe that we might be moving back toward that sort of positioning again. With the exception that I don’t see the left becoming any more patriotic, even with lefties in charg of the government.

I’m still working my way through the thought process. It’s a little heavy fare for Friday afternoon.

But right off the bad, I agree on a couple of levels. Unbridled democracy is irrational and devolves very quickly to no rights at all for anybody. Second, patriotism is a slightly more complicated topic than we give it credit for.

It was very easy during the Bush presidency to point at the left undermining the war effort, and say “not patriots”. And we were right. However, I’m not sure we had thought all the way through WHY we were right, we simply took the easiest explanation.

Now that we are dealing with an ultra-toxic ideology running the government and leading us down the garden path to the swamp, it’s not as easy to figure out what is patriotism, for those who don’t want America to go down that path.

Not that we won’t get there.

This comment is not a direct response to the above just some personal thoughts.

The Constitution allows me to be a free man living in ordered liberty (Mark Levin’s words) that says that one man can pursue freedom, within the law, anyway he wants and not be beholden to state or charity.

Is there economic patriotism? The greedy man who starts a business, employs people in the creation of product or service may after legally pursuing that personal economy keep every penny for himself. The opposite may be true as well, the potential millionaire may live as a pauper and voluntarily give everything away.

But then before we judge the greedy man what if the people he employs happen to be the most generous charitable people in the community? They would not have had the means for this charity without the job that was privided by the greedy man’s intellectual capital.

What about the notion of service to ones country, especially military service? To be honest – and Redstaters can “have at me” for this comment – philosophically I have always had trouble with the draft, mainly its coersive nature and I mean coersive to the individual and the theory of the “unjust” war. Vietnam is the obvious choice. Was every person who would not adhere to the draft law un-patriotic? I know enough to know I can’t answer that question. There was a lot of people who made choices to avoid the draft. I am not judging but it is a fact.

The whole of the “drafted” military can in times of great danger to the naiton “save” the nation from destruction or despotism that is true patriotism. The men who died in service whether drafted or not are all patriots That is why I think so highly of our volunteer military. To have the courage to say “I will defend my country and may die in its service when no one it asking me for this sacrifice” wow is all I can say. Thank God we have enough men and women who have this fortitude.

A message for Paul Begala (I am assuming everyone heard his rant about legless soldiers in Walter Reed means the tea partiers were un-patriotic for complaining about taxes) patriotism is NOT paying confiscatory levels of taxation to pay for socialistic experiments.

Then there is the entire area of laws and their consequences. A citizen of the US can not go wrong abiding by the the Declaration and Constitution. But what about a legally elected government that goes beyond what is allowable within those documents, what actions do patiots take?

What I am getting at is there are innumerable ways to be a patriot. It might be easier to define “un-patriotic” starting with Harry “the war is lost” Reid (feel free to name your own)

To be honest my fellow Redstaters I was very reluctant to post a comment because the issue is so personal and a blog is a difficult forum to discuss such a complex issue. As a Christian I try and live the best life I can in service to Him, my family, friends, the community and my country but that means my God will be my ultimate judge.

If you are willing to die for your country you are a patriot if your heart swells with pride and you love your country and don’t want it to change you are patriotic!

Those who fight and die for our very freedoms and life are the REAL Patriots!

Paul, my compliments once again. You raise an important question in a thoughtful way that helps us.

I’d respectfully challenge your “more bald” statement of the issue:
Any theory which infuses ideological content (of any kind) into patriotism is dubious.

The United States is and has always been a nation comprised of people who either themselves or their ancestors arrived from many places, races, religions, and stations in life. (I’ll set aside American I

No need to be esoteric or erudite about the subject.

People take oaths to defend the Constitution. These oaths were designed this way on purpose.

When the country was created pride (which is what I think you should mean more than patriotism) was regional, even town hall level.

What united everyone was not the concept of a nation, republic, or even democracy. Patriotism was defined by protection of the Constitution.

This is what liberals simply cannot grasp. It is not about love for the country. It is not about protection of the concept of democracy.

Patriotism is best described as whether you believe in the structure and protections afforded by the Constitution. The freedoms this government, this nation used to protect.

So say you have pride in this nation or in democracy but know you are a patriot when you defend the Constitution.

Democracy, at its core, is two wolves and sheep deciding what is for dinner. It is mob rule, with 51% telling 49% what to do. I like the description economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe gave it, “Democracy: The God that Failed.”

This is why I always point more toward natural law (life, liberty, property rights) instead of utilitarian arguments for conservatism. In the same vein, patriotism for me is respecting the natural rights of men outlined in our Declaration of Independence. And if a government of ours (even a democratically elected one) gets in the way of securing those rights, it is patriotic duty to reclaim them as individuals, towns, cities, counties, and states.

Paul -

I think a full response requires a diary of its own, but let me limit it to this observation:

(1) How much of the content of patriotism is ideological, that is, how much does the love of one’s patria depend upon the political ideas associated with the patria? (2) What is the role of pre-rational passion or affection or veneration in the formation and maintenance of patriotism? (3) How do the reasoning and feeling aspects of man bear upon his love for his native land?

America is not my native land. Yet I will not take a backseat to any man in my love for this great country.

My criticism of your argument for a “pre-rational passion or affection or veneration” lies mainly in the fact that your formulation leaves out the historical fact that this country — while founded by Englishmen, upon English Enlightenment ideals — was built over the years by wave after wave of immigrants.

The Germans, Jews, Irish, Italians, Asians, Latinos — and yes, even those brought here against their will — have over the centuries and decades become one in their appreciation for what America means, and what it means to be an American. They have taken much from America, but they also have given much. The history of the American military, to take just one example, is not only the history of Englishmen fighting against the tyranny of King George, but of various people for whom America was not their native land coming to embrace America and giving their last best measure for her sake.

Only those who have known alternative political arrangements may be able to appreciate fully just how unique, just how amazing, just how precious our system of organization is. I certainly do.

From a philosophical standpoint, I think there remains a deep flaw in the logic of the “pre-rational” line of argument. If, as you say, any theory that infuses ideological content of any kind into patriotism is dubious, then by your own formulation, you must reject this:

If the slavery is concealed and denied, it is not hard to see how the democracy may even come to forget that slavery exists. In any case, again I say the greater patriotism is to resist, hamper, delay, and frustrate the advance of the servile regime, at all points, with an eye toward throwing it off completely.

You have infused patriotism with the ideology of human freedom. Therefore, your patriotism is prima facie dubious under the “pre-rational” theory you put forth.

The truth is, even your position is infused with ideology — an ideology I happen to agree with, but nonetheless, an ideology about the proper relationship between the people and the government, between individual liberty and social order, and where sovereignty truly lies.

Rather than attempting to secure some rhetorical position “above the fray” as it were, I think it more profitable — and more philosophically consistent — to engage in battle of ideas. Ours is written into the fabric of the nation in its founding documents and posits individual liberty and individual supremacy, but coordinated under the rule of law based on the Constitution. Theirs is a direct assault on the Enlightenment principles of our founding, based on authoritarian Fascist ideologies of collectivism where the State and the Nation is supreme, and individuals are either wards to be taken care of or pieces of a giant national machinery.

More later.

-TS

At least, not as most men hold it. I and my family have a long connection with this land. We can to Virginia before 1620 and Americans who actually know and care about the facts of our history know that it was Virginia that was the mother of our liberties while the real source of the rot in American politics and ideology began when the Pilgrims and Puritans came to Massachusetts.

When I was a cadet (Air Force) our TAC officer asked us where our loyalties lay. Cadet after cade replied “Country.” When it came my time to answer, I demurred and said that my loyalties were to God, my family, and somewhere quite down the list to ‘Country.’ You could have heard a pin drop and every answer made after mine was louder and more aggressively, “Country, Country!” The TAC officer who had become a personal enemy and was constantly trying to get me bombed out of the corps, looked coolly at the flight and told them that mine had been the only correct answer, the only answer which the Air Force really wanted. I don’t know if he was right or not, but it was what he said.

I believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution although I think some of the ammendments are suspect. I believe in the Republic as a government of laws and not particularly of men – albeit the action of the House and Senate in hurrying through huge spending packages which none of them had read or even had the time to read made me just a little more aware of what we have lost and are losing – maybe never to regain. The very idea of Barrak Obama teaching ‘Constitutional Law’ when he so plainly hates the Constitution and the country is merely a part of that. The willingness of Bush I and II to defend Affirmative Discrimination against white maless was as much a corruption.

I really don’t know if the Republic is going to survive – primarily because I feel that Conservatives (of which I am one) are so reluctant to do what is necessary to those who would destroy our freedoms and the country. They want to “play nice” when the other party finds the very idea laughable which is why they so routinely will engage in any and every form of ballot fraud to get and retain power. And if we, again as conservatives, don’t realize that after all that has happened from Florida in 2000 to Franken and ACORN’s little farce over the Senate seat, we are too dumb to even be voting.
I have more respect for those returning veterans from World War II who defended the sanctity of the ballot boxes by a running gun battle which drove the crooked sheriff and his cronies from the county rather than any who would accept or reward ballot theft in any form. But being a Southerner whose ancestors lived under Republican tyranny for close to a hundred years, I hold Mr. Jefferson’s words in a little more respect than those who would pretend that our history or our politicians have always been perfect. They haven’t and probably won’t be.

What I want out of the country is a place where my grandchildren and great grandchildren can enjoy the type of life which I have right up until the beginning of reverse discrimination. But even with that I want them to be able to pursue their dreams with as much freedom and “ordered liberty” as possible. But I simply don’t believe that is going to be possible unless we are able to take back Congress and then the presidency and then have the will to punish adequately those who attempted to destroy the Constitution and impose a soviet style state.

A friend of mine has a maxim: “idealism is a terrible curse.” I think your example exposes some of the problems with making ideals out of cultural artifacts. I join with the critique of idealism regardless of how it is employed, so I certainly do not want it dictating terms in my patriotism either.

But your challenge still stands even if we treat only with ideas while being careful to avoid any epistemological stance which elevates them to ideals. I’m reluctant to use the term ideological because idealism is so naturally grafted on to it, thus confusing our dialogue. But the definition does not formally include ideals. Entry #2 does express what diffuses my sense of patriotism.

ideology
n
1.  system of social beliefs: a closely organized system of beliefs, values, and ideas forming the basis of a social, economic, or political philosophy or program 
2.  meaningful belief system: a set of beliefs, values, and opinions that shapes the way a person or a group such as a social class thinks, acts, and understands the world 

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So I confess to arguing that my “meaningful belief system” is an integral part of my patriotism. My country, America, is the object of my patriotic love. The ideas which represent America in my mind may be different than, even in conflict with, the ideas that represent America in my fellow citizen’s mind. So indeed an examination of our particular ideological content (sans idealism) which forms our conceptualization of American identity will leave you “wanting” just the same. It is what you are wanting from patriotism that urges you to prescind all ideological content. I have argued that that move is inconsistent with human nature but also that it is inadvisable because conflict over ideas is a crucial aspect of our quest for comprehension. So the presence of ideological content apparently does not find me wanting.

So this leaves me asking what is it that you are wanting from patriotism; and why should I be wanting it. I shall leave you to answer that without the prejudice of my speculation. But I do have a critique prepared for one particular possible answer which I will preview.

I believe that patriotism is a cornerstone in civic republicanism. What is wanted is a foundational virtue that unites individuals in service to the community. Virtues and even community are conceived in terms of ideals. 

This nation was not formed to force people into a community.

This nation was formed to protect our individual liberties.

A civic enshrinement of free moral agency.

Where we could live IN communities or live all alone with no social interaction if that is our wish.

This collection of state and national governments were charged with two purposes:

1) Keep us safe from foreign sources

2) Keep us safe from each other.

Social issues (be they gay marriage or poverty) were not part of that charge and none of the governments should be involved in it.

So enjoy the community you wish to build. But leave those who wish individualism to pursue that too.

But sometimes we need a reminder what really gives us this country the ability to live in community’s or union’s or left alone on farms.

Without this Constitution that has been so badly battered by all political parties what we are left with is meaningless.

I hope people like Moe & Aaron can put away knee jerk defense and see that we have a lot of work ahead of us.

Restoration of the Republic is not for the faint of heart nor partisans.

We all bear blame for this. We all need to roll up our sleeves for this.

You started this with a discussion on patriotism. Without the Constitution this country would never have existed as a nation.