Earlier this week, I read this article at Time.come (printer dialog may open) about the state of patriotism in America. Written by Peter Beinart, a former editor at The New Republic, the article discusses patriotism in America and the public faces of the two dominant strains, conservative and liberal, of patriotism. In the article, Beinart briefly examines the sometimes stereotypical conservative ("my country, right or wrong) and liberal ("my country, wrong and wronger") and how both strains are important to us, as Americans, and reminds us that "...no matter how they define patriotism, Americans should tremble before suggesting that any fellow citizen lacks it." From an earlier paragraph:
When it comes to patriotism, conservatives and liberals need each other, because love of country requires both affirmation and criticism. It's a good thing that Americans fly the flag on July 4. In a country as diverse as ours, patriotic symbols are a powerful balm. And if people stopped flying the flag every time the government did something they didn't like, it would become an emblem not of national unity but of political division. On the other hand, waving a flag, like holding a Bible, is supposed to be a spur to action. When it becomes an end in itself, America needs people willing to follow in the footsteps of the prophets and remind us that complacent ritual can be the enemy of true devotion.
When I first read the article, I was immediately taken by his style and thesis; I've read it again a handful of times, and my opinion hasn't changed. It's an important reminder today, and every other day.
Happy Fourth of July!
HG
"The American who volunteers to fight in Iraq and the American who protests the war both express a truer patriotism than the American who treats it as a distant spectacle with no claim on his talents or conscience."
Good article all around. Good Indy Day read.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Beinart is a very good writer, and I enjoy him very much. I don't always agree with him, but I do enjoy him.
Happy 4th, everyone!
Nice article. Note that he doesn't actually call for people to stop being critical of others' patriotism, but to encourage them to live the action of that sentiment. Good stuff.
Have a good 4th.
why not display that bi partisan patriotism and have a post partisan bbq at someone's place?
I absolutely detest such vacuous saccharine ambivalent subversive spew as this article by certifiable scum-bag Peter Beinart. Barack Obama is no doubt very proud of him.
My knee-jerk response to this article was to give Beinart the virtual equivalent of a defiant double rigid-finger salute. Even though the article is about the 4th of July there is not one single mention of the Declaration of Independence or any of its tenets.
Beinart's new day job is with the Council of Foreign Relations. I think he will fit in real well over at the CFR. Hopefully his presence will make the agenda of the CFR easier for patriots to detect.
*
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
- Samuel Adams
This half page ad from the NYTimes was interesting to me -
www.constitutioncampaign.org/ad/ad.pdf
The accompanying video is viewable here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC_MF4giZxw
On July 5th, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Regnad Kcin said: "My knee-jerk response to this article was to give Beinart the virtual equivalent of a defiant double rigid-finger salute. Even though the article is about the 4th of July there is not one single mention of the Declaration of Independence or any of its tenets."
Perhaps, in your knee-jerk reading of the article, you could have noticed that it's not about the 4th of July or the Declaration of Independence. It's about patriotism. Read. The. #$@&. Article. From the title of the article ("The War Over Patriotism"), to the very first sentence, to the last paragraph, it's not about the about the 4th of July or the Declaration of Independence. Did you even bother reading the article, prior to vomiting all over your keyboard and posting? Or did your knee-jerk response overwhelm your ability to read and comprehend?
"I absolutely detest such vacuous saccharine ambivalent subversive spew as this article by certifiable scum-bag Peter Beinart. Barack Obama is no doubt very proud of him."
Name calling is, honestly, the single most persuasive thing you could ever post. In fact, why don't you do more of it in the future, makes it easier for everyone else to know where you stand.
"Hopefully his [Beinart] presence will make the agenda of the CFR easier for patriots to detect."
Sure will. Plus, all those cool black helicopters they fly on the way to their super-secret, new world order meetings are easy to detect.
HG
to the very first sentence, to the last paragraph, it's not about the about the 4th of July or the Declaration of Independence.
No joke, Holmes?
It is obvious that the article is about July 4 - Independence Day because of its timing and content. Further, Beinart mentions July 4 specifically three times.
Beinart is a mean and despicable person. The fawning love-fest over him is not too cool in my opinion.
You know, I was all set to write a post, detailing your inability to read and comprehend the actual article I linked to and debate its actual merits or demerits; how factually wrong your inability to read and comprehend the article has left your supposed position; I was going to include how counting the number of times a phrase or word is used is asinine, and is useless to debating the actual topic at hand; and finish with how the few people to have expressed a positive opinion of Beinart and his article in this thread have been very mild in their praise, especially compared with the vitriol you seem to hold for him, and have let fly twice now.
Then I realized that your opinion is set in stone (neolithic, even), that nothing I or anyone else could say or any point that could be brought up would change your inability to actually debate or discuss the article. I hope you enjoyed your Fourth of July weekend.
HG
"It is obvious that the article is about July 4 - Independence Day because of its timing and content. Further, Beinart mentions July 4 specifically three times."
It refers to the 4th of July for the same reason it was written around the same time... it's a patriotic holiday. His arguments and comments are on patriotism. And though your seething hatred of him is cute, there was in fact a single mention of the Declaration of Independence. But the article isn't about that either. It also mentioned immigrants/immigration eight times, but the article isn't about that either. What the article is about is 'obvious' if you read it instead of just spewing your preconceived notions.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
May your chains rest lightly upon you.
As a slave... to reading comprehension. ;-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I am sorry that you who liked the article didnt understand and catch the deceit in what he was saying.
Perhaps you can point out the deceitful parts instead of just calling the author a scumbag and implying that the rest of us are blind slaves. If it is so obvious, why not skip the ad hominem and go right to your argument, instead of skipping any argument and going right for the ad hominem? Seems that would be far more constructive.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I really enjoy that every thread here is hijacked by somebody who was already banned before. I would hate for any thread here to be purposeful and productive.
This might help when deconstructing the works of Mr Kcin:
"Nick Danger" was a character created by the comedy group "Firesign Theatre". He was a lame brained, third rate detective who somehow always managed to come out on top despite his incompetence. The group put out several albums from the mid 1960's through the mid 1980's. If you are into dark humour these recordings are well worth your time.
Source: www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/6677/index.html
I am reminded of Harry Shearer's advice that this kind of comedy is one of those things best left to professionals when exhibited in public places. Otherwise, you might end up on his "apologies of the week"©.
"If you are into dark humour these recordings are well worth your time."
I never found them to be dark in any way. Just because it's satirical doesn't mean it's dark. Sometimes, as in the case of "Firesign," it's exuberant and life affirming. I was lucky enough to see Proctor and Bergman (half of "Firesign") live at Ruby Gulch one night in the fall of 1975. Amazing energy.
I've used this quote from "Firesign" as my email signature for over a decade: "How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all?" I think it describes the internet perfectly.
its what nick saw when he looked out his office window. rhapsody offers firesign theatre stuff that you can hear for free. there also is some firesign theatre stuff on youtube.
*
deconstruct all you want but I wasnt joking that I find Beinart's nonsense to be damnably offensive and super-subversive.
some quotes on Beinart's heroes from Karl Popper: (bold type emphasis is mine, italics from the source).
...Hegel's philosophy was inspired by ulterior motives... Hegel... was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined in as a perfect chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before.
...The driving forces of this movement are, contrary to all solemn airs and assertations, not ideals; they are very real purposes indeed, namely personal, official, clerical, political, in short, material interests. . . Party interests are vehemently agitating the pens of so many pure lovers of wisdom. . . Truth is certainly the last thing they have in mind. . . Philosophy is misused, from the side of the state as a tool, from the other side as a means of gain. . . Who can really believe that the truth also will thereby come to light, just as a by-product?. . Governments make of philosophy a means of serving their state interests, and scholars make of it a trade. . .'
"Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, asserted under the influence of Hume that pure speculation or reason, whenever it ventures into a field in which it cannot possibly be checked by experience, is liable to get involved in contradictions or 'antinomies' and to produce what he unambigously described as 'mere fancies'; 'nonsense'; 'illusions'; 'a sterile dogmatism'; and 'a superficial pretension to the knowledge of everything'. He tried to show that to every metaphysical assertion or thesis, concerning for example the beginning of the world in time, or the existence of God, there can be contrasted a counter-assertion or antithesis; and both, he held, may proceed from the same assumptions, and can be proved with an equal degree of 'evidence'. In other words, when leaving the field of experience, our speculation can have no scientific status, since to every argument there must be an equally valid counter-argument.
...liberalism, freedom and reason are, as usual, objects of Hegel's attacks. The hysterical cries: We want our history! We want our destiny! We want our fight! We want our chains! resound through the edifice of Hegelianism, through this stronghold of the closed society and of the revolt against freedom."