Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Four Questions for “I Love America” Progressives
On almost any important policy—taxes, transfers to the poor, abortion, military interventions, etc.—the U.S. is approximately the least progressive of all economically advanced countries. Given this, if American progressives were truly principled, then they should hate America. At a minimum, they should least have serious mixed feelings about the country.
By contrast, if I, as a conservative, lived in France or another progressive country, I don’t think I could love the country. If someone asked me about my love or patriotism for the country, I hope I’d have the honesty to say, “No, I’m actually not very patriotic. France [or whatever progressive country in which I lived] doesn’t deserve my patriotism.”
My first question for American progressives is: “Why can’t you be as honest about your patriotism as I would be if I lived in France?”
For 27 years I’ve been a professor or grad student within a social-science department at a university. Thus, I’ve interacted with lots and lots of progressives. I’d estimate that at least half, and maybe something like three-quarters, favor a one-world government. That is, in contrast to the status quo, they’d prefer a situation where a body like the U.N. governed the entire Earth, and all countries, including the U.S., ceased to exist. My second question for progressives is: “How deeply can you love something if you prefer that it not exist?”
As Jonah Goldberg has recently noted, when progressives say things such as “I love America just as much as you” or “How dare you question my patriotism?” they are usually playing a rhetorical game, one that involves a slippery definition of “patriotism” or “love.” The game begins with a criticism of America. The progressive then explains that, through his criticism, he’s actually trying to improve America. Therefore his criticism, he explains, is an expression of love, not hate, for his country.
My third question for progressives is: “But if that’s true, by the same argument wouldn’t it be true that—when Rev. Jeremiah Wright suggested that God should damn America—he was expressing his love for America?”
Of course, some progressives would say “yes,” however most progressives recognize how ridiculous the above argument becomes when it is examined through the Rev. Wright lens. Most retreat and admit that—although maybe Rev. Wright does not love America—Pres. Obama does not share those views.
But that leads me to my fourth question, “Are the views of Obama really so different from those of Rev. Wright?”
This video shows the main parts of Wright’s sermon. One aspect of the video is very remarkable, yet almost no one seems to have noticed it. This is the reaction of the parishioners. As you can see in the video, the parishioners agree with Wright. Indeed, they agree enthusiastically. Several cheer when he reaches his climax—that God should damn America. Approximately half clap or stand up during the crescendo. As best I can tell, none of the parishioners are bothered by Wright’s words.
As any reasonable person would conclude, those parishioners do not love America. Even if Obama did not attend the sermon, and even if he never became aware of it, he had to know about the anti-American attitudes of his fellow parishioners. Yet he still chose to attend the church for some two decades.
I believe Obama’s love for America is about the same as any other progressive’s—which means at best tepid, if he’s principled.
Published in General
I think T-Fiks hits the nail on the head by raising the point of gratitude. One can be a staunch critic of one’s own country, and yet still love it out of gratitude. Orwell was clearly grateful for everything his country had given him. The same was probably true of Martin Luther King Jr.
The question then becomes: Does the harsh critic or strident oppositionist display any evidence of gratitude towards his country? The Soviet dissidents did. The Chinese dissidents do (one is sometimes deeply moved by their evident love of China). Who was the true heir of the gifts bestowed by Beethoven and Goethe, was it Niemöller or Himmler?
Does anything that Mr Obama has said or written indicate that he is grateful for what America has given him? If the answer is ‘yes’, then we can say he really loves his country. If the answer is ‘no’, then …
They both were, surely. Neither of them dropped there from the sky.
I think Progressives love the idea of America as they wish it to be, not as it is, or was. In that way, they can love an America that Rev. Wright repeatedly damns to his flock of worshippers.
Think of a group of Progressives sitting around a table (dumpy, frowning, a hint of patchouli) and saying “I’d love America, if only….” and you’re off to the races.
Or more bluntly: I’d love you more if you weren’t such a failure. Unfortunately, the Progressive fixes to “failure”, the poor, unemployed, the safety nets, etc, tend to doom the same people they say they want to help to a lifetime of failure and dependency.
Which enables them to keep saying if only…and continue to expand the size of government.
I like to point out is that the reason the Soviet system worked as well and as humanely as it did was they had no American university leftists to screw things up.
I quite strongly suspect they seeded our universities with this nonsense, and the archives do support me in this suspicion, but again, it’s one of those things: no matter how good the evidence for it, if I say it, people look at me as if I’m confidently insisting that aliens are beaming messages into the fillings in my teeth.
Obama loves America the same way Obama “opposed” gay marriage. To wit, in a politically helpful lie. Love of country, aka patriotism, means that you put the interests of your country ahead of your own interests. That could mean anything from charging into battle to voting against your financial interests. I can’t think of a single thing Obama has done in his entire life that falls into that category. Everything he has ever done was in pursuit of his own power and glory – the two things that drive him.
You can say that you love your wife, but if all you ever talk about is how fat she is (or, to make the analogy more precise, how fat she used to be 100 or 1,000 years ago), then excuse me for doubting your “love.”
I’m not an expert, either, so no need to worry about that–but I have done a fair amount of reading, including that big volume with all Lincoln’s speeches… I think I am not wrong about this one: He knew people in the North were quite as racist as anywhere, so honesty simply meant political defeat.
I do not mean Lincoln was an abolitionist or that he even liked them–there is evidence he was skeptical of moralism. I think it is not possible to be a great writer without being a politic writer, so we can simply ignore all the people who write about the man on the assumption that they are his superiors. I am not sure anyone is. I certainly am not. So my first thought is that he knew what he was doing. Whoever has the time & even a little interest should read the Douglas-Lincoln debates & consider the great political savvy of Lincoln, how he managed to split Douglas from the nascent GOP, how he made himself into Mr. GOP, & how he pushed the political events to the eventual split of the Democratic party, North & South.
Now, as to the war. The war was about slavery; no slavery, no cause of war. But I think Lincoln was serious about his first priority being the Union. Is it more important than justice? I think he thought, yes. I agree. But also, the only way to end slavery was through the Union. So that then requires more compromises about slavery, with a view to keeping the border states in the Union, with a view to getting re-elected, with a view to winning the war rather than having it be declared over… But I do not think any of this clouded his judgment.
Obama and those who share his “love” of America have a fairly Pygmalion love. They love what they could do with and to America. They love the resources and real estate in the same way that Donald Trump might love a 10 acre empty lot. There is nothing special about America to these people. It represents the worlds greatest opportunity and that is what they love.
I agree that the American university population is likely the most parochial in the civilized world, least able to comprehend other people–that’s democracy, where everyone is the same, with a touch of scientific arrogance. After all, if you want to understand other people, you have to spend a lot of time with them & gain their trust, hopefully, not in any dastardly way. This kind of enterprise simply does not privilege the brightest & the best… Other people are opaque to us, starting with their names–it is not brains & power that get you insider status.
But I have two problems with the way you deal with the French facts. First, what gets you elected & what you believe are quite different things, especially in European countries where the political class & the population are segregated even in their youth–& especially in their schooling.
Secondly, to follow your lead were to become shocked, shocked that there is such a thing as the EU–in fact, your audience might expect, in all innocence, that most of the laws the French gov’t passes through the Assembly be written in France or conceived with a view to France, maybe even by Frenchmen!
It’s not semantics — it’s just listening to the guy. It’s important to not get drawn into these semantics and definitional discussions. This causes a person to give up one’s common sense. Look at Obama’s record, look at who he admires, look at who he wants to help, look at who he wants to damage. In every one of these areas he is clearly against America and for our enemies.
How is this even a question? It’s really disgusting for people to not use their common sense. But, that’s how Obama got elected, isn’t it?
The theory that I’ve been working on for some time is that the leadership of a nation is generally a reflection of its people – even if sometimes it is in a mirror, darkly. Yes, that means that in Nazi Germany there was sufficient popular sentiment for Hitler to not only seize but increase his political power and that in Tsarist Russia there was a bubbling, popular undercurrent of discontent and hatred for the ruling elite. Enough in both cases that something which was even worse than the ancien regime was pushed into the role of leadership.
Some nations suck, Zafar. All of those totemic ideals that you mentioned aren’t created equal, so when a nation deifies this or that bad idea, that is reflected in the type of leadership that they have and consequently in the fruits which that tree produces.
That was why the election of Obama was so psychologically traumatic to so many people on the right. It made us question the underpinnings of our society, that a person of his ilk could win election (and not by a particularly small margin.) I think most people on the right understand who and what Obama is, what with his appeals to “fundamental transformation” of the country, “reversing the sea’s rise” and all of that gobbledygook.
What terrified us was not Obama himself, but the fools who would put such a man in that position. Those fools are our countrymen, and that’s scary to us. Some of them are well-meaning, but a well-meaning and incompetent surgeon is not what I’m looking for any more than I’m looking for it in a politician or in countrymen.
I came up with it myself. I’m certain I could find more examples if I did a cursory amount of research.
It occurs to me that the progressives may perceive their own love of America as analogous to an intervention by family and friends for a loved one who is an addict. America, they might think, is deep down a thing worthy of love, but it needs to change its ways. It needs to give up its racism, its imperialism, its sexism, its heteronormativity, its income inequality, its climate-destroying reliance on fossil fuels, its Islamophobia, its hate speech, its weapons, its sky-God. I’m sure there is more to this list.
The problem with progressives, though, is that the post-intervention America they dream of is going to be much like a fascist dictatorship, in which thought crimes are punished, “minorities” are given special privileges, freedom of all sorts (political, economic and social) will be severely curtailed, and economic growth will be sacrificed for the sake of ideological purity.
It will be a lobotomized America, like McMurphy in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” still alive, but robbed of his personality, his true self.
There is a common motif in romantic comedies wherein character A proclaims their complete and undying love for character B then expends huge amounts of effort to CHANGE B.
We, the observer, understand that despite the proclamations, A doesn’t really love B, but rather loves the IDEA of B, or the utopian IDEAL of what B could become (if only B did what A wanted)
Hilarity generally ensues. But also tragedy. We know that A&B are a doomed relationship. A will never be satisfied with the real-world version of B.
Thats Obama and America. He loves not the America that is but rather the America that could be if we only followed his sage advice. For her part, the First Lady said it very clearly in February 2008: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country…”
Why is anyone surprised now?
The French love being French. I’m not sure that’s patriotism.
One of the darkest stains on their history is how little they wanted to fight for their country against Hitler. Even their claims about the French resistance are overblown.
As for the progressives in this country, they’re in love with themselves. But when it comes to actually taking up arms, I’m not sure they would fight for what they believe.
I think what a lot of people think when you say you don’t love America is that you don’t love Americans. They think they love Americans, they just don’t love the American Culture. I think if we define Patriotism as loving the American way of life which includes many elements of government then people could maybe fell aright about being honest about it. If you say you are not patriotic but still like and love the American people that is fine in my book and being a lot more honest. It really brings to light that patriotism is a form a religion because you are saying you are proud and love how a group of people live their life and love what this group of people value.
Yeah, but the voters knew all that info about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, communist influences, Islamic connections, etc. The Republicans couldn’t exploit it. They don’t know how. Now, 6+ years later Guiliani loudly vents about the things any conservative with a brain in his head already knew. Even independents are starting to awaken to what Obama really loves. And it ain’t them. Too little, too late. The Republicans were never adroit enough to overcome America’s need to show how tolerant they are by electing a half black man. And they still aren’t.
Of course Rudy is right. So what! An angry, no longer relevant, ex-mayor plays right into the hands of the left by a clumsy outburst. To the bargain, he is so arrogant that he steps on the toes of Scott Walker who was the principal subject of the the dinner. Not to be too hard on old Guiliani since he’s just carrying on an old Republican tradition. The Klutz. It’s frustrating to watch these experienced pols on the right consistently put their foot in their mouth. How you gonna take on Hillary if you can’t articulate in a calm, calculated, reasoned, factual way?
The difference is where they want to take the country. There’s no question that Stephen Harper and Scott Walker wanted to make Canada/Wisconsin stronger, and I give most progressives the benefit of a doubt on that even if I think they’re wrong. This is not true of Barack Obama. Everything he says points to the belief that America has gotten too big and should be brought down a peg. And with the possible exceptions of Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel, I believe he staffed his cabinet with people who share that opinion.
Simply put: If someone says we’d be better off if blacks had less influence, I think we’d be secure in calling that person a racist. If someone said the same about women, that person is clearly a misogynist. So what are we to say about someone who thinks the world would be better off if America had less influence?
Premise 1: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Premise 2: Treason is the highest form of dissent.
Conclusion: Treason is the highest form of patriotism.
I was standing right before this, yesterday.
It’s pretty hard to go anywhere in France without seeing these.
I wouldn’t stand in front of anything that looks like this and say, “I’m sufficiently unpersuaded by the sacrifices France has made for France that I reckon they don’t take being French seriously.”
Claire,
I can’t think of way to phrase this that doesn’t sound snotty, so please believe me when I say that it isn’t my intent. But, do they they have memorials like that for the collaborators too? My understanding has been that the number of Frenchman who after the war ended claimed they were in the resistance is far higher than the number who actually were.
Well, that really is the problem with the EU. It doesn’t really exist. Over here we’ve got a bunch of nation states–each with their own language, culture, parliaments, law, tradition of governance, history, and a long tradition of killing each other–and this thing called the EU that annoys them and has somehow managed to persuade them it would be a terrific idea to decouple their monetary and foreign policies. A good idea–the Treaty of Rome–taken to a silly extreme.
No one really takes “EU law” seriously. If you’ve got a problem here, you go to a French cop, you get tried in a French court, and the EU sits there churning out laws that should be, basically, the rules of customs union–but somehow things got out of hand.
But if you’re born in France and your goal is “power,” you do not naturally think, “I want to be the President of the EC.” You’re thinking, “I can see myself in the Elysée Palace.”
It all made more sense than not until about 1986-then they made the mistake of confusing further economic integration with the real integration: a single miltary. But no one was at all ready for that. The memories were too fresh. Perhaps rightly so.
No. They have them for their victims.
I’m not at all sure that the EU is less real or important than the national-state anymore. I have seen a few of these national states; I am unpersuaded that they have a future & I am almost persuaded that their past will die with today’s old people. My experience especially of the college population of Europe suggests to me that they are deracinated, really.
People really are arrested for reasons pertaining to the EU, not France’s national laws. More often, they lose property. There is nothing France or any French power-mad politician could do. They are not in control of the effects the EU has on France. Who in France proposes to make the nation-state strong again? The political class of Europe is more of a reality than any national political class, because in no European country that is part of the EU & where the people want to get out are they offered the option. Mr. Cameron in England has recently promised people to give them the option should they choose to re-elect him. He had no similar qualms about a Scottish referendum, mind you. The only consistent politicians seem to be the fanatics of the EU, who will advance their cause whenever they can. I’d say, time is on their side: Fewer & fewer people can believe there is a state in their country absent the EU.
Recently, the EU tried & mostly succeeded in destroying & imposing gov’t’s in Ireland, Italy, & Greece. These EU rulers dared to ask that elections not be held; their men became unelected PMs. The recent electoral disaster in Greece, I think, shows that the EU does not know what it is doing or how to proceed. Nor does the EU really control Italian politics, much less the Irish. But I suspect the new Greek gov’t will obey its EU masters. When a terrible crisis hits a country in the EU, there is no talk of the country making it out as a nation-state–what matters is EU money & policy.
Claire,
Yisgadal v’yiskadash sh’mei rabbaw (Amen)
B’allmaw dee v’raw chir’useiv’yamlich malchusei,b’chayeichon, uv’yomeichon,uv’chayei d’chol beis yisroel,ba’agawlaw u’vizman kawriv, v’imru: Amen.(Cong: Amen. Y’hei sh’mei rabbaw m’vawrach l’allam u’l’allmei allmayaw)Y’hei sh’mei rabbaw m’vawrach l’allam u’l’allmei allmayaw.Yis’bawrach, v’yishtabach, v’yispaw’ar, v’yisromam, v’yis’nasei,v’yis’hadar, v’yis’aleh, v’yis’halawl sh’mei d’kudshaw b’rich hu(Cong. b’rich hu). L’aylaw min kol birchawsaw v’shirawsaw,tush’b’chawsaw v’nechemawsaw, da’ami’rawn b’all’maw, v’imru: AmeinY’hei shlawmaw rabbaw min sh’mayaw,v’chayimawleinu v’al kol yisroel, v’imru: AmeinOseh shawlom bim’ro’mawv, hu ya’aseh shawlom,awleinu v’al kol yisroel v’imru: Amein
May His great Name grow exalted and sanctified (Amen.)in the world that He created as He willed.May He give reign to His kingship in your lifetimes and in your days,and in the lifetimes of the entire Family of Israel,swiftly and soon. Now respond: Amen.(Cong Amen. May His great Name be blessed forever and ever.)May His great Name be blessed forever and ever.Blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, extolled,mighty, upraised, and lauded be the Name of the Holy One, Blessed is He(Cong. Blessed is He) beyond any blessing and song,praise and consolation that are uttered in the world. Now respond: Amen.May there be abundant peace from Heaven, and lifeupon us and upon all Israel. Now respond: Amen.He Who makes peace in His heights, may He make peace,upon us and upon all Israel. Now respond: Amen.
Regards,
Jim
I think your description of the reaction to Rudy’s remarks is accurate. The Republican base agrees with him (I know I do) and the MSNBC crowd are laughing at what they see as a huge faux pas. People in the middle? That is more interesting.
I’m going to assert, without evidence, that over time these sorts of controversies get moderates thinking. Sure, they might see it as rude, or unwarranted, and a few will even see it as racist. But the idea is now out there rattling around in their heads. Obama doesn’t love America. He doesn’t even like it.
Now that the idea is planted, additional data points will have something to grab hold of in the moderate brain. This ends up being good for Republicans, especially as Rudy is not running, and the actual candidates can say, “Maybe he does love America. I just know that his policies are harmful to the country he loves.”
Excellent points. And wow. What a passage by Orwell. In the last few weeks I’ve been bombarded by the brilliance of Orwell. First, I discovered that Orwell wrote a review, in 1940, of Mein Kampf. It contains some great insights about why young men are joining ISIS. Second, while I’ve always considered Animal Farm and 1984 two of the greatest books ever, I learned that National Review ranks Homage to Catalonia and Collected Essays even better. I haven’t read the latter two — I gotta do that soon. And now I read the above passage. I can’t say enough about Orwell’s brilliance.
I can tell you from experience that many Iranians who live outside (and many who live in) their country feel quite passionate about it, but this love is for the idea of the historical Iran and its accomplishments, Persian culture, poetry, food, the natural beauty of the country. There are those, too, who are still devoted to the Pahlavis.
For Americans, the unique story of our founding is inextricably linked to the idea of our country. Yes, I think that American natural beauty is outstanding, but I’ve traveled a fair amount, and we have no monopoly on that. We have some decent food, but few would argue that American patriotism is based on our cuisine. American love of country means a reverence for the Declaration and the Constitution, and what they engendered. From these documents, the great American character was born and by them, it is preserved. Without them, what’s American? Our form of government and our way of life are bound up in a way that is not found elsewhere. Thus, while the American dream lives on (by however paltry a thread), there never was an English dream or a Belgian dream, or even an Italian dream. Iranians come to America to fulfill their dreams, just as the rest of the world does.
No Iranian, however much he loves his homeland, can feel this way about Iran.
You nailed it, Liz!
To be an American is to be committed to a set of ideals. I don’t think that this is true of any other country.
One can love America, and yet want to reform American society, culture, or government, in order to fulfill the founding ideals. On the other hand, if one wants to reform American society, culture or government because one rejects the founding ideals, then how can one claim to love America?
President Obama certainly seems to better fit in the latter of these categories.