Liberal Dissenters Are Patriots, too
In the ensuing weeks and months, as shock and grief gave way to blame, the fellow-feeling eroded and patriotism became re-politicized. The first to be smeared by the epithet "un-patriotic" were those whose understanding of the deep seated, historically rooted antipathy to American power around the world did not permit them to absolve the U.S. of all responsibility for terrorism. Next came those who saw the solution to terrorism not in a leaner, meaner American military galvanized around preventive strikes, but in a foreign policy less solicitous of autocrats and more aware of global suffering. Then came those who, in the build up to the Iraq war, thought the U.S. government should abide by international law. Conservatives, incidentally, were not the only ones to impugn skeptics' patriotism; self-described progressive "hawks" proved no less ready to wield patriotism like a truncheon.
And so, from a liberal perspective, by April 2003 things looked pretty much the way they looked back in the late 1960s: citizens who opposed the war and questioned administration policy were tarred with treason and effectively silenced, as dissent became, once more, un-American. What is to be done?
Liberals could be excused for once again surrendering patriotism to the Super Patriots. But, intriguingly, many seem reluctant to do so, as if the experience of 9/11 has heightened their appreciation of the value and vulnerability of American institutions. This inclination ought to be encouraged. Not only would American democracy benefit from vigorous dissent undertaken in the name of patriotism, but liberal politics would acquire the rhetorical amplitude it so conspicuously lacks. There is nothing more patriotic, after all, than defending liberty and equality at home and human rights and the rule of law around the world.
Although it is seldom acknowledged today, this was the position of many Progressive-Era intellectuals and social critics, whose attempt to redeem patriotism from jingoism a century ago should interest contemporary liberals. With America facing foreign and domestic challenges strikingly similar to our own, the philosopher William James, the settlement house leader Jane Addams, the socialist agitator Eugene V. Debs, the civil-rights advocate W. E. B. Du Bois, and the future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, among a host of others, propounded a vision of patriotism rooted in liberal democratic principles and committed to constant, critical civic vigilance. The principal opposition of their liberal patriotism, as we might call it, was not between American and outside interests, as now seems to be the case, but between equality and justice, on the one hand, and racism, sexism, industrial exploitation, and imperialism, on the other.
On the home front, the liberal patriots argued that the way to ensure genuine and lasting solidarity was not to intimidate immigrants and political dissenters but to demonstrate the salience of the nation-state--i.e., the federal government--to the well-being of all Americans: E Pluribus Unum meet Quid Pro Quo. The liberal patriots were not jealous sentinels of the people's hearts. They did not regard local loyalties (whether ethnic, racial, regional, or religious) as anathema to national loyalty, or national loyalty, in turn, as inimical to global allegiances. Citizens first learn about loyalty at the local level, they recognized; without local education in obligation, national loyalty would be impossible.
The liberal patriots were devoted to America's founding principles, but they saw no reason why those principles could not extend over the entire earth. They viewed democracy as a universal impulse, but they did not construe the U.S. Constitution as the final word on democratic governance. They regarded as compatriots individuals of any nation who shared their commitment to liberal democracy, just as they denounced individuals, institutions, and governments--at home and abroad--that compromised that fundamental ideal. The liberal patriots expected American foreign policy to uphold the democratic ideals regulating life inside the Republic. For a nation founded upon putative universal values, promoting those values universally constituted the ultimate form of self-defense.
Here, surely, was a vision of patriotism appropriate for a culturally dynamic society in a fluid, globalizing age. It is one contemporary liberals could be proud of. But before liberals can adopt such patriotism, they will need to demonstrate the courage of their conviction by staking out discursive ground. One place to begin is by demolishing once and for all the shibboleth that political dissent is somehow corrosive to the morale of American troops-an argument that is always the last refuge of entrenched political elites. Not only does this argument slight the professionalism of our troops--if they can't stomach political controversy at home, how will they endure the vicissitudes of war?--but it leaves the fate of the troops, like the policy that deployed them, in the hands of a tiny minority: the president and the department of defense. Were I a private in the U.S. Army, I'd want the whole country seriously invested in my fate.
Nothing could be more supportive of American troops--indeed, of America itself--than citizens keeping a critical eye on the political justifiability and moral rectitude of the nation's cause. In the absence of such critical vigilance the soldier's valor, like patriotism itself, becomes arbitrary.
Related Links