Quote of the day

posted at 10:00 pm on June 28, 2008 by Allahpundit

“By defining Americanism too narrowly and backwardly, conservative patriotism risks becoming clubby. And by celebrating America too unabashedly–without sufficient regard for America’s sins–it risks degenerating from patriotism into nationalism, a self-righteous, chest-thumping ideology that celebrates America at the expense of the rest of the world.

But if conservative patriotism can be too exclusionary, liberal patriotism risks not being exclusionary enough. If liberals love America purely because it embodies ideals like liberty, justice and equality, why shouldn’t they love Canada–which from a liberal perspective often goes further toward realizing those principles–even more? And what do liberals do when those universal ideals collide with America’s self-interest? Giving away the federal budget to Africa would probably increase the net sum of justice and equality on the planet, after all. But it would harm Americans and thus be unpatriotic.

Eminent thinkers, from Tolstoy to contemporary philosophers like Martha Nussbaum and George Kateb, have denounced patriotism on exactly those grounds: that it’s wrong to prefer one’s countrymen and -women to people in other lands. Patriotism, in Kateb’s words, is illiberal; it “is an attack on the Enlightenment.” There’s a lot of truth in that. Liberals may love America in part because it aspires to certain ideals, but if they love it only because it aspires to those ideals, then what they really love is the ideals, not America. Conservatives are right. To some degree, patriotism must mean loving your country for the same reason you love your family: simply because it is yours.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

nationalism, a self-righteous, chest-thumping ideology that celebrates America at the expense of the rest of the world.

What’s wrong with nationalism? Nothing. Not even the chest-thumping variety. It is absolutely correct to prefer the American nation and people to any other nation and any other people, period.

Lehuster on June 28, 2008 at 10:09 PM

What’s wrong with nationalism?

We are the world and it takes a village have replaced it for some.

William Amos on June 28, 2008 at 10:10 PM

“But if conservative patriotism can be too exclusionary”
Just ask Yankees, Red Sox, Steelers fans.

mred on June 28, 2008 at 10:14 PM

And that’s what makes his current adoption of the symbol so shrewd. By opposing the Iraq war in the fevered year after 9/11–when some Bush supporters branded doves unpatriotic–he has already expressed an understanding of patriotism particularly beloved by liberals: patriotism as lonely dissent. Now he is expressing an understanding particularly important to the conservatives he must court: patriotism as symbolic devotion.

Aha. He’s shrewd, right? Because he’s been calculating this message all along. And by alternately wearing and then not wearing the pin, based on context, nach, he’s sweeping everyone into his train.

Give me a freaking break. Decent article until the leg tingle took over.

TexasDan on June 28, 2008 at 10:18 PM

To some degree, patriotism must mean loving your country for the same reason you love your family: simply because it is yours.”

That’s the critical point, isn’t it?

If one loves ideals – the idea of an ideal America – then one is not loving the country but, instead, some abstract principle or principles. Equality, justice, et cetera as established by some future America.

But as Beinart points out, one can love the ideals of any country since one is loving ideals and not a real nation. Canada, Britain, France et cetera all are devoted in some way to these ideals.

One loves ones family not because one loves families but because the family belongs to you and you’re part of that family.

Well done Mr. Beinart.

SteveMG on June 28, 2008 at 10:19 PM

Far too often liberals love what America can be or what it can do for them. Exhibit A: Michelle Obama only proud of her country when it does something for her and her husband.

amerpundit on June 28, 2008 at 10:27 PM

If liberals love America purely because it embodies ideals like liberty, justice and equality, why shouldn’t they love Canada–which from a liberal perspective often goes further toward realizing those principles–even more?

Well, there’s someone blissfully unaware of what “Canadian Human Rights” means.

And what do liberals do when those universal ideals collide with America’s self-interest? Giving away the federal budget to Africa would probably increase the net sum of justice and equality on the planet, after all.

He also seems to be unaware of how countries in Africa work. Oh well.

calbear on June 28, 2008 at 10:29 PM

I like how Red Skelton describes it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfz2XDXaeqc

canopfor on June 28, 2008 at 10:37 PM

amerpundit on June 28, 2008 at 10:27 PM

But to be really fair she put “really” in front of proud at one of the two speeches she gave that day.
/

carbon_footprint on June 28, 2008 at 10:38 PM

” a self-righteous, chest-thumping ideology that celebrates America at the expense of the rest of the world.”

Sounds good to me!

nottakingsides on June 28, 2008 at 10:39 PM

seems to have a glitch!

canopfor on June 28, 2008 at 10:39 PM

“Liberal” hence defined.

leftnomore on June 28, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Liberals love America…riiiiiiiiiiiight.

SouthernGent on June 28, 2008 at 10:41 PM

Conservatives are right. To some degree, patriotism must mean loving your country for the same reason you love your family: simply because it is yours.”

Conservatives and Liberals totally aside….the love it because it’s yours part is, but should not be, an epiphany.

JetBoy on June 28, 2008 at 10:42 PM

This is just fog and smoke cover for the fact that the Left in this country, which encompasses TIME, and the Hollywood crowd, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, former “Democrats”, etc, Blatantly HATE this country, and seek nothing less than to destroy it.

Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Traitorous Democratic Leftist Nutbags (TM); sums it up nicely, and its a FACT as well.

Dale in Atlanta on June 28, 2008 at 10:43 PM

I see little evidence that modern-day liberals “love” America, or even find it tolerable. Traditional liberals, yes- think Harry S. Truman. But there seem to be very few of them remaining, and the modern-day brand will strenuously deny that they are “true liberals”.

I have been known to point out to such “enlightened ones” that by their standards (such as they are), JFK would not be welcome in “progressive” or “liberal” circles today. That is, if he were a living politician instead of having been canonized as a (usefully-dead) martyr to a variety of “causes” he personally opposed. Which is precisely what modern-day “liberals” have made of him.

The modern liberal neither loves America, or its ideals, or indeed anything about it. But this is not truly anti-Americanism, nor is it a “higher patriotism”. It is the inevitable result of their soul-burning hatred of Western Civilization as a whole.

Modern “liberals” gave up on the values of the Enlightenment decades ago. Instead, they have embraced mysticism, pseudoscience, authoritarianism, and a primitivist, feudalistic worldview (with themselves as the nobility, and everyone else as the serfs). And in the process, they have convinced themselves that they are inherently superior to everyone else, and that they should therefore rule everyone else.

The fact that no one else agrees with them is, in their minds, not proof that they need to re-examine their premises, but rather proof that everyone else really is as stupid as the “liberals” perceive them to be.

The fact that they appear childish to others (mainly due to their tendency to throw tantrums when they don’t get their way, or act like schoolyard bullies when they do) is completely lost on them.

So no, America, they do not love you. But don’t take it personally.

Other than those they see as “like-minded” or “useful tools”, they’re not too fond of the rest of the human race, either.

cheers

eon

eon on June 28, 2008 at 10:53 PM

One question. If you love the ideals of america but those ideals are nowhere else practiced in the world. what happens ifAmerica’s boundries and consitution no longer is the law of the land and instead is replaced by ther UN law or the EU law. Then my friends those ideals will no longer be around.

america does not have sins, this historical reevalution is wrong. I am glad my ancestors did what they did. All of it. Because if they didn’t America would not be the only world’s superpower. America would be nothing but a backwater small country with no say in the world. If we did not “exterminate” the Indians, “steal” land from Mexico, “practice” the “sin” of slavery etc. America would be a very different, smaller, less powerful place today. Slavery could still be going on in the world, hitler or Japan could be ruling the known world today. The middle east could still be in the 7th century since no one would need all that oil etc.

Are ancestors did what was right according to their moral beliefs at the time. Just because our morals have changed does not make what they did wrong. In fact if they didn’t do it our morals might not have evolved.

I do not “feel” “bad” or “feel ashame” for what was done. those that have that type of “guilt” are nothing but idiots that have no sense of historical prespective.

unseen on June 28, 2008 at 10:53 PM

And if the polar bear should die out. I would not feel shame for that either. The way I see it if its between humans or the polar bear the polar bear will be thrown under the bus.

+

unseen on June 28, 2008 at 10:56 PM

I feel violated being lectured on patriotism by someone who just as soon see the USA not exist.
He’s a member of the CFR.
I suspect their global agenda is all he really cares about.

jerrytbg on June 28, 2008 at 10:56 PM

This is one of those “oops, I accidentally said what liberals really think” essays. To most of us, patriotism comes naturally. To liberals, it doesn’t; in fact, they’re embarrassed by the whole concept and regard it as unenlightened, even atavistic. So for appearances’ sake they have to engage in some kind of tortured logic to arrive at something they can be comfortable calling “patriotism.” Not surprisingly, their version doesn’t come across as genuine or convincing, to say the least.

Beinart isn’t doing liberals any favors by exposing their thought processes here.

Missy on June 28, 2008 at 10:59 PM

TIME in the tank for Obambi and spewing apologies and excuses in rapid fire. Sweeeeet…

Hog Wild on June 28, 2008 at 11:10 PM

nottakingsides on June 28, 2008 at 10:39 PM

God, glory and guns!

carbon_footprint on June 28, 2008 at 11:10 PM

Family, friends, nation, in that order. I don’t see France in the top 3.

Metro on June 28, 2008 at 11:15 PM

Liberals hate America. All the rest is PR.

TheBigOldDog on June 28, 2008 at 11:17 PM

What’s wrong with nationalism?

Well, sometimes nationalism gets alittle out of hand (Germany, 1930`s and 40`s)

ThePrez on June 28, 2008 at 11:19 PM

ThePrez on June 28, 2008 at 11:19 PM

You’re confusing nationalism with imperialism and racism.

TheBigOldDog on June 28, 2008 at 11:22 PM

ThePrez on June 28, 2008 at 11:19 PM

and if we did not have nationalism during the 30′s and 40′s what or who would have stopped Germany.

Nationalism is a basic human character need. Like greed and fear nationalism (grouping into tribes for protection) as been with humans since the beginning of time.

Like guns do not kill people people kill people, nationalism does not start wars nations start wars.

And since nations/tribes will always start wars your nation/tribe better be bigger/stronger/ and meaner then their nation/tribe.

unseen on June 28, 2008 at 11:24 PM

People make a nation not governments as liberals believe.
The more McCain talks up how many great things “We the People” achieve each day the better he’s chances are.
The more Obama touts the government as the be all end all, the more its likely to be his end.

McCain’s view of patriotism differs from that of many on the right. Conservatives tend to believe that while Americans are bound together by the ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, they are also bound together by a set of inherited traditions that immigrants must be encouraged–even required–to adopt. And they fret that if newcomers don’t assimilate into that common culture, they won’t be truly patriotic.

Not fret John, know.

If anyone from the world over can move in, make babies, care less about changing and stay, why should any immigrant care about what made this country great, what preserves the incredible sacrifices of those who came before us passed on?

How cheap are we?

Speakup on June 28, 2008 at 11:29 PM

I love America, while always acknowledging that it’s not perfect (no place is), but it’s the last, best hope for freedom in the world.

Good essay. Beinart is a true liberal, not a lefty fascist.

Like TXDan, though, I think he had a bit too much leg tingle too. In some ways McCain is more forward-looking and outward looking than Obama. For example, Obama is a protectionist captive to unions on free trade and globalism, while McCain is an free trader who sees rising worldwide standards of living in peaceful trade.

Similarly, Obama and his isolationist masters can’t imagine a cooperative, functioning Middle East, while McCain thinks that it can happen, eventually, and he has a son in the fight.

That’s just a couple of examples, but some modern day “liberals” are very pessimistic and inward-looking, because they’ll never have their utopia. They let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Conservatives are often more optimistic and can-do.

juliesa on June 28, 2008 at 11:29 PM

Liberals are generally miserable people and it drives them crazy that most other people are so happy in this “flawed,” “backward” country. So they want to make everyone as miserable as they are. They are utopians and we aren’t. So they will never be happy with the America they see, and they will always be gullible to an empty suit like Barack Obama who preaches Hope and Change. Conservatives don’t expect politics or politicians to make their lives better. They just want to stop them from making it worse.

rockmom on June 28, 2008 at 11:31 PM

No, I`m right and that`s all there is to it. :-P

ThePrez on June 28, 2008 at 11:34 PM

No, I`m right and that`s all there is to it.” :-P “

ThePrez on June 28, 2008 at 11:34 PM

Doesn’t that dry out your tongue?

jerrytbg on June 28, 2008 at 11:37 PM

A pet peeve: we enjoy displaying the flag in little ways, with a sticker or a pin, no big deal, just a little show of love.

Some lefties can’t take any simple pleasure in that. The flag sticker i hate is the one that has the saying “Think: It’s Patriotic” where the stars would be. Which implies that it’s stupid and mindless to display a plain flag.

It’s very insulting. They can’t force themselves to display a flag unless it has some kind of disclaimer on it.

juliesa on June 28, 2008 at 11:40 PM

White’s a nitwit, and Beinart is an imbecile for believing that McGovern “couldn’t buy a white, blue collar vote …” because Nixon’s people wore lapel flag pins, and McGovern didn’t.

Good Gawd.

Jaibones on June 28, 2008 at 11:47 PM

A nice test on how well you know your country. I scored 29 and am still mad that I missed the liquor importation amendment in favor of the equal rights one.

Entelechy on June 28, 2008 at 11:47 PM

great… a lesson is patriotism by that gap tooth liberal moron Peter Beinart. leave it him to further the “patriotism is dissent” meme championed by every anti american coward too afraid to actually come out and say they actually hate this country.

Hey gap tooth, when you join the USMC and live the life of a true patriot I will listen to your pro obama pro leftist filth.

elduende on June 28, 2008 at 11:48 PM

I disagree with Mr. Beinart on this topic but he’s one of the more decent liberal minds one can argue with.

Entelechy on June 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Beinart is a true liberal, not a lefty fascist.

I agree. He seems like a thoughtful, well-meaning guy. He just revealed more than he probably realized with that essay.

Missy on June 28, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Entelechy on June 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM

SHHH don’t tell anyone but you know what Entelechy I’ll agree with you about Beinart up to a point he does seem like a good sport but I still think it would be funny to see him at Parris Island trying to explain his version of patriotism to a Gunny.

elduende on June 29, 2008 at 12:03 AM

In the beginning was the struggle. This conflict is never ending. True enlightenment is attained only by following the miracle of the middle way. Extremists on both sides each claim the one true path while it is only the wise who can truly see.

Barack Obama sees this middle way, recognizing the mistakes of the extremists; uniting us in common purpose, leading us to a better future which can only be reached through change.

I have been persuaded, I have been converted. I now have hope.

“Hallowed are the Ori.”

rockhauler on June 29, 2008 at 12:06 AM

sorry for the unusual references.

Parris Island = East Coast USMC enlisted boot camp.
Gunny = Gunnery Sergeant (the primary instructor of an enlisted Marine)

elduende on June 29, 2008 at 12:08 AM

rockhauler on June 29, 2008 at 12:06 AM

We need SG-1 to kick obambi’s ass.

elduende on June 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM

I’ve lived, not visited, lived, all over the world, and there is no place like home.

easy on June 29, 2008 at 12:12 AM

What is this crock of shit?! I swear liberals use $1,000 dollars worth of words to make a 50 cent sentence.

Any sober and rational human being loves ideas more than they do a nationality, or state, or family – without ideals none of it matters anyway.

We choose America because it is the best means of reaching those ideals.

Goddamn liberal dimwits.

thareb on June 29, 2008 at 12:28 AM

There is a difference between giving “sufficient regard” to America’s sins, which conservatives do, and NOT LETTING GO OF THEM, like Libbies do!

blatantblue on June 29, 2008 at 12:28 AM

This evening, I was taken out for an early birthday dinner by my kids & my ex.

In the middle of dinner, I asked my ex what she thought about an Obama Presidency. She actually started clapping her hands, loudly, in Red Robin’s. Then she said the perfect VP would be Hillary and her and my daughter giggled at the thought.

IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS she has been both pro and anti: Oboma and Hillary.

She doesn’t really care. As long as one or both gets power.

I didn’t argue. lol why bother.

Ugly on June 29, 2008 at 12:31 AM

Happy B-Day Ugly

elduende on June 29, 2008 at 12:41 AM

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
- Mark Twain

MB4 on June 29, 2008 at 12:44 AM

I scored 29

Entelechy on June 28, 2008 at 11:47 PM

Well you beat me by 2.

MB4 on June 29, 2008 at 12:50 AM

What is this crock of $hit?! I swear liberals use $1,000 dollars worth of words to make a 50 cent sentence.

thareb on June 29, 2008 at 12:28 AM

It does not require many words to speak the truth.
- Chief Joseph

MB4 on June 29, 2008 at 12:57 AM

MB4, Where do you get your many quotes from? I’m just curious.

abinitioadinfinitum on June 29, 2008 at 1:14 AM

What’s wrong with nationalism?

Well, sometimes nationalism gets alittle out of hand (Germany, 1930`s and 40`s)

ThePrez on June 28, 2008 at 11:19 PM

You’re confusing nationalism with imperialism and racism.

TheBigOldDog on June 28, 2008 at 11:22 PM

I agree with The Prez. Nationalism is dangerous because it lends itself to blindly following the actions of the government without regard to common sense, decency, or compassion. To simply say we are right because we are who we are is folly.

The Nazis were a good example of this, though I agree with TheBigOldDog that they had the added element of racism. A modern example of Nationalism today would be China in regard to Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang. They believe that because they once owned these lands, they have the absolute right to have them now, and will not even entertain any thoughts to the contrary. Another example, along with Germany, was Japan. They began with a fanatic love of country that turned into racism. (Nationalism often can lead to racism IMHO–though not necessarily in the US because of our varied racial profile).

I believe that the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism is this: Patriotism is loving my country because it is mine, but seeing its flaws with open eyes and having a desire to make it better. I love my family, and I think it is the best family in the world, but I also know it isn’t perfect, and if my kid, or brother, etc does something wrong, I’m not going to close my eyes and say it was right.

Nationalism, on the other hand, declares that your country is right just because it is your country, without regard to reality, common sense, or reason. Ex: “Taiwan is a province of China. They are Chinese, so they are part of China. Period.” (never mind they have a different government system, different military, etc)

p40tiger on June 29, 2008 at 1:39 AM

MB4, Where do you get your many quotes from? I’m just curious.

abinitioadinfinitum on June 29, 2008 at 1:14 AM

All over the place. Yahoo or google “quotes name” or “quotes keyword(s)”.

“Twain Quotes” or say “truth quotes”.

As for Chief Joseph, I was pretty familiar with him as he lived and was buried a few miles from where I went to grade school.

MB4 on June 29, 2008 at 1:41 AM

rockhauler on June 29, 2008 at 12:06 AM

You must be joking – otherwise, you’re divorced :)

elduende on June 29, 2008 at 12:03 AM

Indeed

Happy birthday Ugly, and my ‘condolences’.

Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 1:53 AM

In the end, enlightened self-interest is the best course. An American’s first responsibility is to his God, then to his Country, then to himself/his family. I.e. “Duty to God, Duty to others and Duty to self”, or, the Scout Promise.

spmat on June 29, 2008 at 2:43 AM

PB did an admirable job there. Some points I would dispute i.e. Mexico and Ireland are very different countries with very different histories regarding the U.S., and immigrants from them are quite different. For instance, we never annexed half of Ireland, and there was a long and dangerous ocean crossing involved in the immigration of many of the Irish, essentially cutting them off from the home-land. Not so with Mexico.

Another point was his treatment of conservative angst over P.C. education. It is not the teaching of America’s various sins that I oppose. I don’t want to raise a generation ignorant of true history. It is the extent to which the P.C. education has shut out other areas. How many students learn about the Great Congress? How many learn about Jefferson and Adams and Franklin and Washington (beyond that the first slept with his slaves, the second was the 2nd President, the third invented bi-foculs, and the last was a lousy general [not entirely true, but conventional wisdom]). I think exposing America’s past is fine, but not at the expense of a firm gournding in, among other thing, the Nation’s founding.

Very well written, and despite my quibbles, I found it a very good explination of the difference between conservatives and liberals.

When I read PB (when he isn’t being hacky) I wish that liberals were right. Too bad they aren’t.

VolMagic on June 29, 2008 at 3:03 AM

p40tiger on June 29, 2008 at 1:39 AM

I Tend to lean more towards this line of thinking, although rather than using ’1930s Germany’ all the time I would suggest that The Great War is a better example of multiple countries caught up in nationalistic ferver. Although then out comes ‘jingoism’.

And on it goes.

“first responsibility is to his God, then to his Country, then to himself/his family.”

Comes across as concerning, intended or not. Is that arguing that one is a Christian before they are American? There was quite a stir when certain people over here started claiming they were ‘Muslim first, Australians second’.

And why have your own family behind your country?

Reaps on June 29, 2008 at 4:39 AM

..alright, and I’ve used the strike button instead of quotes.

Awesome.

Reaps on June 29, 2008 at 4:43 AM

I like Beinart when he’s debating conservatives, he’s thoughtful yet feisty. He has a sharp mind and gives as good as he gets. But when he preaches to that liberal choir at Time well… his theory that Republicans game the patriotism angle for purely pragmatic reasons just don’t truck wit me.

In the end, he comes off as another devotee of the Daily Kos crowd who believe their views correct, JUST NOT SHOUTED LOUD ENOUGH!

Kadnine on June 29, 2008 at 5:19 AM

I am English. Wherever I go, I am English. That is true patriotism.

OldEnglish on June 29, 2008 at 5:55 AM

(Haven’t read through the thread, want to get some thoughts down)

I’m british… I’m not a nationalist, particularly. Well, it bothers me when people insult british people, as though we’re all the same, but that’s because I’m in that group, so they are insulting me, and my family, and my friends, as well.

But generally… I’m just not a nationalist. I guess you could call me a culturalist. I’m pro-western democracy. Any country with (real) democracy, is a good country to me. There are different levels of democracy though, some countries are slowly losing their freedom of speech, for example (like my country, though there are still plenty of people “insulting” muslims, by, ya know, quoting them… and they’re not being arrested, so don’t think we’re completely lost).

I’m more pro-american than pro-british, these days. Well, there is nationalism in me, I really think it’s partly genetic. I hope to move to America in the future, because of the freedom of speech, and the system of government is just a better system than what is here.

Anyway, I’m not nationalist, but I’m not anti-nationalist either. It unites people within borders, which is very important. Ethnic nationalism is an entirely different thing, to me. Nationalism in the normal sense unites people across ethnicities, across religions (well, except for a certain religion which is supposed to trump everything in a person’s life), across everything.

It’s just that, it doesn’t unite people outside of the borders. It often places countries which are, relatively speaking, very similar, at odds with each other. That’s why I prefer to be “culturalist”. Of course, the liberals would probably see that as racist too.

MattMacD on June 29, 2008 at 6:35 AM

calbear on June 28, 2008 at 10:29 PM

why shouldn’t they love Canada–which from a liberal perspective often goes further toward realizing those principles–even more?

That’s where he lost me. These main-stream media types are very poorly informed.

fluffy on June 29, 2008 at 6:39 AM

I hope to move to America in the future, because of the freedom of speech, and the system of government is just a better system than what is here.

MattMacD on June 29, 2008 at 6:35 AM

Mmm…are you are going to try to get here before January 2009 so you have some time to enjoy it? LOL

Just kidding….obviously we are not at the advanced stage of decay that you appear to be experiencing. But Obama & the rest of the left are trying very hard to “fix” that whole free speech thing. Heck, even some Republicans are trying to adjust that whole concept of letting regular citizens just say any old thing they want, whenever they feel like it. The fact that they feel comfortable expressing it…Constitution be damned…really makes me worried.

Cheesestick on June 29, 2008 at 7:03 AM

Patriotism is a matter of trust.
No patriotism? Treachery.

A note to the editor: BHO does not resemble JFK or RFK.
Don’t let that false slogan pass without renouncing it.

Unlike the Kennedy family big baby Teddy, though personally they were largely ineffective against the USSR, neither John nor Robert were Marxist. Carolyn, bless her heart, did not grow up with either JFK or RFK but with Onassis and Teddy. Her mother was an editor, so for Carolyn to cover JFK’s audacity to claim authorship of ghost written famous material only further impugns the Kennedy name and besmirches any Kennedy “endorsement”. There was no Camelot. And if the ubertards are set on showing every pimple on the face of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, then face modern reality of the 20th Century.
1. Wilson was a beast, the bloodiest fascist instigator of policy and brutality in the USA.
2. FDR did NOT bring happy times here again by overcoming the Great Depression; WWII concluded the Depression. FDR was another progressive Marxist conning American farmer families. America had more rural population than urban then. That FDR aligned more closely with Stalin than with Churchill during WWII will not be forgotten.
3. Camelot via JFK is a lie, not just a myth. It never was. JFK was so doped on meds, he should not have been allowed to campaign, let alone win the election or continue serving. I suppose that’s where it all came down to at his assassination. But at least Jack and Robert were not communists, though they weren’t effective against communism. Judging from their family today, though, had they lived they would have become communists as well, descendents of a bootlegger mobster. Schade, pigs wearing lipstick.

maverick muse on June 29, 2008 at 7:59 AM

Someone asked what is wrong with Nationalism?

Nationalism is what can go too far, what is Naziism but hypernationalism, weeding out those who “truly” belong to the German State and placing the state above G-d and family.

That is what is wrong with the chest thumping nationalism.

Squid Shark on June 29, 2008 at 7:59 AM

Aha. He’s shrewd, right? Because he’s been calculating this message all along. And by alternately wearing and then not wearing the pin, based on context, nach, he’s sweeping everyone into his train.

Give me a freaking break. Decent article until the leg tingle took over.

TexasDan on June 28, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Genesis 3:1, New Living Translation:

Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the creatures the Lord God had made. “Really?” he asked the woman. “Did God really say you must not eat any of the fruit in the garden?”

The serpent calculated his message too. Need I say more?

abcurtis on June 29, 2008 at 8:34 AM

I hope to move to America in the future, because of the freedom of speech, and the system of government is just a better system than what is here.

MattMacD on June 29, 2008 at 6:35 AM

You better get a move on then, Matt. No telling how much longer those things are going to be around. Even after the SCOTUS affirmed our second amendment rights, the liberal socialists are already planning how they can get around it. So get moving.

abcurtis on June 29, 2008 at 8:38 AM

calbear on June 28, 2008 at 10:29 PM

why shouldn’t they love Canada–which from a liberal perspective often goes further toward realizing those principles–even more?

That’s where he lost me. These main-stream media types are very poorly informed.

fluffy on June 29, 2008 at 6:39 AM

Canada has the Human Rights Council which is an unaccountable kangaroo court that judges people on the content of their speech. Those who speak homosexuality is not normal or say something disparaging against Islam are hauled before it. In their 30 year history only one person has been acquitted – Mark Steyn just recently. For all of America’s so called flaws, I’d rather live here than Canada.

abcurtis on June 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM

nationalism, a self-righteous, chest-thumping ideology that celebrates America at the expense of the rest of the world.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Squid Shark

I’m still waiting for you to post one single comment on this site which reflects a conservative rather than a liberal viewpoint.

To clarify, I mean American conservative. You seem to be neither of those things.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Family, friends, nation, in that order.
Metro on June 28, 2008 at 11:15 PM

God, Family, County, Education, Football

That’s the order my father raised us with, and he was (is) a JFK Democrat. What the hell happened to the Democrat Party?

rockhauler on June 29, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Great comment. Cracking me up.

Liberals are generally miserable people and it drives them crazy that most other people are so happy in this “flawed,” “backward” country. So they want to make everyone as miserable as they are. They are utopians and we aren’t. So they will never be happy with the America they see, and they will always be gullible to an empty suit like Barack Obama who preaches Hope and Change. Conservatives don’t expect politics or politicians to make their lives better. They just want to stop them from making it worse.
rockmom on June 28, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Nailed it rockmom! My oldest son played (4) years of high school Lacrosse, and was lucky enough to have been on a team that was formed in the 9th grade and stayed together through graduation. All of the parents became very close; sat together and cheered loudly; rotated team parties from house to house… We had this one mom that just couldn’t fit in, sat at the end of the stands by herself, always looked like she just a smelled fart. This lady always complained that her son wasn’t treated fairly, didn’t get enough play time, should have been this or that. One day around October of 2004, this lady showed up at my door, She was going neighborhood to neighborhood, pushing Lurch Kerry in the most obnoxcious manner (total BDS). It was then that I realized what plagued this woman, none other than the disease called Liberalism. She was married to a doctor, lived in a million dollar home, drove a BMW, had all of the stuff most people can only dream of including (2) great sons; but yet she was miserable on a daily basis; nothing was ever right with her. I might add that this woman is a total babe from an appearance stand point; she should have been grateful for the gifts God (and genetics) gave her from the very start.

Liberalism = internal misery

Keemo on June 29, 2008 at 9:33 AM

it’s wrong to prefer one’s countrymen and -women to people in other lands.

So if those people in other lands take offense with your neighbors over ideals and attack them you would stay neutral or worse, support their abuse?

To some degree, patriotism must mean loving your country for the same reason you love your family: simply because it is yours.

What crap. You are a patriot because it is your duty to support your citizenship. If you prefer a different system of governance, move to where it is employed.

Beto Ochoa on June 29, 2008 at 9:36 AM

Liberals may love America in part because it aspires to certain ideals, but if they love it only because it aspires to those ideals, then what they really love is the ideals, not America.

Leftists like to say they’re as patriotic as the rest of us. Back in the JFK days of classic liberalism, this was accurate enough. But not today. The core goal of the current leftist/progressive ideology is transformation from what we are and aspire to be to what leftists want us to be. What the left loves is not America and American ideals, but the leftist ideal of transforming the USA into something more like France, even though their socialist/collectivist/statist vision is directly antithetical to all American tradition.

If the Marxist left harbors any love for America itself, it’s only after the Great Transformation, rather than as now. When ‘patriotism’ can be used to describe their goal of deconstructing and replacing American values and institutions with their own, then subversion becomes patriotism. Thesis becomes antithesis. And words become meaningless.

petefrt on June 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM

petefrt on June 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM

To them it is just another society to be conquered and subjegated.

Beto Ochoa on June 29, 2008 at 9:55 AM

This evening, I was taken out for an early birthday dinner by my kids & my ex.

In the middle of dinner, I asked my ex what she thought about an Obama Presidency. She actually started clapping her hands, loudly, in Red Robin’s. Then she said the perfect VP would be Hillary and her and my daughter giggled at the thought.

IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS she has been both pro and anti: Oboma and Hillary.

She doesn’t really care. As long as one or both gets power.

I didn’t argue. lol why bother.

Ugly on June 29, 2008 at 12:31 AM

Congratulations on your divorce, Ugly, and Happy Birthday.

hillbillyjim on June 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM

The State of Patriotism

By Peter Beinart,
..
Beinart is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

……”Smartest guy in the room”……..

McCain has bucked his side as well. He has refused to bash illegal immigrants.

Oh, never mind!
What a really dumb, discombobulated, piece of garbage this batman is!

Beinart, really does think, that this is the best dissertation he has ever written!!

He really does leave his bias – towards liberalism, globalism, and a one-world-government “controlled mindset” – naked as a baby’s bottom!!

….

Here’s another example of a really stupid discombobulated attempt at screwing your mind over with some supposedly “smart” insight:(emphasis mine)

Conservatives know America isn’t perfect, of course. But they grade on a curve.

Partly that’s because they generally take a dimmer view of human nature than do their counterparts on the left.

When evaluating America, they’re more likely to remember that for most of human history, tyranny has been the norm. By that standard, America looks pretty good.

Watch out!
Here’s the “poison” for your mind: “they take a dimmer view”…..!

This is so wrong on so many levels!!

EFFING BASTARD!!
We conservatives do not take a dimmer view of human nature!!

That is WHY, WE, celebrate and reinforce America’s value system because we truly COMPREHEND the corrupt tendencies within the nature of human beings!!

Mcguyver on June 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM

What the left loves is not America and American ideals, but the leftist ideal of transforming the USA into something more like France

That’s too harsh on the French left, who may be be socialists but are at least pro-French socialists. In other words, they are nationalists.

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Ugly on June 29, 2008 at 12:31 AM

That’s a hell of a BirthDay, btw It’s my BirthDay today also. :)

abinitioadinfinitum on June 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM

flenser on June 29, 2008 at 9:28 AM

You can ignore history all you want, there is a different between nationalism and patriotism. I am a patriot, I love my country and everything is stands for. I place my nation above alot of things, particularly while I still serve, but it does not come above G-d. In hypernationalism (like National Socialism) loyalty to the state replaces everything, including allegiance to family and G-d. This is of course a reverse of communism which stresses class loyalty over national loyalty. That is not what America stands for. Nationalism as opposed to patriotism also can inevitably lead to arguments about who are true citizens and who are not. Thankfully that is not really a problem here in the US, but it is a result of that type of jingoistic nationalism vice patriotism.

Squid Shark on June 29, 2008 at 12:01 PM

To most of us, patriotism comes naturally. To liberals, it doesn’t; in fact, they’re embarrassed by the whole concept and regard it as unenlightened, even atavistic. So for appearances’ sake they have to engage in some kind of tortured logic to arrive at something they can be comfortable calling “patriotism.”

Missy on June 28, 2008 at 10:59 PM

On target.

whitetop on June 29, 2008 at 1:06 PM

There is something vaguely farcical about conservative panic over Mexican flags in Los Angeles when Irish flags have long festooned Boston’s streets on St. Patrick’s Day.

In an article that does a fair job, this is where I think his Freudian slip shows. He can’t see the distinction between a political demonstration and a holiday. There is nothing wrong about flying Mexican flags on say, Cinco de Mayo, but as a demonstration for illegal immigration, it’s a problem as it DOES reflect a fundamental disloyalty and lack of appreciation – even while the protesters enjoy the benefits or residing in the USA – the protest itself being one.

JeffWeimer on June 29, 2008 at 1:09 PM

Giving away the federal budget to Africa would probably increase the net sum of justice and equality on the planet, after all.

Really? What would Mugabe do with his share of the federal budget given to Africa, to increase the sum of justice and equality on the planet?

Steve Z on June 29, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Call me a sap, but I think Lee Greenwood’s song, “GOD BLESS THE USA”, sums up patroitism for me. Hell, I still shed tears when I hear the “Star Spangled Banner”. Crazy, huh??

Claimsratt on June 29, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Giving away the federal budget to Africa would probably increase the net sum of justice and equality on the planet, after all.

It would only be justice if the EU gave up theirs. The europeans invaded and still occupy parts of Africa.

Beto Ochoa on June 29, 2008 at 1:47 PM

america does not have sins, this historical reevalution is wrong. I am glad my ancestors did what they did. All of it. Because if they didn’t America would not be the only world’s superpower. America would be nothing but a backwater small country with no say in the world. If we did not “exterminate” the Indians, “steal” land from Mexico, “practice” the “sin” of slavery etc. America would be a very different, smaller, less powerful place today.

I agree about the Indian wars and Mexico but you are wrong about slavery. Slavery did nothing to increase America’s place in the world. Slaves just ended up doing the work that their masters did not want to do/pay for themselves.

Slavery could still be going on in the world

Slavery is still going on in the world. There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. An article published in the National Geographic five years ago puts the global number at 27 million slaves worldwide.

If you were referring to the end of the trans-Atlantic slave trade that was due to the British Empire. In 1807 the Royal Navy announced that it would regard all slave ships as pirates, and thus they were liable to sinking and their crews to execution.

aengus on June 29, 2008 at 2:09 PM

It would only be justice if the EU gave up theirs. The europeans invaded and still occupy parts of Africa.

Beto Ochoa on June 29, 2008 at 1:47 PM

That would not be justice. It would just make for two poor, starving continents instead of one.

aengus on June 29, 2008 at 2:13 PM

That would not be justice. It would just make for two poor, starving continents instead of one
aengus on June 29, 2008 at 2:13 PM

I agree. Just trying to show how ridiculous Beinart’s point was. If he feels so bad about Africa he’s free to send his own money.

Beto Ochoa on June 29, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Beto Ochoa on June 29, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Oh okay. I used to give money to an African charity until I later found out some of the money they receive is siphoned off for Palestinian “aid” i.e. weapons. Now I will only give to homeless people in the street.

aengus on June 29, 2008 at 3:48 PM

I would have given Weasely Clark the dishonor of quote of the day.

corona on June 29, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Now I will only give to homeless people in the street.

aengus on June 29, 2008 at 3:48 PM

I only give them money if they are entertaining me (dnacing, singing, playing an instrument) then if they use it to buy booze or smack, then they at least earned it.

Squid Shark on June 29, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Now I will only give to homeless people in the street.

aengus on June 29, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Thanks a lot. You’re why those people continue to harass everybody.

misterpeasea on June 29, 2008 at 6:40 PM

I’m going to give my political donations to the 527 that does the best job of smacking BHO around. I’m not going to give it to the Republican party this time.

Mojave Mark on June 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM

We didn’t “exterminate” the natives (well, the Siberians who got here first, wiped out all the other Asians who came over the Bering land bridge with their superior spear and arrow points and were mistakenly called Indians by the early European explorers).

Most were killed by natural transmission of European viral diseases long before they ever saw a white person and long before there was any organized military conflict. Hernando deSoto reported hundreds of villages along the Mississippi River in the 1540s. By the time of Lewis & Clark’s expedition, in 1804-1806, hardly any of those villages existed.

The natives had no immunity to viral diseases. For the most part they didn’t raise livestock, so there were no vectors of infection from animal hosts. The early French and Spanish explorers and traders carried smallpox, yellow fever and other viruses to the new world.

rokemronnie on June 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Thanks a lot. You’re why those people continue to harass everybody.

misterpeasea on June 29, 2008 at 6:40 PM

They’re not going to starve to death in silence whether I give them money or not. Or perhaps they will but I don’t really consider that a workable alternative.

aengus on June 29, 2008 at 8:01 PM

Eminent thinkers, from Tolstoy to contemporary philosophers like Martha Nussbaum and George Kateb…

What do eminent thinkers and philosophers have in common? Leaving aside George Kateb, who is just a name to me, how does Martha Nussbaum merit being called a philosopher? Really, in our time, every well-spoken piece of trash that blows into a coffee shop gets called a “philosopher.”

…have denounced patriotism on exactly those grounds: that it’s wrong to prefer one’s countrymen and -women to people in other lands

It’s wrong for whom? For everyone, at all times, in every situation? And it’s wrong with respect to what end, or in comparison to what?

As a thought-experiment, let’s suppose it’s simply wrong for the Americans to prefer their country and their countrymen to those elsewhere, and let’s pretend, therefore, that patriotism must be replaced by something else. Why the fvck do eminent thinkers suppose that patriotism’s replacement will be the universal love of mankind? Why will patriotism’s replacement not be the universal love of the tiny portion of mankind who have something better than sh1t for brains? I promise you, you eminent thinkers and other phony philosophers, that if I ever publicly abandon patriotism, you will not like the towering exclusivity of the love I will put in its place.

Kralizec on June 30, 2008 at 4:57 AM

My modest proposal for reconciling American patriotism to universalism is that the Americans tile the Earth with states.

Kralizec on June 30, 2008 at 5:06 AM

test…

KarmiCommunist on June 30, 2008 at 6:43 PM