Here’s a question we patriotic Americans should be asking ourselves: What does it mean to be an “American”?
Why, you might ask, should we ask ourselves this question? After all, the definition of the word “American,” when applied to people, isn’t really relevant to the political values of most Americans. To take myself as an example, I want more safety, more freedom and more prosperity, health and happiness for all American citizens – and I’m content to accept the simple idea that all American citizens are “Americans,” period.
But for a small minority of people who have a disproportionate influence in our media, the question of who is “American” and who isn’t — or the question of who is “more American” and who is “less American” — is key to the way they think about politics. They see the word “American” as a term that can include some American citizens and exclude others, and they are intent on subtly imposing their definition on the rest of us as a way to increase their power.
We can’t afford to sit back and let their insidious usages infect our everyday conversation until the word itself — “American” – becomes a symbol of their destructive ideas. We must think, very deliberately, about how we define the word “American,” so we can defend ourselves and our country.
An obvious example of how media elites are trying to use the word “American” to undermine their political enemies was revealed by the Atlantic Monthly’s Joshua Green, who recently wrote an article about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and also published a collection of memos written by Clinton’s top campaign strategists. Clinton’s uber-strategist was a man named Mark Penn, the CEO of the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller. Penn wrote a memo in late March 2007 suggesting Obama was “less American” than Clinton. Here’s an excerpt:
All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light.
Save it for 2050.
It also exposes a very strong weakness for him — his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values. He told the people of NH yesterday he has a Kansas accent because his mother was from there. His mother lived in many states as far as we can tell — but this is an example of the nonsense he uses to cover this up.
How could we give some life to this contrast without going negative:
Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century. And talk about the basic bargain as about the deeply held American values you grew up with, learned as a child and that drive you today. Values of fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back.
Let’s explicitly own “American” in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t. Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy Fund. Let’s use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let’s add flag symbols to the background.
We are never going to say anything about his background — we have to show the value of ours when it comes to making decisions, understanding the needs of most Americans — the invisible Americans.
Let’s be clear: Obama’s mother was American. His father, a native of Kenya, abandoned the family when Obama was two years old. Obama lived in Indonesia from ages 6 to 10, but otherwise he spent his entire life living in the United States. He grew up in Hawaii, attended Americans schools including Columbia University and Harvard University, and taught the U.S. Constitution at the University of Chicago Law School.
So why does Penn claim to think Obama’s “roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited”? Why does Penn claim to think Obama is “not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values?”
It’s important to note that Penn is not framing his argument in ethnic or genetic terms — which would be a more blatant invocation of Nazi ideology — but rather in terms of Obama’s “values” and “culture” — but Penn doesn’t specifically explain what leads him to believe that Obama’s “values” are “limited” in their American-ness.
Setting aside what spooky thoughts might be rattling around inside Penn’s brain, it’s easy to understand Obama’s vulnerability to being called “un-American” in a general election. First of all, right-wingers use the word “un-American” to describe Democrats and liberals in general. Right-wingers like to draw a link between liberals and Marxists, thereby identifying liberals with America’s enemies during the Cold War. And ever since the 1960s, right-wingers have called liberals “un-American” because of the left-wing’s opposition to the Vietnam War.
Furthermore, people on the religious right who consider America a “Christian nation” consider atheism “un-American,” and atheism is more popular among liberals. Add to that Obama’s mixed race, his foreign father, his middle name — “HUSSEIN!” — and it’s clear why people think they can get away with suggesting that Obama isn’t American enough to be president.
But Penn doesn’t embrace the right-wing’s characterization of all liberals as “un-American,” nor does he point directly to Obama’s religion or ethnicity to show why Obama isn’t “American” enough. Instead, Penn uses words such as “values” and “culture.”
So here’s the question we should be asking. If someone shares the “values” and “culture” of Barack Obama, does that mean this person’s connection to American values and culture is “at best limited”? If you care about the things that Obama cares about and enjoy the things that Obama enjoys, are you not as “American” as someone like Clinton, who was “born in the middle of America”?
This is what I beleive: To use the word “American” to diminish Barack Obama is disgusting and terrifying. It is a perversion of the ideas we patriotic Americans value most. As far as I’m concerned, Hillary Clinton owes this country an apology.
I have to admit that I am leery of the whole framework of “patriotism talk,” for many of the reasons you persuasively outline.
It strikes me that someone who frames an argument by claiming that his opponent is insufficiently American–that he or she is unpatriotic–is doing so out of a fundamental position of weakness. You make that argument, it seems to me, only when you can’t win based on the facts.
I mean, which nefarious anti-American agenda are left-leaning US citizens supposed to be serving? International Bolshevism? Conspiracy-overlord George Soros? People who charge individuals of being insufficiently American won’t say or can’t; they can only make insinuations.
Comment by Lee — August 20, 2008 @ 2:48 am
I would say there’s a big difference between being “American,” as Penn used the term, and the word “patriotic,” as I use it.
Being patriotic means being devoted to the interests of the United States and wanting to support the American people. It’s true that the right-wing has been trying to pervert the meaning of “patriotism” so it becomes a symbol of their agenda — but it is still possible to use the word correctly, and I think liberals should use it a lot.
There are some liberals who like to talk about their political ideas in terms of what is best for the whole world — for all humanity — rather than in terms of what is best for America alone. While this “citizen of the world” attitude has the virtue of being in line with the core moral teachings of all the world’s religions, and while it might lead to good policy decisions, I don’t believe it’s appropriate to explicitly encourage Americans or their politicians to put the interests of “the world” ahead of America’s interests.
In general, it’s easy to understand that what’s good for the world is often good for America, because America is in the world. In terms of some issues — global warming, nuclear proliferation, etc — what is good for the world is clearly good for America. But what should we expect our political leaders to do when they are faced with a situation where the interests of the world as a whole seem to conflict with the interests of the United States?
In that situation, if liberals expect their politicians to argue for the “good for the world” option, and conservatives opt for the “good for America” option, then we must concede that conservatives are more patriotic than liberals, and then relinquish control of this country to conservatives.
The American people want their leaders to do what’s best for this country. The history of humanity has been full of horrible violence and catastophe, and now Americans naturally want to feel protected by their government. The liberal politicians I want to support are prepared to take their marching orders from the American people, which means being patriotic rather than purely altruistic on a global scale.
The failure of conservatism is NOT that conservatives put the interests of this country ahead of the interests of “the world”. The failure of conservatism is that conservatives put the interests of the small minority of rich Americans ahead of the interests of most Americans, and support policies that undermine America in terms of national security, the economy, public health, etc.
Maybe someday people all over the world will debate about what is best for the entire world community — but for the time being, Americans will and should focus on what is best for America, and that should determine how we think about policy.
So what do you think of that?
Comment by Ian — August 20, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
I agree with much of what you’ve written here.
However, I would suggest that sometimes it IS more moral to bypass the interests of the U.S. population in favor of the interests of others. If our choice were either (i) keep consumer goods at a low rate by bombing some other country or (ii) care for the lives of people in other countries, by not bombing them, over against our consumer largess…
Here the moral choice is to care for the lives of other non-American people, even if that means we pay a little more at the supermarket. It would be absurd to suggest the person in favor of bombing is more “patriotic.” In this case, I think it’s “more patriotic” to endorse American values, which claim to be universal–that is, the value of not murdering other people except under extreme circumstances of self defense.
I would further suggest that there have been very few cases where a genuine choice between what’s good for the world and what’s good for America arises, if by that we mean vital national security choices, life or death choices.
It has been the intention of many self-professed “conservatives”–they are better described as radical corporate/militarists–to make it seem as if we frequently encounter choices between our vital national security interests and the interests of some other nefarious group. The problem with such conservatives is not, indeed, that they value America more than some other hypothetical group. It is that they get us to talk in such bipolar terms at all, that they are profoundly and murderously “anti-American.”
I worry that if we keep using the word “patriotism,” then we will give the false impression that we face many choices between our “interests” and the interests of other people.
Comment by Lee — August 20, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
I think this is a very important discussion, and I’m excited to keep it going.
I take your point about use of the word “patriotism.” Patriotism absolutely SHOULD NOT imply that America’s interests are necessarily in conflict with the interests of non-Americans.
Here’s an analogy: I love myself (I’m an Ianist), which means I believe in eating healthy food, getting plenty of exercise, and being responsible about my finances. (I don’t always act in line with my beliefs, but that’s another story…) If I kept my life in good order, would that be bad for anyone else? No, of course not: In fact, it would be good for me AND for everyone around me.
Similarly, patriotism means wanting what is best for the American people. It doesn’t have a negative meaning — in other words, it doesn’t imply in any way that harm should be done to non-Americans.
Again: conservatives aren’t wrong in making the good of this country their top priority. Conservatives are wrong because their ideas are bad for the country. The problem with conservatives isn’t that they are immoral because they don’t care enough about non-Americans. The problem with conservatives is that they are immoral because they don’t care enough about Americans.
Anyway, this is how I see it. If liberals run away from the word “patriotism,” liberals are basically implying that they don’t care about this country as much as conservatives do. This is exactly the opposite of the truth.
Comment by Ian — August 21, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
I agree that “conservatives” have hurt America and that “conservative” foreign policy has damaged the safety and prosperity of this country.
However, additionally, you could — and should — argue that “conservatives” are immoral because they do not care about non-Americans, because they see some non-Americans as less than fully human, to be sacrificed without comment or regard. In short, they see some people as disposable.
America has unnecessarily lost many of its courageous servicemen and -women in Iraq–which adds hugely to the immorality of the Iraq War–but I would claim that the war would continue to be immoral even if it did not result in the loss of a single American life.
Iraqis are people too–they have families, dreams, aspirations–and if you believe that there was no justification for the Iraq War, as I do, then the unnecessary deaths of so many Iraqi civilians, a direct result of our foreign policy, is horrifically criminal. It’s as simple as that.
To say that is not unpatriotic, but the very definition of patriotism, if that word has any moral meaning at all. If we claim that American rights and values are universal–and not just for Americans–then our violating the rights of non-Americans through violence is just as unpatriotic as would violating the rights of Americans.
To torture an innocent Afghan kid because of our decision to abrogate the Geneva Conventions is immoral even if torturing that kid has no long term negative effect on the security of the US.
Comment by Lee — August 21, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
I suspect that you, like me, are proud of our country’s commitment to the idea that all human beings are “created equal,” and should be regarded as having equal value.
The U.S. Declaration of Indpendence doesn’t make a distinction between Americans and non-Americans, and neither should Americans from a moral standpoint.
So I completely agree that you can make the argument that conservatives are immoral because they don’t value the lives of non-Americans. I’ve heard conservative radio pundit Jay Severin say he wishes the people of the Middle East would all just kill each other — and when Severin says these sorts of things he only feeds the idea that conservatives believe what they believe because they have no conscience.
But should we patriotic Americans be making a moral argument as we try to pursuade our fellow Americans?
If we look at the arguments right-wingers make to justify war, torture, extreme poverty, environmental pollution, the erosion of our civil liberties, etc — the arguments are always pragmatic at the core. They say we need to go to war and torture to protect ourselves, we need to sacrifice our civil liberties to protect ourselves, we can’t fight poverty or save the environment without undermining the economy, etc.
When we respond to their arguments with a moral argument, we create a false impression that the fundamental choice is between pragmatism and idealism. For years a conservative relative of mine insisted on calling me “an idealist” for holding liberal views, as if to suggest that I was naive. The expression, “a person who isn’t liberal when he’s young has no heart; a person who isn’t conservative when he’s old has no brain” is based on this false understanding of what separates liberals and conservatives.
But the liberal/conservative debate isn’t between self-righteous idealists who want to do the right thing and self-centered pragmatists who want to survive. The liberal/conservative debate is between people who have a correct understanding of what’s best for America and people whose ideas will hurt America’s economy, its national security and its political system.
In other words, I don’t believe we win by convincing people that our ideas are morally superior. We win by convincing people that our ideas are better for THEM.
Furthermore, I believe strong arguments can be made that, setting morality completely aside, it is not in our national interest to torture Afghan kids or to kill innocent Iraqis unnecessarily.
Remember Conrad Crane’s phrase: “Lose moral legitimacy, lost the war.”
http://www.historyishappeningnow.com/?p=85#more-85
Comment by Ian — August 22, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
You ask “should we patriotic Americans be making a moral argument as we try to pursuade our fellow Americans?”
I think the answer to this question is yes, yes, yes.
To do otherwise is to treat “conservatives” as moral midgets and to absolve them of responsibility for their views.
The dichotomy between morality and practical effects is, as you say, a false one. The Iraq War was not immoral because of some abstract wrongness, but because of its horrific real-world effects, and because it was unjustified.
When you look a “conservative” in the eye and tell them that they’re wrong about Iraq, we should say this: “The policies you supported have led to the unnecessary deaths of Americans and Iraqis. I know this may be hard for you to hear, but they are dead because of what you supported. I am against the murder of innocent people, both Americans and non-Americans.” This is simultaneously a practical and moral argument. It is based on the moral idea that killing people is bad, period, and on the practical knowledge that Iraq was never a threat to us, never had WMDs, etc.
Moreover, “conservatives” ALWAYS make moral arguments, from abortion to the Iraq War.
When Barack Obama complains about the Iraq War he does so because it was “a dumb war” and because it now “distracts” us “from the real enemy,” not because the war is fundamentally immoral and (pragmatically) murderous. When conservatives defend the war they say we are “spreading liberty” and have “destroyed a terrible dictatorship” and have “freed the Iraqi people,” gains which will be rolled back if we withdraw. The “liberal” case is procedural and pragmatic; the “conservative” case is moral and pragmatic all at once.
Enough Americans hate the Iraq War so that the “conservative” case for war no longer has the traction it once did, but that’s a separate issue.
I think progressive–and yes, patriotic–Americans need to use the full arsenal of argument when making our case to our fellow citizens. I find the idea that we should tip toe around what we really think–and that our morality is somehow disconnected from pragmatism–unconvincing, both strategically and in terms of creating the sort of world where we don’t need to feel ashamed of our beliefs.
If we believe in our beliefs, we should make them known, in full, to our fellow Americans. Yes, we should be strategic in our public outreach efforts, tailoring our message to the concerns of each listener, but I think moral talk can be a big winner when its tightly coupled to practical arguments. That’s the best argument for moral talk: it is a pragmatic winner.
“Conservatives” know that. Why don’t we?
Comment by Lee — August 22, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
This is a fascinating debate, and I really appreciate your last response.
It’s true that Obama called the Iraq war “dumb,” rather than “evil,” and says it “distracts us from the real enemy” rather than saying it “kills innocent people.” You’re suggesting it’s a mistake for Obama to focus on rationality rather than morality.
The problem, as I see it, is that morality is ultimately arbitrary, whereas ideas about cause and effect are not. If you’re talking to a conservative who regards Iraqis as little more than insects — or worse, as agents of Satan — accusing that conservative of being evil for supporting the murder of innocent Iraqis won’t get you anywhere. It won’t be hard for them to hear; it will be easy for them to hear because they don’t care.
But if conservatives say the war in Iraq is making us safer — that’s an argument based not on ideas about right and wrong, but based on ideas about how the world works. Ideas about right and wrong cannot be proven, they are matters of faith or personal experience, but ideas about how the world works can be refuted by pointing to evidence in the world. I believe the war in Iraq is making us less safe — making it more likely that an American city will be bombed, that our country’s existence will be threatened — and that’s an argument I can support by pointing to something other than my own values.
But you’re right that liberals should make moral arguments a part of their strategy, but I think the focus should be on pointing out how disgusting right-wing politicians are in their treatment of their own constituencies. McCain is a liar and lying is immoral, but that’s an attack that targets McCain and not everyone tempted to find McCain’s rhetoric appealing.
If Obama called the Iraq War immoral, he’d be accused of calling the United States immoral. And this would only support Obama’s enemies in telling the lie once again that Obama “hates America.”
Comment by Ian — August 23, 2008 @ 1:29 am
I guess I would say that morality inflects every argument we make. Morality is always present in concrete ways. The person who would blame Obama for “hating” America is making a fundamentally moral argument, it seems to me. The American who cares about the death of another American but not for a Canadian has also implicitly accepted the moral worth of the American and the subhuman status of the Canadian–on the basis of which side of an imaginary line that person lives on.
If a significant number of Americans regard “Iraqis as little more than insects,” then our problems run so deep that the practical arguments you offer as an alternative would almost be beside the point.
If the majority of Americans regard Iraqis as subhumans, then we need nothing less than a cultural revolution in this country, akin to the Civil Rights movement, feminism, gay rights, etc.
There was once a time when African slaves–and then blacks–were regarded as subhuman. I suppose you could have told an abolitionist not to mention his moral arguments–and his opinion about the fundamental humanity of the slave. You might even have had a point. But it seems to me that under those circumstances, you hobble yourself, and open yourself up to charges of cynicism, by omitting the moral antislavery claims from your efforts at persuasion.
That is, a pro-slavery guy would have been right to critique the “pragmatic” abolitionist on the following grounds: “You try to persuade me to abandon my views on slavery on the basis of pragmatic argument, but I can tell you’re pulling a fast one on me. I’m not stupid. You’ve arrived at your position not through practical reasoning about the pros and cons of slavery. You’ve arrived at your conclusion via ‘moral’ means–you seem to think slaves are human beings–and yet you are afraid to admit it. Well, I see right through the game you’re playing with me and on that basis reject your argument.”
What should the abolitionist, committed to “pragmatic” argument, having bracketed off “moral” justifications, say to that?
Someone who thinks it’s OK to take a random Afghan boy off the street and torture him until he dies because that boy is subhuman is such a monster that it seems beside the point to argue with such a person; that person should simply be marginalized and ignored to the degree possible.
And frankly, I am not persuaded that most Americans would support that sort of sadistic behavior. I may be wrong, but if I’m wrong, we’re living in our own little version of hell here. Even the Bush administration tries to justify its use of torture in moral terms–by saying it’s more moral to torture than to lose an American city to a nuke–so I think we don’t live in the sort of hell you seem to be implying we’re all in.
I think Obama can simultaneously speak of the practical reasons we need to end the war–the most practical being to stop the unnecessary death of our servicemen and -women–and simultaneously frame his claims in moral terms. To have invaded was immoral. Bush and co. committed war crimes. They are pro-torture. Etc. I think Americans would respond to that. Those who wouldn’t probably won’t give a shit about our practical arguments anyway.
Comment by Lee — August 23, 2008 @ 2:31 am
Another to consider is how people are informed about the way. Almost every American death merits and article. Who reports on Iraqi death? Neither liberal media nor conservative media?
It’s a specific example of how international tragedies only get coverage if Americans involved such as “200 people, including 4 Americans, died in the plane crash in India…” Does being American make you any more dead?
Comment by John — August 23, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Yes, I agree that the media’s choice shape who comes to seem like a human being to us and who doesn’t. Media coverage can have a massive effect on who we empathize with just in terms of sheer volume.
Regarding the plane crash example, I would add that it’s one thing to be (i) indifferent to random deaths around the world–say, the plane crashes you refer to–and another to be (ii) indifferent for the deaths the policies of your country are directly or indirectly responsible for.
It’s the same different between (i) wondering whether it’s ethical to go to the movies when a homeless man lives across the street who could eat well off your 10 bucks; and (ii) actively contributing, in the ballot box, to political policies that make more and more people homeless (say by eliminating govt. housing subsidies, withdrawing funding from mental health facilities that care for mentally disturbed veterans, etc.).
About (i), you can have fascinating academic arguments in a philosophy class or a debating club; but (ii), it seems to me, is politics in action, simultaneously moral and practical and highly urgent.
Comment by Lee — August 23, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
To Lee: You write:
“If a significant number of Americans regard “Iraqis as little more than insects,” then our problems run so deep that the practical arguments you offer as an alternative would almost be beside the point.”
This doesn’t make any sense. Our intentions to do what’s best for this country and the world don’t simply evaporate just because other people don’t live up to our expectations in terms of morality. If you found out that most Americans don’t value Iraqi life the way you do, would you just throw up your hands and say, “I give up! Americans are so evil that I don’t care anymore about what happens in the world!” In that case, my practical arguments would still be just as effective in that instance, which is the whole point of my argument. I’m not interested in getting into a conversation about whether the American people are evil — I’m interested in getting into a conversation about what’s best, in the long term, for the American people, and this is a conversation everyone can get behind no matter how evil they are. That’s the point.
You write:
“If the majority of Americans regard Iraqis as subhumans, then we need nothing less than a cultural revolution in this country, akin to the Civil Rights movement, feminism, gay rights, etc.”
I agree that we should always express moral ideals and try to elevate the morality of the country, I’m just saying I think it’s rarely helpful to link this conversation to partisan politics.
Comment by Ian — August 23, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
“If you found out that most Americans don’t value Iraqi life the way you do, would you just throw up your hands and say, “I give up!”
On the contrary, if this were the case, then I would change my priorities from making arguments in practical/moral terms to, additionally, altering the moral composition of our public sphere and fellow citizens.
I would fight, as many have done before, to persuade people of the value of all human life and the fundamental connection between the equal worth of all persons and political democracy. These are, at heart, fundamentally American ideas. We disrespect the very best parts of our Enlightenment heritage when we walk away from them.
“I’m interested in getting into a conversation about what’s best, in the long term, for the American people”
I think we agree on this goal. I think that the moral and practical arguments are totally inseparable. They inform each other in every sentence we utter, in every clause. They cannot be bracketed off and separated out. Moreover, as our political discourse currently exists, they AREN’T separated but always mixed together. Americans are deeply concerned with moral politics. They’re probably among the most moralistic people in the developed world. We disarm ourselves if we refuse to speak in moral terms.
Comment by Lee — August 23, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
To Lee: I’m proud to see these sorts of sentiments expressed on this blog. I share your interest in “persuading people of the value of all human life and the fundamental connection between the equal worth of all persons and political democracy.”
These are the core values that drive our politics, and I agree that we shouldn’t hide them in any way.
Comment by Ian — August 24, 2008 @ 1:42 pm