It did not apply to African Americans, not to mention Catholics and those many denizens of the colonies for whom German was the language of daily life. It is much less true today. Nonetheless, it calls for reflection. We can read Jay to be suggesting that certain commonalities foster the identity and unity of a people and that the absence of these commonalities complicates this task.
Religious differences can be divisive, especially when they are linked to controversial ideas about government, as Catholicism was until the middle of the past century and Islam is today. Conversely, participation in shared struggle can forge popular unity and foster civic equality.
It is no accident, I suggest, that the strands of universality and particularity are braided through the history of American peoplehood, as they are I suspect, for political communities throughout the West.
Nor is it an accident that during periods of stress—security threats and demographic change, for example—the latent tension between these strands often reemerges.
A reasonable patriotism gives particularity its due without allowing the passions of particularism to drown out the voice of broader civic principles.
There is a difference between cosmopolitanism and universalism. We speak of some principles as universal, meaning that they apply everywhere. But the enjoyment of these principles requires institutions of enforcement, most often situated within particular political communities. In this vein, the U. Declaration of Independence attributes certain rights to all human beings but adds immediately that securing these rights requires the establishment of government s. Note the plural: not only will there be a multiplicity of governments, but they may assume a variety of forms, all legitimate as long as they defend rights and rest on the consent of the governed.
As you can see, there is no contradiction, at least at the level of principle, between universal principles of right and patriotic attachment to particular communities. Universality denotes the range in which our principles apply; it has nothing to do with the scope of our primary allegiance. By contrast, there is a contradiction between patriotism and cosmopolitanism. You cannot be simultaneously a citizen of the world and of a particular country, at least in the sense that we must often choose between giving pride of place to humanity as a whole as opposed to some subset of humanity.
There is a contradiction between patriotism and cosmopolitanism. But if we dig a bit deeper, the matter becomes more complicated. For example, we can observe many kinds of cosmopolitan groups—scientists and mathematicians, for example, whose quest for truth depends on principles of evidence and reason that take no account of political boundaries.
There is a form of cosmopolitanism, finally, that may be observed among some government officials—the belief that it is their duty to maximize human wellbeing, regardless of the nationality of those who stand to benefit. As subsequent events showed, there is a tension between global utilitarianism and the expectation that leaders will give priority to the interests of their own citizens.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine a political community in which the belief in the legitimacy of collective self-preference does not hold sway—which is not to say that most citizens attach a weight of zero to the interests of human beings beyond the borders of their community, or that they should do so. Self-preference is one thing, moral obtuseness another.
There is a distinction, on which I need not dwell at length, between liberal and populist democracy. Unelected bureaucrats and experts, it is alleged, are making decisions over the head and against the will of the people.
The referendum is the purest expression of this conception of democracy. Liberal democracy, by contrast, distinguishes between decisions that the popular majorities should make, either directly or through their elected representatives, and issues involving rights, which should not be subject to majority will.
The defense of fundamental rights and liberties is not evidence of a democracy deficit no matter how intensely popular majorities may resent it. Along with independent civil society, institutions such as constitutional courts give life to democracy, so understood. It is this conception of democracy on which I rely in the remainder of my remarks.
Keller has put his finger on a dangerous tendency, one that I suspect most of us can feel within ourselves. Sometimes monsters masquerade as patriots and manipulate patriotic sentiments to serve their own ends.
Just as patriots can go astray, they can also acknowledge their mistakes and do their best to make reparations for them. No one ever accused Ronald Reagan of being deficient in patriotism, but he was the president who formally apologized to Japanese-Americans on behalf of the country for their unjust internment during World War II.
But just as patriots can go astray, they can also acknowledge their mistakes and do their best to make reparations for them. Or, if you prefer, we can see patriotism as a sentiment that needs principled regulation.
Patriotism does not mean blind fidelity, no matter what. In sum: I can believe that my country has made serious mistakes that must be acknowledged and corrected without ceasing to be a patriot. I can believe that other objects of regard my conscience, or God on occasion outrank my country without ceasing to be a patriot.
The fact that zealous patriotism can have terrible consequences does not mean that reasonable and moderate patriotism does so. Despite these arguments, it is understandable that morally serious people may continue harbor doubts about the intrinsic value of a sentiment that can yield evil.
Even so, it is possible to endorse patriotism as an instrumental good—as necessary to the preservation of political communities whose existence makes the human good possible. Another well-known philosopher, George Kateb, hesitates to take even this step. Intellectuals, especially philosophers, should know better, Kateb insists. Justin Humphries, August 6, First and foremost, patriotism is a concept which brings people together. A sense of solidarity and love for our country is a sentiment which binds.
It is a shared feeling and common goal to do what's best for the nation as a whole and be supportive throughout this quest. When you see someone displaying the American flag or wearing patriotic clothing, this will often lighten your mood and make you feel even more patriotic knowing that the love for this country is strong and readily apparent. The act of patriotism and feeling patriotic are things which will make for a stronger nation. Not only will you be able to relate well to others in your shared love for this country but the more individuals who express their patriotic feelings, the stronger our country will be as a whole.
Those who are patriotic will do what is right for our nation in the way of supporting efforts to make the country stronger and come together as a combined group with a common goal. That goal is to do what we can to keep the nation united and show solidarity for the good of the United States.
If we are moving toward the latter in our society—as many argue we are —then, in terms of happiness, we are moving in the wrong direction. N o matter your political views or where you live, you can cultivate a patriotism of the healthy Tocquevillian sort, for your own benefit and to help inflect the national mood.
This requires that you follow two guidelines. There is nothing wrong with articulating the disagreements you might have with your fellow citizens; indeed, a competition of ideas is important for a free society. In the U. Conor Friedersdorf: Why many Americans are averse to unironic expressions of patriotism.
To make this easier, try a trick developed by the marriage expert John Gottman. He argues that all relationships have negative interactions; the problem is when those overwhelm the positive ones. For every complaint, he recommends making sure you offer five words of praise. Why not try it when talking about your country too? Unlike in so many places around the world, we can express our complaints loudly with little threat of harm from the government.
If you have the freedom to publicly air your grievances, celebrate it—and remember the people who have sacrificed for your right to do so. This is not a contradiction in terms. It is a recognition that things can be better than they are , if we work together for change. This was central to the message of Martin Luther King Jr. Ibram X. Kendi: Resistance is patriotism on the Fourth of July.
0コメント