Patriotism And Optimism
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Patrick Deneen had an important post on the similarities between New Left critiques and some contemporary “radical” conservative arguments, and observed in the writings of several contemporary conservatives, including himself, “a more sweeping condemnation of the broad sweep of American political history and its basic self-congratulatory narrative.” In passing I might note that this is why earlier paleoconservatives and many of us still today remain critical of or even hostile to certain episodes in American history, because so many of these episodes derived from this habit of self-congratulation and were valorized in historical memory as part of the same habit to glorify ourselves as exceptional. Many of us are more skeptical of the ‘Good Wars’ in our past because we see plainly how the mythology of the ‘Good Wars’ covers over gross injustices and feeds into national self-righteousness that is in turn used to justify other exercises of power.
Sean Scallon has followed up with a post on the shift towards optimism on the right, which is one of the failings of modern conservatism–and American culture as a whole–that bothers me the most. Scallon also added this anecdote referring to the McGovern campaign:
“You know,” said Talmadge, “what was wrong with George in that campaign was that he gave the impression that he was mad at the country. He was condeming her policy in Vietnam and just seemed like everything he said indicated that he was as mad as hell about this country. People aren’t going to support a candidate like that. This is a great country. It makes mistakes, but by God if you get up there and preach day and night against America, you’re not going to be elected.”
Talmadge was probably right then, and his observation would hold true today as a matter of electoral politics. If Americans have had a habit of self-congratulation, we also prefer it when our politicians flatter us. Perhaps that is an inescapable part of democratic or quasi-democratic politics. No one likes to hear that he is contributing to grave national problems, much less that he must change something about himself rather than demand action from the government on his behalf. Private irresponsibility hardly fuels demands for public probity and prudence, but instead seems to give license to reckless policies. The old stump speech boilerplate about making the government’s budget more balanced and like a household budget will still win applause, but when private indebtedness is so great it means nothing.
One of the most tired accusations is that so-and-so “blames America first,” which in a more sane world would be understood as taking responsibility for one’s own flaws. One would think that a more damning charge would be to say that someone never blames America, and so refuses to take responsibility for anything done in her, our, name, but even this use of the word blame is misguided. In fact, most of the people who “blame America first” go to great lengths to identify the flaws of America only with the parts of the country unlike theirs and only with the people on the other side of cultural and political divides. The more comprehensive the critique, the fewer people there are who want to hear it. When making a cultural critique of private habits, the resistance becomes even more fierce. The more prophetic and less convenient the warning, the less political traction it has because it unites more enemies against it. To call for self-restraint, rather than self-congratulation and self-rewarding, from everyone is necessarily to be a voice in the wilderness.
Obviously, there are different degrees of responsibility. Not everyone is equally responsible for our predicament, but neither is anyone entirely free of responsibility. One of the worst traits of populist rhetoric is its capacity to find scapegoats and evade the responsibility that the people themselves have for their predicament, so it follows that a populist agenda that is expressed in terms of self-criticism will make many enemies and win few friends. I think this may help explain why “Come Home, America” grates on so many ears, instead of sounding like a clarion call. To call for America to come home suggests that she has gone astray, and so it means that we as a nation have gone astray, which is to do the worst thing possible in a political campaign: tell your audience the truth about them.
What does any of this have to do with the original discussion? To the extent that people conventionally define patriotism as collectively denying national responsibility and exulting in national pride, it is not surprising that it should wax and wane with electoral fortunes of different factions. It is telling that this discussion was prompted by the argument currrently circulating that there can now be an unabashed left-patriotism on account of Obama’s election, as if patriotism or the expression of it can or should be contingent on the faction currently running the state. Now that Obama is in office, the argument seems to go, the left can indulge in the pretense that we can do no wrong and other nations hate us for our freedom (or whatever virtue they would like to trumpet at the time). If patriotism were actually contingent on such things, I would submit that it wasn’t really patriotism at all. Indeed, evading responsibility, shifting blame and invoking our exceptional status are all reliable ways of escaping patriotic duties and the hard choices that go with them. Critics of such “patriotism,” which is not really patriotism at all, are necessarily going against the optimistic grain, as optimism permits the perpetual deferral of hard choices.
An anti-optimism stance in American politics is roughly equivalent to an anti-horse stance in Mongolian politics. I don’t think we are talking about a winner here. Americans are optimists. If they weren’t the US government would have had to pay or force people to populate the West, just as Russia had to do with Siberia.
The spirit of Conservatism is one of restraint and thoughtfulness, but as a movement it cannot prosper if it flies in the face of the culture. I would argue that optimism is generally a positive trait. We Conservatives must work to guide expressions of this optimism in positive channels if we are to make headway.
Larison, Deneen etc seem to really dislike most important aspects of America in the way it has actually been – the “real existent America” – pretty much from the beginning. Their monochrome moaning and griping is becoming a bit wearying to an immigrant like me, who has previously lived on three other continents, and who, partly on the basis of that earlier life experience, is an enormous admirer of the real existent American way of life. Are there any aspects of American life and culture they actually like or admire? Or do they just hate it in toto? In what sense can one be an American conservative if you find nothing worth conserving in America?
mnbr,
I think you miss the conflict that Larison, et al are discussing. Recognizing that Americans have been characterized by optimism from the beginning of the settlement here is true (“Poor Richard’s Almanac” illustrates that.) At the same time, at least since the Civil War, that optimism have frequently betrayed chauvinism and a belligerent unwillingness toward self-reflection. It’s the tension between those that I think these writers are attempting to reconcile. How to be the people that our history predominantly shows us to be while at the same time not indulging that optimism to the point of pride and fall.
Unfortunately, it may be that men simply aren’t capable of such a fine balance. It may rather be that we will have to content ourselves with lessening the degree to which our optimistic character gives way to chauvinism and exceptionalism.
WRW,
I would suggest that chauvinism and unwillingness towards self-reflection are a characteristic of pretty much all human societies. So, perhaps Larison et al have adopted some universal moral standard under which they find the American nation to be lacking in some ways, just as all (fallen) peoples are lacking in various ways. Must do better … Well, OK as a universal truth, just not very interesting.
Or — and this seems to be true emotional chord that is struck — they (like many on the left) seem to find the American people a rather uniquely depraved and contemptible lot. I just don’t buy it. American history is not uniquely sinful. On balance the good outweighs the bad. I rejoice that Lincoln crushed slavery and that FDR did the same to Hitler and Tojo. These were blessings for all of mankind. (I haven’t followed AmCon or Larison very closely till now, but I have an impression they might not go along with me on this…) And, personally, I have found average Americans — and I stress the comparison of averages, rather than the common mistake of comparing the American average versus foreign elites — to be the most tolerant, decent and generally civilized people among whom I have lived. So there! I like ‘em!
First, I need to say that due to my somewhat sketchy understanding of internet protocols I’ve gotten myself signed in here as Gordianus while commenting as Thomas Meehan on the other blog. This is not meant to deceive. I believe in posting under one’s own name.
mnbr, I have been having this discussion with Dr. Deneen on the TAC bog regarding optimism and the American character. I agree with you that a tendency toward chauvinism is universal among humanity, except perhaps in decadent ones like our own. This is why I, like you, I defend American optimism, not because it is always wise, but because it is characteristically American. It is certainly preferable to its opposite, pessimism.
There is much to be said in favor of circumspection and common sense and an appreciation of our fallen nature in crafting a political philosophy. Certainly The Founders held this view. My point is that given this tendency toward optimism Conservatives would succeed more by guiding than chiding. We have to operate within the culture in which we live.
I also think we need to differentiate between elements of American culture and political life that have been introduced in the 20th Century, and traditional characteristics. Recent transplants are easier to uproot.
Mnbr,
No, I don’t think Larison or other are singling out Americans. I think it’s because, well, Larison and other are actually Americans that they are focused on the condition of their people. Were they French, I suspect you’d hear them discussing the collapse in marriage rates, the incompatability of muslim immgiration, the dwindling birth rate, the atrophying of initiative in favor of state benefits, etc. But they’re American, so they discuss the condition of America. (That’s not terribly difficult to understand.)
And I’m sure none of these men think Americans are uniquely anything, good or ill; indeed, I rather think that’s the point of everything they’ve written. Americans have a different culture than other peoples and a different disposition, but they’re not unique among peoples.
So it seems you rather agree with them after all, you’d rather just not discuss the failings, just the good parts. Not terribly enlightening that.
And Thomas, I think the line between “guiding” and “chiding” is a rather fuzzy one, if we agree that neither involve shaking pom-poms for the U.S.
WRW what made you think pom-poms was ever on the agenda? I’m Sean Hannity. I spent a career trying to get conservative policies and persons into our political system.
There is only one American public. A politics based on reminding them of their national sins may satisfy our spiritual, intellectual pride, but I ask you, is it best for them? Is it better that we play Cato while the Republic falls? For better or worse we operate in an electoral system. Reagan was wise enough to realize that before you can lead you must first attract.
For those who prefer things to stay as they are, and rejoice in that static reality, take a time machine back two generations and without a white skin color.
No thanks? You’re welcome.
signed,
The Whiners
To be fair Dan all societies need national myths. Few of them are quite as straightforward as those school history books would have you believe but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for them. I’ve lived in three countries in Europe and a couple in Asia as well as the US and they all have them. That said there’s no getting around a fact that the level of self congratulatory narcissism in this country is far greater than you would find in Germany or the UK. We really do believe our own propaganda and are fed a relentless diet of it on TV and at the movies. The British who have more historical achievement than most are much more sceptical about themselves. Even all those movies they were making in the fifties about the war were the subject of widespread mockery by the sixties in a way that would never happen here. We do take ourselves way too seriously. There’s also an obsession with militarism which you just don’t find anywhere else apart from perhaps Russia, much of which hankers after those parades in Red Square. As far as the US is concerned I put it down to the fact our national territory has never really been under serious threat of invasion or occupation. Hence it’s easier to play at soldiers when the real thing is much less pleasant. Symptomatic of this is that so much of the commentary from the right has been built around Jack Bauer. He’s a TV character for godsake….about as real as Batman, but then I saw that Batman had recently been voted one of the best conservative films by conservatives. Basically it’s all sanitized fantasy totally detached from reality which I’m afraid is becoming the besetting sin of conservatism in the broadest sense. Dan tries to bring a bit of perspective to matters but he’s a prophet without honor in his own land I’m afraid. Nevertheless he should keep working at it, the light bulb might come on someday.
Gordianus,
I didn’t think they were. I assumed you didn’t mean that type of optimism. That’s why I noted the fine line. And I think many my question what Reagan ultimately accomplished given the current condition of the country.
Otto is correct that societies all have their founding myths (George Washington and the cherry tree, etc.) Exceptionalism has its advantages if you building a country out of wilderness and so forth. It can become dangerous to the continued health of the country as we’ve seen over the last period of time. And militarism has certainly risen to the fore the last 25 years.
Of course, mythology and make believe are hardly the exclusive province of the Right, as the Left’s deification of MLK, Kennedy, FDR, etc. or normalization of homosexuality shows well.
I find the temptation to denigrate Reagan an ignoble one. Reagan’s policies won the Cold War and deregulated the economy. He left a deficit. We have had four presidents since then, two wars and a period of surplus. the Congress had been in the hands of both parties. Are you seriously asserting that anything now happening can be attributed to Ronald Reagan?
All Republics ultimately fall. Does that mean all presidents and congresses are pointless?
Ooops! I meant to type “I’m NOT Sean Hannity.” No wonder WRW got after me.
I am a U.S. citizen and no optimist. Optimism prevents a rational assessment of how you got where you are and where you should be going. I suppose I think like a Tory. Optimism is considered an intrinsic American character because America has been lucky. There are some people who realize that the luck is going to run out and are trying to get people to see the light. Just because it is humanly impossible to get people to listen until after the disaster has happenned doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with warning people ahead of time.