I liked this intellectual call to arms, especially this part:

Suppose that ideas about actual American potential proved more appealing on the putatively left-wing campus than sticking up, in code and despair (albeit with flourishes), for all kinds of exotic indeterminacies, theological neo-Marxisms, and third-worldist romantic fancies? Suppose right-wingers were not permitted—or encouraged—to run off with the claim that they are the trustworthy defenders of American values?

So far, so true. There can be no doubt that the left in general, but the campus variety in particular, is profoundly pessimistic and dour in its attitude towards this country. It seems to be built in to the DNA of campus leftist activism to be as over-the-top as possible in describing America as a den of corruption and injustice. It is the luxury of students who by and large have never known what true corruption and injustice look like but who are attracted to the romance of revolutionary thinking. Furthermore, there is a strong case that the American tradition contains just as much "left" as it does "right" and to cede to the right the ability to define what is American is suicide.

But after a strong start, we quickly veer off into the weeds.

Suppose that we got serious about the distinction between symbolic patriotism and the real thing—devotion to the common weal, including putting your money (taxes) and your body (service) where your mouth is? Suppose that it was conservatives, not liberals, who were made to feel defensive about their patriotism because, push comes to shove, they don’t believe in the public virtues—duty, service, “liberty and justice for all”—that undergird the real article? Suppose that their patriotism is largely symbolic—that is, a pose to distract from their profound intellectual and financial corruption?

I think to accuse conservatives of being patriotic only to distract people from their corruption is to engage in the worst sort of O'Reillyesque slander. It's one thing to accuse conservative politicians of wrapping themselves in the flag as a demagoguic tool. But it's quite another thing to say conservatives in general are insincere in their patriotism.  Outside the already converted, that idea won't persuade anyone.

Furthermore, it is also a profound misreading of conservatism as a philosophy to accuse it of neglecting the common weal.  Real conservatives - as opposed to the fake conservatives now in power - are profoundly concerned about the "public virtues".  When it comes to the question of what are the obligations of citizenship, conservatives tend to advocate requiring more, not less, than liberals.  You cannot reduce everything to how willing you are to pay high taxes.  You can be philosophically committed to the common good and still advocate a reduced role for government.

In sum, these arguments might make sense as political weapons, to be deployed against the current fake version of conservativism in power in Washington, it is very unconvincing as an intellectual refutation of conservatism in general.  The better argument would not question the sincerity or patriotism of the right, but the contradictions inherent in their philosophy, of which there are many.

=== There can be no doubt that the left in general, but the campus variety in particular, is profoundly pessimistic and dour in its attitude towards this country. ===

Well, I doubt that (and consider it a Radical Republican attack meme to boot), so logically speaking your argument based on "there can be no doubt" fails right at the start.

sPh 

Maybe you haven't spent much time on campuses these days.  I went to Berkeley and Columbia for my education.  The campus activism I saw was not about how we can make a better place.  It wasn't about idealism.  It was about anger.  It was about the crimes America commits against [insert victim here]. 

Never got to him, alas.  In reading around for the essay I never wrote, I did find his letters to and from Frederic J. Osborn fascinating.

Todd Gitlin

It is the luxury of students who by and large have never known what true corruption and injustice look like but who are attracted to the romance of revolutionary thinking.

You hit the nail on the head right there.  The entire left is only now recovering from its revolutionary swoon.  From the Palestinians (noble, noble Arafat) to the approach to race (if you want to enforce the law against African-Americans assaulting one another other street you are a vile racist) to idealizing the Soviet communism, the left and particularly its youthful members have skipped building institutions as much as possible to go straight to the revolution.  I'm still young enough to remember and feel that fervor, and I don't think you can or should try to take away the sense that you can change the whole system if you try hard enough.

But  where the Republicans took that revolutionary (well, really counterrevolutionary, but they're the same thing) zeal and channeled it into people who ran the College Republicans and then ran for office, then pitched to rich wingnut donors, our side channeled it into yet another flier that convinces nobody by one's friends, another march attended mostly by people in dolphin suits, and some really pithy t-shirts.

The prospect of bringing serious thought back to national debate is a great one.  And if it involves the left being honest about how it has let its role get wrapped up in revolutionary romance, so much the better.

I confess that I find the use of these categories mystifying.

The interesting thing is that typically the Woody Allen wing is the one most interested in restoring the Woody Guthrie wing to a place of some prominence. The alternative has been the Clinton wing, and it remains to be seen whether this would change simply on the basis of someone's being cut loose.

Liberal Patriotism -- an anachronism attached to an abstraction, a right-winger's wet dream.

Leftists are cosmopolitans.  That one country may more nearly approach the goal of assuring human dignity than another affords the citizens of the former country no warrant for idolizing it and themselves.

P.S. Sometimes I think that people involved in the financial markets see the differences more clearly, differences that get muddied in our politics.  They differentiate someone "conservative"  as someone who is afraid of risk or change, and definitely not the same as being "Republican."  Capitalism is very receptive to change and risk; it's not at all "conservative," though it does ask for is some rule of law in order to function.

Conservatism:  "A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve .  .  .  ."  Edmund Burke

It is my impression that 'right-wing intellectuals' are---typically- --apologists, and that 'left-wing intellectuals' are more interested in ascertaining the TRUTH that establishment apologists try their hardest to obfuscate.  That's why I've mostly enjoyed my identification with the Intellectual Left, not because they are always right, but because they are generally interested in uncovering truths that may be hidden.

That's Gitlin's point: the stance you articulate here carries an anti-establishment goal of "disproving" some kind of establishment conventional wisdom.  The problem with that kind of stance is that it is by definition alienating to anybody who thinks of themselves as mainstream.  And presto, guess where middle class white folks checked out of the Democrats and intellectualism in general, while retaining their interest in the fruits of those ideas.  And it also provides a huge opportunity for Republicans to hijack serious, intelligent and intellectual debate about how best to apply the lessons of history.

The bottom line is that intellectualism is presently perceived largely as critique of this country's institutions, motivated by very self-focused desires to prove onself, rather than ideas for improvement that arise out of love of country.

This makes a lot of sense to me, Arthur. So, let me see if I've got this straight.....

We have pseudo-conservatives bent on establishing a theocracy and enriching the rich even further, at the expense of the middle class and the poor, and using modern marketing techniques to push the agenda they hope they can keep partially hidden just long enough...

And pseudo-leftists who are really angry, authoritarian reactionaries enamored of revolutionary rhetoric and fundametnally afraid of any real progress.

And both sides are pretty well organized (I'm being generous to the lefties here, in case you wondered...), if not funded.

Well, that certainly explains the mess we're in to me! 

There are real right-wing intellectuals who are not career apologists.  There aren't enough, but there are some.  Among the living (in the political field) I think of James Q. Wilson (from whom I took a very instructive course on urban politics in college),  Francis Fukuyama, and Victor Davis Hanson.  You may not always agree with them--I don't--but their interest in logic and evidence means that you can have a serious argument and even (even!) learn something.

Compare, for example, George Will, who does have a refreshing ability to detect some facts on the ground, but at other times resorts to plain hackery.  Forgive the sidebar, but an example came up yesterday on ABC's "This Week."  Do scientists have a near consensus that global warming is (a) real, (b) dangerous, and (c) caused in large measure by human activity?  To rebut the point, flat-earther Will holds up a copy of a NYT piece from the '70s arguing that the earth was...cooling.  See?  The MSM can't get its line straight.  In other words, George Will understands (or affects to understand) nothing about the scientific method, which commits you to self-correcting.  If some scientists have changed their minds over the last 30-some years, that means they've been practicing...science!  That's a good thing, not a Gotcha! point.

Over to the subject of liberal patriotism.  Can "a Liberal Patriot...be an individual who is willing to give serious consideration to the possiblity that America might have been attacked by foreigners because our nation's [current & former] leaders  foolishly got us involved in a 'foreign entanglement' ON THE WRONG SIDE of Justice, historically"?  No, because of what you're leaving out of your "because." The U. S. has been involved on many wrong sides of many conflicts, but it wasn't Filipinos, Nicaraguans, Vietnamese, Salvadorans, or Guatemalans who slaughtered thousands of innocents.  Even countries that practice bad policies have real enemies.

As for patriotism leading to the follow-the-leader principle (it sounds more like what it is in German:  Fuehrerprinzip), there's no good reason to make that leap any more than there is to assume that support for a progressive income tax leads to the gulag.  If you look at my book, you'll see that the authoritarian kowtow is far from the patriotism I have in mind.  Ditto about patriotism requiring that you reject criticism by furrners.

--Todd Gitlin

There are real right-wing intellectuals who are not career apologists. There aren't enough, but there are some. Among the living (in the political field) I think of James Q. Wilson (from whom I took a very instructive course on urban politics in college), Francis Fukuyama, and Victor Davis Hanson.

Gotta disagree with you about Hanson. While his classical scholarship is fine (not that I'm a judge of such things) his columns in the National Review make him a dishonest apologist of the worse kind. Despite overwhelming evidence that Iraq is a mess, that much of that mess was created by incompetence on an epic scale and that the prospects for a peaceful, stable Iraq are slim, he continues to make the same excuses week after week. These excuses are that (a) we lost a whole lot more people in previous wars; (b) other wartime presidents were also called incompetent and (c) the liberal media isn't telling us all the good news.

Sorry, but it doesn't get much more dishonest than that.

Hmmm.   Try this challenge to your thought patterns on for size:

The American "frontier" was originally "cosmopolitan."  Down to the individualism of "neighbor, leave me alone unless my barn burns down." (Ditto flags springing up allover the country after 9/11 in support of the once hated NYC.) The Indian tribes, were, well, tribal.  But the desire for everyone to move and get some land or a piece of pie was not to start another landed aristocracy, the land invested with symbolic meaning. No, land was just another commodity to create a meritocratic ladder.

American patriotism is not an oxymoron, and shouldn't be so to liberals, it's just different, based on a different, post-Enlightenment worldview, especially individualism and tolerance of cultural differences such as religion.  The latter is deep, tolerance of religion; liberals, I find, tend to forget the Pilgrim/pilgrim story from grade school that still resounds with many others when they see the flag.  It's very much a non-ideological country for that reason.  So you might be right that liberals have a hard time being patriotic? :-)

It's the same with other "new world" countries like Australia, Canada, or Venezuela for that matter. Patriotism is to the union (the republic for which it stands) of the individuals. Is no coincidence that Rove makes sure "freedom" gets put in every dang speech. Yes, our version of patriotism does say "f you" to all those Old World versions.  But it's there, and it is very agreeable with cosmopolitanism and globalization in principle.

I mentioned before, on E. Wilson's Neo-Con thread, a discussion with a English journalist about a pledge of allegiance. He couldn't think of anything they might have to pledge allegiance to, no constitution.  That's probably because they still stand for the monarch, won't let go of him/her as a symbol.

I guess what makes me jump at your comment in that by lauding cosmpolitanism as excluding, you run the danger of glumping me in with all the "Eurotrash" globetrotter types, some of the the most zenophobic and tribal people around. (Not to mention depressive, nihilistic, and/or in existential pain. :-)  I don't want to be there; I'm a proud "new world" American.

You have to really believe in the "live next to each other and tolerate each other" thing to get it right. Americans have a lot of experience at this, and a lot of family history that lauds it, despite all of our faults and mistakes.  Most judge someone as "assimilated" into being American because they have "let go" of some of the old country's xenophobic ways.  Sure, we have a minority that are "love it or leave it" nuts; chances are, though, those types, they didn't listen to the lessons their grandparents tried to teach them.

Can't you see it? It's mythic, it's symbolic, and not supported by reality, to be sure, but it's an ideal to which liberal "cosmopolitans" can be patriotic. We've simply become jaded by hijacking of the "meme."  A republic formed of different cultures living in tolerance.  It comes easier if you think of "nations" as the old pre-Enlightenment world, and republics of individual states that are a mix as new world nations.  If liberals can't be patriotic to that, well then, I fail to see how they can like something like the idea of the United Nations.  That would make them something like not cosmopolitan at all?

P.S. Contrast all them European citizens that just can't quite get used to being European citizens?....just can't get used to the idea of joining together, a constitution that one might have to pledge allegiance to. How "cosmopolitan" are they really?  We've been getting used to the idea for over 200 years.

When it comes to the question of what are the obligations of citizenship, conservatives tend to advocate requiring more, not less, than liberals. You cannot reduce everything to how willing you are to pay high taxes.

I voted for Bush in 2000 and supported him right until he proposed new capital gains tax cuts in the start of 2003--right after mid term elections and before the invasion of Iraq.   If they're unwilling to pay for taxes even in the middle of a war, well, I'm sorry, it says something about their sincerity and patriotism.  Democrats are right to point out that anyone who voted for this tax cut put a higher priority on something other than national security.  Bush hasn't asked for anything from Americans (except for the poor schmucks that got sent over there) except the suspension of common sense.

You are right that we can't tar every conservative with that brush.  But are you saying that we can't even defend our own patriotism and sincerity?  We support higher taxes not because we're sadists, but because we think the money is better spent by our government of the people, by the people, and for the people instead of the wealthiest few individuals and corporations.  We don't share the conservative distrust for "Big Government" because a democratic government is a reflection of America, and we trust America.

It's true that not all conservatives feel that way--but a substantial portion of the Republican coalition feels that way, and explicitly calling them on that fact--just like explicitly calling them on the Apocalypse--divides the Sane from the Insane among the other side. 

Yes, some will come forward and argue that low taxes are the best thing to help our economy grow and promote the common good--but we have to force them to make that argument.  That's an argument on our turf. Because then we get to ask them which would grow the economy more: higher profits for Wal-Mart; or more money for education, health care, energy conservation, alternative fuels research, and homeland defense. I think if you force the other side to admit publically that the common good is our shared goal, then winning the empircal argument will be easy--especially in a post-9/11, post-dotcom world.

But we can't move the argument in that direction unless we point out that we support higher taxes because we believe in the American common good.

Brad the Dad:

When people slip through the cracks, private charities and faith-based organizations will step in to show we as a society care.

As an ideal, even this moderate (authentic?) conservativism comes off somewhat naive. History supports the idea that a level playing field demands the force of civil law in some measure.

When I talked about the "obligations of citizenship" I was thinking in terms of what the government could compel people to do in return for the privileges of citizenship.  Things like national service, adhering to a common culture and the like.  Conservatives have in the past supported a draft, or at least some sort of national service, while liberals have resisted it.  Conservatives have argued for cultural assimilation while liberals have embraced multiculturalism. 

Not everything comes down to how much you're willing to pay in taxes.  That said, I strongly agree that pushing tax cuts in the middle of a war is simply ridiculous.  It's indicative of how the GOP is addicted to the political catnip of tax cuts.

"Right-wing" intellectuals" - an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Tom

Let go of ideology. Let go of the ideal. Embrace the real.

And ironically you don't end up that far from where you are now, health, wealth, and security are all there right in your face ready for you to tackle. But now that you have approcached them from the ground up you know why you are acting and what for. You don't just have an idea behind you, you have the people of America behind you. You are for the people of America, nothing more and nothing less. And that is powerful.

I completely agree. Now to find candidates in numbers sufficient to carry this idea to the voters. This is the kind of message that will resonate.

I think it's possible to reasonably define conservatism in a way that allows adjustment for change. We can understand conservatism as the belief that institutions, laws, customs etc. should only be modified slowly and with caution, based on the very sensible maxim that the tried and true will usually (but not always!) be better than the new and untested. In other words, we can adjust to change, but we should do it with some skepticism and humility.

Moreover, conservatism can support long-standing institutions and structures that have some tolerance for change built-in. To take the most obvious example, the free-market is quite good at adjusting to certain (though not all) kinds of change.

Obviously, the kind of conservatism I'm describing bears no real resemblance to today's Republican party. 

I don't believe that "The US is the greatest country in the World." I'm not even sure what that means, or how you would measure it. 

However, I do believe while the US has been far from perfect, it's existence has been an immensely positive fact in human history. And I don't feel remotely ashamed or alienated to be a citizen of this country, even given how terrible our political leadership is today. I think that distinguishes me from most (campus) liberal intellectuals. So I think there's real room for some middle ground between the mindless anti-Americanism of the pseudo-liberal campus left and the mindless American boosterism of the pseudo-conservative Republican party.

This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw today.  It read: "I love my country, but I think we need to see other people."

I think, Llyr, I partly agree with you -- and probably, because I'm more a leftist than a liberal -- which, no matter how much the definition may have changed post-Hoover, still can't escape the embrace of capitalism, its original father.

The "bond between parent and child" is natural; it appears throughout the animal kingdom.  As does the interfamilial bond.  But patria is an abstraction without natural underpinnings, an emotionally based false consciousness promoted by the big and little Napoleons who are always abroad.

If America is the greatest country in the world, it is so by virtue of its laws and customs.  But it is those self-same laws and customs which are to be defended and not their patriotic reification.

Capitalism is, after all, the most revolutionary force in the history of the world--and that's part of what's dangerous about its unbridled variety.  Revolutions, remember, aren't all fun and games.

Yes.  All the posts in this thread point to what's conservative about mainstream liberalism and radical about the current incarnation of the right wing.  The r.w. often presents capitalism in an ideological way: capitalism is good, not-capitalism is bad, and we have to choose one or the other. Presented with a choice between pure capitalism and pure socialism, I think most Americans would probably choose capitalism.   

But to my way of thinking, that's not the choice.  Economic systems are not inherently virtuous: they're not worth being ideological about in the same way that the first amendment is.  In this respect, liberalism, my brand of liberalism anyway, is fundamentally pragmatic, and pragmatism tends to err on the side of caution.  (Instead of attacks on capitalism per se, I'd love to hear more people on the intellectual left attack purist either/or presentations of economic systems...)

One of the most ideologically consistent political leanings out there nowadays is libertarianism, IMO.  But ideological consistency isn't everything.

By 'cultural assimilation' I would take it that more Americans should embrace the only two cultures in America that have produced what the world sees as uniquely American culture, Blacks and Native Americans.

 Gitlin: "There were other treacherous forces at work in the world, murderous vicious, tyrannical ones, and it was the duty of internationalist's as well as patriots to fight them."

Along the line of seeing others, I would guess citizens of those lands would prefer Americans with their guns and bombs and their flags stay home. They have been around before America was, and can fight their own fights without our intervention. God knows we have enough problems here within our own borders. I will be waving a flag when our attention turns towards home.

But patria is an abstraction without natural underpinnings, an emotionally based false consciousness promoted by the big and little Napoleons who are always abroad.

I don't think that emotionally based necessarily equals false, though.  And as for the natural, eh, it gets way too much press.  Stuff that's unnatural can be just as meaningful as anything else, and often a lot more fun.

The big and little Napoleons, though, they're a problem.  But I don't think love of country necessarily has anything to do with them.  What they tend to do, though, is take that love of country and twist it into love of their Napoleonish selves. 

"It was about the crimes America commits against [insert victim here]."

When the shoe fits...

Voteless In DC

AAs nascardaughter said, "natural" is overrated. In the end, the word means no more than "found in nature," and that's not a basis for moral judgment either way.

Love of country should never be confused with adoration of country, nor should one have to believe one's country the best in the world to feel a special attachment and obligation to it before all others. No sane parents really believe their children are the best in the world.

Finally, I should point out that a country is an abstraction only in the same sense that a hurricane is. The idea that, say, this computer is concrete and real while, say, the Middle East is a mental construct stems from a very shallow understanding of what objects are. Unless you plan to restrict our moral allegiance to elementary particles, categories like abstract have no relevance.

Let's start with SpHealey's point about there being 'no doubt' on what he describes as this "Republican" attack meme.  No, it is one used by antiLeft Democrats too, of which Gitlin is one.  And it important to understand that he is anti LEFT, not anti the many excesses of different aspects of the left.  I am the latter -- against antiSemitism, puerile antiAmericanism, obscurantism, an unwillingness on the part of many to criticize any but the US and its allies, romanticism of various kinds, including 'Third Worldist' romanticism, etc.  After all, the 'shoe' only fits some and not all the progressives Gitlin condemns.

  But to define the only acceptable Leftism, as Gitlin has, in terms of patriotism, of sticking up for "American values" (my emphasis) is deeply problematic.  After all, almost all progressives, including myself, do NOT define ourselves as nationalists or patriots.

  Gitlin mentions internationalism but gives it no room in his analysis of the Left.  Then he goes on, in other contexts, to ridiculously label figures like Arundhati Roy and Noam Chomsky antiAmerican.  (Roy has, by the way, been accused by many in her native country of being an 'antiNationalist', which is the equivalent in India of being an antiAmerican American.)  I agree that Chomsky's book 9/11 left much to be desired, not because it was wrong or antiAmerican, but because his main point, repeated over and over -- that the hands of the US are unclean as far as "terrorism", especially by the definition he uses, is concerned -- is beside the point, even though true.   EVERYONE's hands are unclean.   How silly it would sound on the left to point to Russia's quite unclean hands after Beslan!

But overall, while there are expressions of truly noxious sentiments, at least as often as not parodic "Tory horseshit" not genuinely reflecting the mainstream of the authentic Left, like Ward Churchill and the choruses of protestation touting him as 'misunderstood', these are only a piece of the Left condemned by Gitlin.  When he wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, the Chomsky with the Churchill, I disagree completely, and much more highly regard Chomsky, as do almost ALL progressives in the US, than Gitlin.

My question to Gitlin first and foremost is: what is the place for a socialist internationalist like myself, who also eschews what I perceive to be a 'US Out of North America' attitude on the part of some? 

Further, the reasons for his patriotism seem basically strategic rather than principled.  After all, a principled argument for nationalism as against internationalism is weak.  So we talk about "American values".  Intellectually, aside from the many values that do have a (nonexclusive) American origin, it is a weak platform.  But politically, it might have some appeal if we consider the world of politics in the abstract.  In reality, its appeal is to the mainstream media and opinion makers and,  like Gitlin's condemnation of any bad results of disruptions at the 2004 Convention before the (non)fact, has no likelihood whatsover of moving substantial numbers of progressives, let alone those who he ostensibly addresses.

Consider the following:

"Suppose right-wingers were not permitted—or encouraged—to run off with the claim that they are the trustworthy defenders of American values?" 

 Basically, it is the job of the mainstream of the Democratic Party to make that case, as Kerry tried to do unsuccessfully, which should tell you something.  There is the question whether  a knee-jerk response to flag-waving is the best way to 'frame' the issues in US politics, to use a Gitlinism.  But if it is, it is for others than the authentic progressive left to try to carry that banner.  Did Dr King find it necessary to wave the flag and condemn putative antiAmericanism within the Civil Rights movement, including in the period of 1965-68?  Surely he campaigned on "American values".   But that appeal was not, and should not be, as with Gitlin, in contradistinction to those who are seen as insufficiently unpatriotic.  In the reality of US politics, as King saw, such an approach was ridiculous for progressive activists. 

So overall, Gitlin ends up indeed incorporating antiprogressive memes all over the place -- condemning the Rainbow Coalition as too geared to ethnic nationalism, Roy as antiAmerican, and widely condemning much valid critique as 'conspiracy thinking' --perhaps next those who defend Oliver Stone.   This isn't merely ridding the Left of excesses, it is antiLeft and anti-progressive pure and simple.  Gitlin may be a Democrat who is a liberal on many issues, perhaps, but a progressive, no.

One thing about Gitlin that so offends many progressives is that he uses the fact of having been president of sds in 1964 to present himself as a (matured) voice of the 60s Left, a spokeperson for reasonable Leftism in the mainstream media, when he is a spokesperson for a completely different politics altogether, one little connected at all to the anti-imperialist struggles of the 60s or today.

There were other treacherous forces at work in the world, murderous vicious, tyrannical ones, and it was the duty of internationalist s as well as patriots to fight them.  Yet intellectually as well as politically, it felt to me that the left was disarmed.

You get it right here. Patriotism is indeed an arm--a weapon--used to fire up the masses and prepare them for a fight. Pick up that weapon up at your own discretion. Those who hold it have a propensity to kill. There are treacherous forces, out there, after all . . . and we need to fight.

Daniel,

"The left" is prone to kneejerking naysaying, and why expect it to be consistent? 

Todd Gitlin

"Conservative, n.  A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others" -- Ambrose Bierce.

My apologies for the bold type. This is my first time posting here and I had some difficulty with the posting interface.

I don't know why that posted in the middle of my typing.

PRIVATE MESSAGE CONTENT:

You may consider many of my comments overly hostile, but I note in this case that an argument was put forward that distinguished between a puerile anti-American Left and the mainstream of authentic leftists.  Rather than merely troll rate it, you might address why you think that the argument is worthless, so worthless as to require about the fourth or fifth troll rating you have given my comments in response to yours.

At no time have you ever tried to address any of the contents of these comments, even to explain what is so 'beyond the pale' about them.  The easy 'they aren't worthy of a response' is simply glib; these comments make arguments, and you have no trouble making arguments against pure charlatans like Horowitz where there arguments are self-evidently over the top.

BradtheDad:

Conservatives HATE identity politics (except of course when it's their identity).

Antonin Scalia: 

A Herald reporter outside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross had asked Scalia, 70, if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state. "You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the "obscene gesture, flicking his hand under his chin," the Herald reported. He explained, "That's Sicilian."

 we pledge allegiance to the FLAG and not to the Constitution, as the symbol of our Republic.

"....and to the Republic for which it stands." I argue here on Yglesias' thread, that in that and in other ways that our patriotism is not really in the tradition of many of those others but is in some ways antithetical to the "old world" kind of patriotism.  It's not supposed to be about pride in your population's genetic heritage or the culture of your population or the beauty and charm of your piece of the earth, rooting as if it were a sports team, but about new principles and ideals, an experiment that leaves all that other baggage behind.

You talk about "Gitlin" above in the 3rd person.  You call him all kinds of things that he might find offensive. You characterize him and label him.  And you describe all kinds of opposition he supposedly has, implying that it is legion. All without links, and all in the third person, as if he is not here on this website, and as if you are not posting on a thread that he started.

I would take that as personal insult if I were the author. The downrating is 100% understandable. Talk to him, not about him.  He's here, he started the thread, he's a real person, not a thing. Disagree with what he says, and if it is something he has said elsewhere, provide proof. And he might respond. Otherwise, it might be called slander; sounds like it to me the way you've worded and presented it.  An unauthorized revisionist biography of someone called "Gitlin." Why should he reply rather than rate, you aren't talking to him, you're talking about him, why should he talk to you?

Would like to add that all of us commenters should probably be more aware that we have the luxury of using pseudonyms and aliases that can easily be discarded, while most of the main contributors here write under their own names and have something to protect in that.  If you want them to contribute to the conversations rather than just post and run (many of us enjoy when they do so), one has to go a little further in helping them to do so easily; a little extra civility than normal is probably required.  Not so easy to blather whatever emotion you feel or shoot off your mouth when your name is riding on it.

In keeping with my stated philosophy of responding to criticisms as concretely as possible rather than just downrating them or bashing them, I try to patiently address both ArtAppraiser and Vorkisgan1 in this post.

First, I would draw attention to the pattern of ratings -- several 1's and 2's and three 4's.  This is not the first time this has happened; back last summer, under the old format and rating system, I had a comment in response to Gitlin that generated troll ratings from Gitlin and several others, together with  a slew of 5's.  Hmmm.  That's odd!  If the issue were over universal community values of civility and coherence, why would there be such a patterned divergence?

The most obvious explanation is that the real issue is over politics and content differences, and that some people are insisting that the comment is beneath contempt, not worth reading, incomprehensible (true, it isn't a polished Orwell essay, but then again neither is Gitlin's interesting comment below about the Fuhrerprinzip or whatever).  The problem is that some people -- and in my experience, with the exception of Leninist sectarians, it is rarely authentic (even if misguided) folk on the left -- overemphasize issues like civility and style, carefully avoiding any confrontation with the substantive arguments; this is a political/debate tactic.  The tactic is often used by copperheads and trolls, but also by conservatives against liberals and radicals, and by liberals against progressives.  The underlying meme is 'I don't have to answer to you'.

I am also accused of 'calling Gitlin all kinds of names' and 'labelling/characterizing' him.  Well the only things that fit the description of that are references to him being "antiLeftist" and using "antiprogressive memes", and even "anti-progressive".  Note that I use the term progressive in the widely employed sense of the broad Left, those who are aligned at least with the Rainbow Coalition or those to its left.  This broad group routinely refer to ourselves as progressives, and sharply distinguish ourselves from liberalism (hopefully without the mindless bashing of liberalism that was commonplace in the 60s).  One example of a litmus test issue separating the liberals from the progressives was the Kosovo war, which most liberals -- like Nadler and Gitlin -- supported, and progressives generally, including in particular Noam Chomsky, opposed.  There are other areas where substantive differences are clear, but surely Gitlin's own "characterization", "labelling" or what-have-you of Chomsky and Roy as antiAmerican puts him solidly on the liberal/mainstream side of the divide with progressives.

The concern here is NOT over ratings as such.  BFD.  The concern is over the issue of the intellectual integrity of debate -- in this case, while it is perfectly OK to dismiss "Chomskyite" 'America-is-the-root-of-all-evil' "crapola", without being specific, possibly harsh but assuredly concrete and substantive and not mere name-calling criticism of Gitlin is problematic, for Gitlin and at least some others.   Incidentally, this pattern continues in the comments themselves, which are replete with the very kinds of broad characterizations without concrete references that I am accused of. Indeed these comments are harsher and more characteristic of what they complain of by far than my original comments.  Oddly, I am criticized for not providing links -- when these are very much the exception in comments on this thread as on most others on this site.

Now to the specifics.  First ArtAppraiser.  I use the third person, including here, in general and not just with Gitlin, as is my preference.  I feel that since I am not merely addressing myself to one person in a two way conversation (there are private messages now for that), this kind of approach makes more sense.  Indeed, some might consider it rude to address oneself specifically to the writer of the original column; it has a kind of 'sucking up' tone to it, to my ears, like someone in a classroom addressing their remarks specifically to the professor.  But of course, that's just me.  ArtAppraiser makes much of this issue, referencing it at least four times in his original comment.  Indeed it is one of the few actually concrete criticisms offered by either critic.

Yet scrolling down in this very thread, I find at least three or four other users employing the third person, including: Dustin Ridgeway, ElectronicEric2, and Arthur Denton.  (I note that the latter uses the more familiar "Todd", a first name usage I generally eschew.  After all, what ends up happening is that you generally refer to people you like in the familiar, but others by their last names. 

One odd example of how these etiquette issues can often cut both ways is the notable incident when, during the Administration of Bush pere, Sam Donaldson asked Vice President Quayle whether the latter thought that "Mario" was going to run in 92.  (I think he could have been elected and been  a much better president that Clinton).  Quayle, answering the question in the terms in which it was posed, used the name Mario in his response.  Cuomo seized upon that first name usage as a lack of etiquette, somehow linking it to a deprecatory attitude about Italians being projected, also a favorite meme of Ferraro whenever issues of corruption involving her husband came up.

But enough about laundering in the Democratic Party.  The point is that the whole 'third person' issue is a red herring.  It is the sharp tone of the criticism, which contrasts with the friendly, often even obsequious tone of many of the other comments (though even greater and unsubstantiated harshness towards those leftists Gitlin opposes is OK) which it appears makes the difference.  But somehow the riff on the 'third person' usage allowed for the defense-of-victim sounding meme about how he is a 'person and not a thing'.   Sheeesh.  Talk about protestation!

Then there is the issue of "labelling", "characterizing" and "calling him all kinds of things".  I do 'label' or 'characterize' him, yes.  I describe him as "antiLeft", using "antiprogressive memes" and, at one point I think, "antiprogressive".  These are basically the same theme, and they are analytical and not merely namecalling.  They are surely terms at least as analytical as Gitlin calling Chomsky and Roy "antiAmerican", a "label", "characterization" etc.  The question is whether the characterization holds water.

Now, on the issue of progressive, I use the term to refer to the broad range of people to the Left of mainstream liberalism, at least aligned with the Rainbow or those to its Left.   This is a very ordinary usage of the term.  There are a number of issues that separate the liberals from the progressives, but one good though not perfect litmus test was the Kosovo War, which liberals like Nadler and Gitlin supported and progressives such as Chomsky (as well as myself) opposed and still oppose.  I don't want to go into the debate about the issue here, and the presumed antiAmericanism that many liberal critics of the progressive position on the war might project on to the latter; the point is that Gitlin, with his emphasis on the need for the political opposition to express patriotism, and attacks on leading progressives for not doing so, places himself solidly in the liberal camp.

And his attacks on Roy and Chomsky as "antiAmerican" place him solidly in those liberals that could be characterized as "antiLeft".  I stand by the characterizations that I have employed in this regard.

Now, as for "legion" opposition, remember, I am talking about progressives and the Left, a group all but unrepresented at this website.   As a left activist for 30 years, I can tell you that opposition to Gitlin is more or less universal among those who at least know who he is, within this category.  But on the other hand, progressives are a small percentage of the country.  Liberals crying for reform and waving the flag -- mainstream Democrats -- far outnumber us.  So I do not suggest, as I haven't, that more people in general dislike Gitlin than support him, only that his constituency now is in mainstream Democratic liberal venues such as this.  I suppose I could go searching for footnotes somewhere, but, although I know of no "polls" of "progressives", whether about Gitlin or about other issues of greater import, this generalization would hold.  Just go and ask some Lefties you may happen to know what is the general opinion of Gitlin on the Left among those who know who he is.

Then there is the stuff about "provide proof".  Proof of what?  I have outlined certain criteria and issues distinguishing reasonable progressives from those who are indeed 'antiAmerican', and argue that Gitlin's condemnation of those who are reasonable places him outside the sphere of the Left.  I also take issue with the arguments on the substance -- that internationalism is surely a valid position for Leftists to embrace, a position I will add, that puerile antiAmericanism contradicts.

As for the notion of "slander", or libel, the standard is that someone has made a provably false statement of fact about someone of a defamatory nature.  This comment doesn't even offer anything of the sort, assuming for the purposes of argument that the laxer standard for other than public figures is applied, let alone stricter standards for public figures.   It is simply criticism that you consider overly negative of someone with whom I will bet you agree with more than with either myself or with progressives like Chomksy and Roy.  And that is my main point -- why not own your opinion differences and argue them, rather than hurling terms like "slander" around, engaging in this as at other points in the very practices you condemn.

Now for Vorkosigan1.  "Who am I to say ..."?  I am a progressive activist and commentor for some three decades.  I speak to leading progressives, including, over the years, about Gitlin.  I listen to progressives in venues like WBAI radio.  If you think I am wrong, as I said above, find some progressives who fit the broad definition I have outlined above, and ask them what other progressives who are familiar with Gitlin think of him. There may be some, especially in DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) who will speak positively.  But I think that if they are honest they will at least concede that he is very 'controversial' among progressives.

I don't know what you mean by "oppositional".   There are many posts here that are supportive of Gitlin and "oppositional" to those he opposes.   Well, I sympathize with those, like Chomsky and Roy, that he has attacked as 'antiAmerican'.  Yes it is oppositional -- my position is indeed opposed to his.  The question is whether you oppose the dominant context, hence negative, or whether you are basically favorable.  But that would concede a substantive argument; progressives generally face the same problem nationally as critics of the status quo and of liberals.  C Wright Mills, someone I admire and wrote a 200+ page undergraduate thesis about, refers in White Collar to the disdain with which those who are 'against things' are regarded.  Although he was writing circa 1950, there is still much of the same sentiment, as here, today.

Now I am critical.  But frankly, as for "self-righteous" and "egotistical", this is mere name-calling, from one who purports to oppose such things; indeed the real issue is whose shoe the proverbial foot is on, so to speak.  Some people are presumably worthy of just being bashed, while others are not.  The opening pseudo generosity of saying that I am not a troll, then diluted with the 'understandable' nature of the troll rating, given the "sneaky" attacks that are mounted, is belied by this sort of purely personal attack independent of any substantive argument about the postings whatsoever.  By the way, what is, in particular "sneaky" about the criticism?  It seems to me to be very upfront, the opposite of sneaky.  Is there some specific line or statement you consider "sneaky"?  Or is this mere namecalling, to be justified with reference to the same general issues that have been addressed above?

Bront01:

Were the people of Bosnia and Kosovo able to "fight their own fights without our intervention"?  Do you believe they would have preferred that Americans with their guns and bombs and their flags had stayed home?

Aren't the sentiments expressed in the Serenity Prayer applicable to nations considering the use of force for purposes they want to believe are humanitarian:  "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can & the wisdom to know the difference."

In Bosnia and Kosovo we had leaders who, in the end, had the wisdom to know the difference between what they had a realistic shot of changing for the better vs. what they could not change for the better.  That is the wisdom which has been lacking with regard to the Iraq war, where the folks who got us into that war, prisoners of their illusions, did not do their homework or think it through. 

Wanting to make a positive difference is one thing.  Being hard-headed and illusion-free enough to be able to make good assessments about whether that is doable in a given case is quite another.  Some might say that is a part of what true conservatism counsels, and wisely so. 

The modern-day Right's version of "patriotism" appropriates as sources of supposedly justified American moral authority all manner of asserted characteristics of the United States which its ideological forebears did much to negate.  It is hard to take seriously as much more than the expression of personally unearned triumphalism to acquire and hold political power. 

The Right's patriotism is a dead ideology in that it seeks to close the book on advancing the domestic sources of American moral example and authority--those aspects of America's past and present which have inspired others around the world to struggle for, and in some cases make, better and more humane futures for themselves.

There are Iraq war supporters who, I believe, have operated at least in part in pursuit of genuinely idealistic motivations in seeking to challenge the corrupt autocracies of the Middle East.  But adopting well-intentioned policies founded on illusions hardly gives the supporters of such policies a corner on the market on patriotism.  

Thanks for the 1 Todd. Maybe you could have a sense of humor.

I must say a lot of the anti-Chomsky stuff on here leaves me cold. Military Keynesianism and "blowback" explain so much of what is going on with our foreign ploicy and terrorism. I think a good reading of Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson would make this obvious.

So much of what is on this post seems to me to psuedo-sophisticated nothing, "much ado about nothing", and a great example of how to complicate problems that aren't that complicated. I would also recommend Kevin Phillips "American Theocracy" as a clear explanation as to what is going on.

Tom

Born in 1968. So I consider myself a Gen-Xer.

Many countries are, indeed, an abstraction. I don't find that a completely useful generalization, particularly in relation to Japan and what is commonly called the "national polity", and, if one goes more deeply, into concepts of giri, gimu, on, and the animistic and family aspects of (yes, much-diminished) State Shinto.

I can feel shame about Gonzales' memo, and much of Bush's presentation. I can feel pride in a confidence that the system is sufficiently strong that it will eventually correct the abuses. I can feel a perverse pride in a system strong enough not to be broken by Aaron Burr, Jefferson Davis, Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover or George W. Bush.

Just after swearing in Gerald Ford, Warren Burger was heard to whisper to himself "It worked. The system worked." I was never sure how he meant that, whether the Chief Justice wasn't sure it would, or if he was celebrating that it did.

Part of "the system" is taking responsibility for doing something -- and Something is often not the excitement of mass demonstrations. It may be organizing in a Republican congressional district, not necessarily to win in 2006, but to make that Congressman join the increasing number of Republicans that are standing up to the Administration. Of course, having a Democratic contender capitalizing on the irritation with the Administration is even more of an impetus.

This is a public debate challenge to Professor Todd Gitlin (author of "The Intellectuals and the Flag") to debate Dr. Rex Curry (author of "The Pledge of Allegiance & the Bellamys"). The debate topic is the Pledge of Allegiance and its putrid past. If acceptance of the debate challenge is not received within one week then, via your default, victory will be publicly declared over you (via your default) on this topic in this debate challenge.

Gitlin has used his book to laud Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance (and a socialist) and to laud Edward Bellamy (cousin to Francis and author of the international bestseller "Looking Backward" that spawned a worldwide socialist movement).

Gitlin's remarks suggest that he is ignorant about the history of the anti libertarian Pledge of Allegiance, and the following points would be the topic of debate:

Gitlin seems ignorant of the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance originally used a straight-arm salute. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html Gitlin has probably never viewed actual historic photographs of the early pledge.

Gitlin seems unaware of recent discoveries by Dr. Rex Curry showing that Francis Bellamy's pledge was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Gitlin seems unaware that the Bellamys were self-proclaimed National Socialists and they supported the "Nationalism" movement in the USA, the "Nationalist" magazine, the "Nationalist Educational Association," and their dogma of "military socialism" and an "industrial army," and Edward inspired the "Nationalist Party" (in the USA) and their dogma influenced socialists in Germany.

Gitlin even seems to be unaware that the actual name of Hitler's group was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party," and that the group did not use the hackneyed shorthand that is used by most university professors.

Gitlin's book is a reminder of the terrifying "American experiment" that Edward Bellamy wanted to impose on the USA.

Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy (author of the novel "Looking Backward") and Charles Bellamy (author of "A Moment of Madness") and Frederick Bellamy (who introduced Edward to socialistic "Fourierism") were socialists. Edward, Charles and Frederick were brothers, and Francis was their cousin. They considered themselves to be very patriotic. They wanted to nationalize everything and they wanted all of society to ape the military and they touted "military socialism" and the "industrial army." Edward's book was an international bestseller, translated into every major language (including Russian, German, Chinese & Italian) and he inspired the "Nationalist Party" (in the USA) and their dogma influenced socialists worldwide (including Russia, Germany, China & Italy) via "Nationalist Clubs."

The philosophy behind the pledge inspired socialists in those countries that suffered the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): 62 million slaughtered under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 35 million slaughtered under the Peoples' Republic of China; 21 million slaughtered under the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

The book does to much to affirm the statist quo and the author's "own side." A fair criticism is that Gitlin is trapped in a straight-jacket of left-right political analysis, as taught in government schools. Gitlin thereby shows that there is no difference between republican-socialists and democrat-socialists and that explains why the government keeps growing. But his book could be used to help people learn how the flag and the pledge debunk grade-school political analysis.

At the time that Mussolini and Hitler found their salute they were both self-proclaimed socialists and leaders in their movements. Adolf Hitler's symbol (the swastika), although it was an ancient symbol, was used sometimes by the National Socialist German Workers Party to represent overlapping "S" letters for their "socialism," as shown in the book "Swastika Secrets" by Dr. Rex Curry. The same symbolism is shown in the bizarre signature of Hitler, which Hitler altered to use the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist"; in the fact that the NSGWP's symbol was turned 45 degrees to the horizontal and oriented in the S direction; and in similar alphabetic symbolism that still shows on Volkswagens.

The raised-arm salute was not an ancient Roman salute, and the "ancient Roman salute" is a myth. The Roman myth grew in many ways, including the use of the USA’s pledge salute in early movies showing fictional Roman scenes.

Gitlin says that we need critics who are patriots -- and patriots who are critics. But the patriotism and the dogma that inspired the USSR, PRC, & NSGWP is cult-like membership that was oddly similar to the robotic chanting of the Pledge of Allegiance in government schools (socialist schools). The book shows that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

The Bellamys promoted a government takeover of schools. When the government granted their wish, the government schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official government policy. The schools mandated the robotic chanting of the pledge with the German-style salute and persecuted and expelled children who would not comply, arrested parents, and even took children from parents on allegations of "unfit parenting."

The USA still follows similar anti libertarian policies promoted by the Bellamys. Many socialist Bellamy policies caused the USA’s big, expensive and oppressive government and its growing police-state. The Pledge still exists along with laws mandating that teachers lead the robotic pledge chanting every day for twelve years of each child’s life (though the salute was altered). The government still owns and operates schools, including the same schools that imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official government policy. The U.S. practice of imposing segregation by law in government schools and teaching racism as official policy even outlasted the National Socialist German Workers' Party by over 15 years. After segregation in government's schools ended, the Bellamy legacy caused more police-state racism of forced busing that destroyed communities and neighborhoods and deepened hostilities. Those schools still exist. Infants are given social security numbers that track and tax them for life. Government schools demand the numbers for enrollment.

The pledge has become an example of how dangerous government schools are. The pledge is a primary justification for ending government schools. As the saying goes "remove the pledge from the flag, the flag from the schools, and the schools from government."

The government in the USA and the government schools hide those facts from people in the USA and from people in other countries.

Gitlin's book is a fascinating look at how people can be so bamboozled by government propaganda that they don't even know it.