Patriotism and Protestantism

[BDS]

Americans (especially Conservatives) seem obsessed with Patriotism. Especially during times of war, they fly their flags, stick on their bumper stickers, and support their troops. Any criticism of American policy is sometimes seen as “unpatriotic”. America (according to such Patriots) is the Greatest Nation in History. The Constitution is a holy dogma (just ask yguy, if you don’t believe me). The Declaration proclaims “inalienable rights” and “self-evident truths” like some Proclamation from God.

Patriotism is not an American invention. It was Walter Scott who asked,

“Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!”

Nonetheless, Americans have brought Patriotic excesses to great heights.

It has often been noted that Americans are an insecure lot. Our social status is so tied up with achievement that it is protean. Unlike the Nobility of old, we can lose our place in society with couple of lousy investments.

It seems to me that this insecurity is expressed in American Patriotism. We cannot simply love our country, we must believe it is the best country in the world, a land hallowed by our “founding fathers”, veritable King Arthurs who, if they are not “once and future kings”, are still ruling us in the sacred wisdom of the Constitution.

I have nothing against patriotism. It’s natural to love one’s own land, as it is natural to love one’s own family. But we don’t need to feel our family is superior to all other families in order to love them; nor need we feel that our parents’ rules are somehow holy. We love our family not because they are superior, but because they are our family.

There’s comfort in that. After all, if our family will only remain beloved if they are better than all other families, then their position in our hearts is not very secure. If our country will only remain beloved if it is the Greatest Nation on Earth, then its position is not very secure.

What does this have to do with Calvinism?

In another thread, we were talking about how “belief” cannot really be identified. For Protestants, this has always created problems. How is membership among the ‘elect’ identified? Fundamentalists use a variety of statements to identify membership: “I’m born again”, “I believe in the right to life”, “I oppose gay marriage.” After all, if the Holy Spirit is speaking through a person, we can expect his political opinions to reflect that influence, and if they do not, well – he may not REALLY be born again.

Similarly, Calvinists thought that worldly success was a sign of God’s favor. Success in business may indicate “election”.

American “patriots” seem influenced by the protean insecurity of our social and religious status. Like Fundamentalists, they fly their flag wherever they go. They support the President. They support the troops. They revere the Constitution and the Declaration, almost as Gospel.

They not only love America, but yammer fervently about its superiority – just as they worship God because of His superiority. And since mere “belief” is not identifiable, they associate themselves with statements, political positions, actions, and attitudes that should (they hope) prove their patriotism.

It is almost as though our society, with its protean social classes, and its dominant religion (Protestantism) which lacks identifying rituals, has led to a primal urge to proclaim membership – in social class through conspicuous consumption, in Religious Faith and in Patriotism through righteous proclamations (often ridculous ones).

[Ari]

Many of the more extreme (say fundamentalist) 'patriots' often view questioning the country or the decisions of its leaders to be un-patriotic, as if the country/leaders were God. Of course many have included this 'patriotism' in their faith with the belief that american is not only a christian nation but one chosen by God. To some Bush is the pope.

[Angakuk]

Please note that not all Protestants are Calvinists. With that caveat out of the way, I have to say that most of what BDS says (in that particular post) makes a lot of sense.

[godfry n. glad]

I've one problem.

My problem with extreme patriots is that they revere the image of the flag over that of the content of the Constitution. Ergo, there are many of these types who actively oppose some of the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution, particularly if they protect people who speak out against the particular pet policies of our patriots. "Patriots" and "constitutionalists" are not necessarily the same.

To that extent, I think BDS' typification is inaccurate.

[Angakuk]

I would venture to guess that the vast majority of "Patriots" hold the Constitution in great reverence, even if they have never read it. So, BDS' observation that patriots revere the Constitution and the DoI and treat them as if they were holy dogma does not seem to necessarily imply they they are constitutionalists. At least not in the sense of their being actually knowledgeable about the contents of those documents.

[California Tanker]

I'm (as I often am) going to be contrary here, and say that I think BDS is skewed by perception at best, and totally off at worst, starting with the basic premise.

I think that the vast basis for the commentary is what she's (you are a she, right?) taken of post-2001 right-wing point of view, and not even the entireity of it, just the bits that most stand out as objectionable.

For starters, the proposed theory that Americans are unique in thinking that their country is the best in the world. Oddly, I see the same on Boards.ie, where people are glad they don't live in the US, and live in Ireland. On ARRSE, it's the British that is the best, above all else, even with its faults. I'm sure Iranians honestly believe it to be Iran, and they'd rather not live anywhere else. And so on. Neither is flag-waving nationalism unique to Protestantism, Conservatives or the US: Sinn Feinn are about as flag-waving, Ireland above all as you're going to get, but they are very Catholic (To the extent that mny consider protestants the enemy), and are quite left-wing. I'll wager half the Communist Rebel movements in Latin America were national flag-waving. Cuba seems rather proud of its stance against the US, not necessarily because of the ideological supremacy of Fidel's government, but because it's Cuba, their country. Quite possibly a flag-waving extreme is North Korea, where flag-waving is likely the only thing actually holding the country together at this point.

Indeed, I would argue that pre-2001 the premise of the flag-waving American is actually incorrect. This is alluded to in the comment "especially in time of war". What country doesn't become a flag-waving surge of patriotism in war? You think the UK wasn't decked out in Union Flags in 1982? I've concluded that the US population as a whole are actually rather not the flag-waving sort: Look at crowd participation in international sporting events. You just don't see many people waving American flags. Compared to, say, Finland, which have far and away the most enthusiastic and colourful national supporters I've ever seen, where turning yourself entirely white and blue seems to be normal for them. Taken to an extreme, at the USGP in Indianapolis when I went, about the only US flag I saw was the one at the entrance. Inside, it was German, Finland, Italy and Ireland. Heck, the Dominican Republic flag was being enthusiastically waved by a guy in front of me who was visiting from there. (I had to ask). But you'll see it at anything from the World Cup through the Olympics. Americans just don't carry flags as much as others.

Many of the more extreme (say fundamentalist) 'patriots' often view questioning the country or the decisions of its leaders to be un-patriotic, as if the country/leaders were God

For every time I hear "It's unpatriotic to debate war policy like the Democrats are doing", I hear "It's patriotic to question the President". Indeed, I see far more bumper stickers saying the latter than the former, although given the demographics of my area, that shouldn't be too much of a surprise.
I think there's a misnomer here, somewhere. I'm not sure what the actual word should be, but I'm not sure it's "unpatriotic." Perhaps "undermining." Fighting a war is the ultimate expresson in international politics, and just like in business, you need to present a united front to your opposition. You don't often see internal board infighting on the Board of Governors of General Motors publicly related in the Financial Times, for example, but that's far from saying that there's never a disagreement within the organisation. But when dealing with Chrysler, Unions or shareholders, i.e. external entities, a united front is presented. There is little doubt that in terms of credibility of US policy, the current divisions have shot it completely to hell. The US already has something of an international reputation of being a soft weakling despite the bulldog exterior, and this is simply reinforcing it. Doubtless when the next war comes along, the opposition will similarly expect "All we need to do is kill a few hundred or thousand Americans, and they'll go home. Seems to have worked every time for the last thirty years"

Now, the counterpoint to that is the argument that the Opposition have the right, especially if they have the electorate support (And what is more American than voting?), to make the opposing viewpoint known. Whilst this is true, I don't think it nullifies the right-wing point that the guy in charge of the war, who is going to stay there until Jan 2009 barring shock events, is being hampered and made ineffective in his chosen course. The opposition may think the chosen course is incorrect, but the highly publicised infighting removes the US course's credibility before it even has a chance to prove itself right or wrong. In other words, it could be argued that the opposition has a self-fulfilling counter-position. So, justified on internal principles or not, the argument that the debate is detremental to the national interest could perhaps be viewed as treasonous/unpatriotic/whatever-the-word-should-be has, I think, some merit in principle, even if the wording is a little superficial.

Ergo, there are many of these types who actively oppose some of the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution, particularly if they protect people who speak out against the particular pet policies of our patriots. "Patriots" and "constitutionalists" are not necessarily the same.

Excellent point, but I'd add a caveat even to that: Why is it implied in at least two posts above that a reverence for the Constitution is exclusively a right-wing/Protestant point of view? Is the follow-on implication that the opposition do not hold the Constitution to be the defining feature of the US as a country? If not, then how unimportant is the Constitution compared to anything else? Surely there's more to the US than "That body of land and group of people to the North of Mexico and the South of Canada"

NTM

[ChuckF]

I'm not sure what the actual word should be, but I'm not sure it's "unpatriotic." Perhaps "undermining." Fighting a war is the ultimate expresson in international politics, and just like in business, you need to present a united front to your opposition. You don't often see internal board infighting on the Board of Governors of General Motors publicly related in the Financial Times, for example, but that's far from saying that there's never a disagreement within the organisation. But when dealing with Chrysler, Unions or shareholders, i.e. external entities, a united front is presented. There is little doubt that in terms of credibility of US policy, the current divisions have shot it completely to hell.
I don't understand this argument. The idea that everyone should get behind a policy simply because it's the policy regardless of how idiotic and flawed it is simply eludes me. I can think of a few other things that have destroyed American credibility without having to blame people who question this war, or any war. False justifications for war - the "ultimate expression in international politics" based on lies. That can't be good for the credibility. How about torture? This administration has done plenty to obliterate American prestige, and it hardly needs help from the opposition.

And yet, everyone should sit idly by and nod? Why is that?

This idea is extremely distressing. You mention that officials are accountable to the electorate. I think this should serve as a strong disincentive for blundering into disastrous military campaigns without a plan. Apparently it does not.

No President should be able to execute a militant foreign policy, spending dollars and lives with gleeful abandon, without having to hear from critics. I don't accept that this "emboldens the enemy," to use the GOP's choice of phrase, because no evidence has been offered to that end. It's a price that we'll have to pay for living in a democracy, and not one of those flag-waving dictatorships.

[Watser?]

I would say if anything the current division is good for US credibility: it shows the rest of the world that not all Americans believe the lies and distortions that the Bush administration shoved down their throats and tried to shove down our throats.

[California Tanker]

By comparison, look at the UK, where the Iraq jaunt is even less popular than in the US. Indeed, US troops tend to give the President a much better reception than the decidedly cool reception that British troops give Blair. It's actually very hard to find a British troop with a good thing to say about him or Bush.
Yet if you look at the BBC, the stories about political fighting over the 'Iraq plan' are about the infighting in Congress, not in Parliament. The British Opposition is limiting itself to trying to get the Government to change fiscal course: "If you're going to keep with this plan, then increase the defense budget before the Armed Forces break."

Similarly, the recent Israeli jaunt into Lebanon was relatively supported by the Israelis, until aftwerwords and the government is now entirely on the ropes, and on the other side, the Lebanese were united in their thoughts on Israel until after the fighting stopped, and then opposing groups started accusing Hezbullah for screwing up and starting the fight.

it shows the rest of the world that not all Americans believe the lies and distortions that the Bush administration shoved down their throats and tried to shove down our throats

The US is not trying to fight a conflict against the rest of the world (Who, frankly, probably wouldn't mind the US being brought down a peg or two anyway). Whether the RoW thinks the US administration lied to get itself into the Iraq conflict has very little bearing on whether or not the Iraqi government is going to be able to stand on its own to feet when the US leaves. (Unless an admission would result in RoW sending people to Iraq to help the local government, which I don't see as happening). Which brings us back to

I don't accept that this "emboldens the enemy," to use the GOP's choice of phrase, because no evidence has been offered to that end.

The trick to winning a conflict isn't to kill the enemy. It's to make them think that they've lost (even when they haven't), and convince them that any further fighting is useless. Who wants to fight, and maybe die, for a lost cause? This is what makes superior forces surrender to inferior ones, I'll be getting to Goose Green on the Falklands thread soon enough which will be a good example. Indeed, the doctrinal definition of "defeat" according the US Army's manuals makes absolutely no reference to the killing of the enemy or the destruction of equipment and resources. As long as there are indications that the US is seriously considering upping and quitting, leaving the Iraqi government to its own devices before it's properly capable of sustaining itself, there is the 'reasonable hope' that continued fighting will result in a weak, unsupported Iraqi government which can then be toppled and replaced by the government of choice of that group.

This brings us back to the root problem you object to:

You mention that officials are accountable to the electorate. I think this should serve as a strong disincentive for blundering into disastrous military campaigns without a plan. Apparently it does not.

Do you believe that as a result of the lack of publicly touted political disapproval in the UK that Gordon Brown will have an easy time of getting re-elected, or that the electorate's disapproval of Labour's actions will result in a swing to other parties? Do you advocate that the Blair government has been completely unaware of the general populace's thoughts on the matter, and that they honestly think that staying in Iraq until the last province in the British sector is ready to be handed over will help them win the next election?

No President should be able to execute a militant foreign policy, spending dollars and lives with gleeful abandon, without having to hear from critics.

Which is, from the domestic political point of view, quite correct. The problem is that in the fight in which the US is currently involved, the opposition don't care much about the merits of democratic principles and the exercise thereof within the US, except as far as it sees an opportunity for victory. It is an inherent flaw in a democratic government's ability to present a united external policy. The two are, except in particular circumstances, somewhat mutually exclusive. The other problem with immediate and total accountability to the electorate is that it makes it very difficult for a government to undertake an unpopular decision, even if it believes it to be in the best interest. This is why we still have set terms of office: It gives politicians the opportunity to do things without fear of being turfed out tomorrow whilst still having the occasional opportunity to boot them out of office in the next election if you don't like how things are going.

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

By comparison, look at the UK, where the Iraq jaunt is even less popular than in the US. Indeed, US troops tend to give the President a much better reception than the decidedly cool reception that British troops give Blair. It's actually very hard to find a British troop with a good thing to say about him or Bush.
Yet if you look at the BBC, the stories about political fighting over the 'Iraq plan' are about the infighting in Congress, not in Parliament. The British Opposition is limiting itself to trying to get the Government to change fiscal course: "If you're going to keep with this plan, then increase the defense budget before the Armed Forces break."
Why should that be a general model for anything? The Conservatives are generally hawkish; naturally they're not going to oppose the war. Nor has the UK borne or committed to bearing anything like the proportional costs of the invasion relative to the USA. If they had, do you think there wouldn't be more vocal opposition to the war? The British case has no clear implications for what anybody else ought to do.

Similarly, the recent Israeli jaunt into Lebanon was relatively supported by the Israelis, until aftwerwords and the government is now entirely on the ropes, and on the other side, the Lebanese were united in their thoughts on Israel until after the fighting stopped, and then opposing groups started accusing Hezbullah for screwing up and starting the fight.
And if domestic pressure had prevented Israel from their worse excesses before they happened, how would this have been a bad thing?

it shows the rest of the world that not all Americans believe the lies and distortions that the Bush administration shoved down their throats and tried to shove down our throats

The US is not trying to fight a conflict against the rest of the world (Who, frankly, probably wouldn't mind the US being brought down a peg or two anyway). Whether the RoW thinks the US administration lied to get itself into the Iraq conflict has very little bearing on whether or not the Iraqi government is going to be able to stand on its own to feet when the US leaves.
If the entirety of American foreign policy consisted of this question both now and for the foreseeable future, that might address Watser?'s point. Since it doesn't, though, an ongoing reminder that there are reasonable people to deal with in the USA is a good sign for TROTW.

I don't accept that this "emboldens the enemy," to use the GOP's choice of phrase, because no evidence has been offered to that end.

The trick to winning a conflict isn't to kill the enemy. It's to make them think that they've lost (even when they haven't), and convince them that any further fighting is useless. Who wants to fight, and maybe die, for a lost cause? This is what makes superior forces surrender to inferior ones, I'll be getting to Goose Green on the Falklands thread soon enough which will be a good example. Indeed, the doctrinal definition of "defeat" according the US Army's manuals makes absolutely no reference to the killing of the enemy or the destruction of equipment and resources. As long as there are indications that the US is seriously considering upping and quitting, leaving the Iraqi government to its own devices before it's properly capable of sustaining itself, there is the 'reasonable hope' that continued fighting will result in a weak, unsupported Iraqi government which can then be toppled and replaced by the government of choice of that group.
I agree, in that I expect that signs of domestic contention can give an enemy force -- or a resistance force, depending on how one chooses one's words -- more confidence. I doubt it's the decisive factor by a long, long way; hatred, ideology, and the lack of anything better to do are pretty likely to play sustaining roles too. But more to the point, that's just not an independently good reason to avoid protesting a war. An unjust and foolish war ought not to be started, and once started, does not deserve the reward of unified support. Shame on those who would engage their soldier in a war when the nation is deeply divided on its justice in the first place. They don't then get to play the unity card.

You mention that officials are accountable to the electorate. I think this should serve as a strong disincentive for blundering into disastrous military campaigns without a plan. Apparently it does not.

Do you believe that as a result of the lack of publicly touted political disapproval in the UK that Gordon Brown will have an easy time of getting re-elected, or that the electorate's disapproval of Labour's actions will result in a swing to other parties? Do you advocate that the Blair government has been completely unaware of the general populace's thoughts on the matter, and that they honestly think that staying in Iraq until the last province in the British sector is ready to be handed over will help them win the next election?
First, wars in democracies are often accompanied by initial swells of popular support for the government. That problems arise subsequently makes the situation no more surprising than any of the other cases in which governments pursue short term popularity at the expense of long term well-being.

Second, invading Iraq was not primarily Gordon Brown's decision; he'll just live with the problems afterwards.

Third, in fact there have been many large public protests against the war in the UK. Parliament hasn't stayed very heated over the issue, it's true, in the way that Congress has more lately drifted. But again, that's due to completely contingent factors about who's in government and who's in opposition. If the Tories had started a war predicated on fellating GW Bush, Parliament would have been much rowdier under Labour and the LibDems. Virtually nothing general follows from the contingencies of the UK right now.

No President should be able to execute a militant foreign policy, spending dollars and lives with gleeful abandon, without having to hear from critics.

Which is, from the domestic political point of view, quite correct. The problem is that in the fight in which the US is currently involved, the opposition don't care much about the merits of democratic principles and the exercise thereof within the US, except as far as it sees an opportunity for victory.
Sorry, what was "the problem"? So the undemocratic forces in Afghanistan and Iraq don't care about democracy. The most obvious bearing this has on the issue is that it points up how simple-minded it was to think that an invasion and armed occupation of Iraq could have resulted in a democracy.

[Freddy]

Now, the counterpoint to that is the argument that the Opposition have the right, especially if they have the electorate support (And what is more American than voting?), to make the opposing viewpoint known. Whilst this is true, I don't think it nullifies the right-wing point that the guy in charge of the war, who is going to stay there until Jan 2009 barring shock events, is being hampered and made ineffective in his chosen course. The opposition may think the chosen course is incorrect, but the highly publicised infighting removes the US course's credibility before it even has a chance to prove itself right or wrong. In other words, it could be argued that the opposition has a self-fulfilling counter-position. So, justified on internal principles or not, the argument that the debate is detremental to the national interest could perhaps be viewed as treasonous/unpatriotic/whatever-the-word-should-be has, I think, some merit in principle, even if the wording is a little superficial.
When has a chance been given to Bush? Is a four plus years invasion of a country, whose army was demolished within a month, long enough? Apparently not, according to Bush. Just give him 20 to 30 K more troops and he will whip those insurgents. When? As long as it takes is his response. I remember Vietnam and Westmoreland's request for more troops and the enemy will be destroyed. Even with over 600 k troops he could not finish the job. Bush's surge cannot even protect 3 soldiers from being taken prisoner by the enemy. With over 3k Americans KIA when is a chance enough?

[BDS]

For starters, the proposed theory that Americans are unique in thinking that their country is the best in the world. Oddly, I see the same on Boards.ie, where people are glad they don't live in the US, and live in Ireland.

I didn’t mean to imply that ALL (or even most) Americans are patriotic – just to talk about a certain segment of society that IS patriotic, and how their patriotism may differ from other forms of patriotism, and how it may have been influenced by our Calvinist heritage. I’m well aware that a great many Americans are anti-patriots, and love to criticize everything we do.

Nonetheless, I think our BRAND of patriotism is influenced by our faith in meritocracy, and that our faith in meritocracy is influenced by our Protestant heritage (see Max Weber for a discussion of the influence of Protestantism on European Capitalism).

I’ll also agree that reverence for the Constitution is hardly universally right wing. The ACLU is devoted exclusively to protecting Constitutional rights, for example. That doesn’t obviate the fact that a certain variety of right-wing patriots revere the Constitution.

[TomJoe]

A common criticism against Catholics, at least prior to Kennedy becoming President, was that they were not patriotic enough ... that an American president would put Rome's interests in front of the American publics. That is also one of the original reasons for the founding of the Knights of Columbus.

[Watser?]

Hmmm, this country was founded by Calvinists in a religiously inspired nationalist uprising against Catholic Spain. The southern part of the Low Countries stayed under Spanish control (and much later became Belgium). But the Catholics were only given equal rights 150 years later with the French revolutionary occupation. And even after that they were still not considered 'real' Dutchmen.

The Calvinists who dominated this country and have left their mark considered this to be a 'gidsland' (guiding nation or pilot nation). The Calvinists also dominated the Afrikaners, who definitely were very convinced they were a chosen people. So I think you might have a point about Calvinists, BDS.

Although here Business is Business always overruled patriotism. During the revolt the Dutch even traded with Spain.

[TomJoe]

When the central tenet of Calvinism is "I'm one of the elect, and since you don't believe as I do, chances are you're not." it's not hard to see why Calvinist areas have these sorts of issues.

BTW: Is Bush a Calvinist?

[Clutch Munny]

I love an opportunity to use my line about Calvinism. It's Ed McMahon theology: you may already be a winner!

[TomJoe]

I love an opportunity to use my line about Calvinism. It's Ed McMahon theology: you may already be a winner!That line sort of implies a bit of uncertainty on their part. Calvinists are not an uncertain bunch, they know damn well that they're saved. Many of them seem damn certain that everyone else isn't too.