Against America the abstraction.
By Paul J Cella Posted in Culture | Immigration | patriotism | philosophy — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I welcome absentee’s recent contribution to the immigration-and-American-culture debate. It’s a fine diary, well worth reading with care. In response to it I will present an observation, and upon it ground an argument.
I have been arguing about immigration on Redstate from essentially the same position for three and half years. My interlocutors have induced me to some adjustment and recapitulations, but I must confess that their arguments, even the most eloquent and emphatic of them, have more often than not reinforced the firmness of my opposition to our immigration regime.
Read on.
The primary reason is that debates on the subject usually result in the exposure of a philosophy standing behind some in the pro-immigration faction, which in my judgment tends towards the dissolution of the country. A pernicious theory; a parlous enthusiasm; an ill-conceived and dangerous doctrine: In short a philosophy inherently subversive of those purposes, in the furtherance of which We the People “ordained and established” our Constitution.
In my own mind I have not settled on a satisfactory, much less a perfect formulation for this doctrine or theory. Propositional Nation is one common title for it. On occasion I have called it “America the abstraction,” referring to a most excellent essay on the subject. But neither of these quite captures the philosophy fairly or precisely.
The doctrine is readily apparent in the view, often expressed in a rather glib manner, that what is really important about America, what is really worth conserving, is the collection of ideas upon which she is said to be based. “Take away the idea that is America, and what do you have? Nothing worth preserving.” I have heard this staggering question raised and answered, mutatis mutandis, on many occasions. And I will not conceal what it induces in me: fear and a very urgent patriotic indignation.
Now I do not flatter myself that this theory will be settled here and now. Far from it. My more modest goal is merely to establish, as clearly as I can, my unqualified opposition to it. “I'm not attached to America as a geographic location”; it’s the ideas that matter. I don’t expect to settle this theory, but I do hope to convey my judgment as to where it should settle: in the dustbin of history.
So I will state my opposition in as succinct a syllogism as I can: Any theory of patriotism, which by implication falsifies the patriotic songs of the country, is a false and destructive theory. For there can be no doubt that virtually every patriotic song we have, with the exception of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” contains a distinctive and unmistakable aspect of gratitude, of celebration, of joy for the unique beauty of our land.
A theory of patriotism which begins with “I'm not attached to America as a geographic location,” will end with the singing of “America the Beautiful” or “God Bless America” or “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” as a kind of parody or falsehood.
Does natural beauty exhaust the sources of American patriotism? Hardly. And I have never denied the role of ideas in the formation of American identity. I may be guilty of underemphasizing it, but that is only because, as we can see, there are many thoughtful and earnest people who are prepared to excise everything else. It may also be that the ideas I would point to as formative in the development of American identity, are rather different from those commonly presented as formative. I would drastically underrate, for instance, the notion of “openness,” which I think is an anachronistic imposition from the late twentieth century. I would also underrate, less drastically but still decisively, the importance of “democracy” — unless this word is used as a synonym for self-government. I could go on; but the point is that while we can quibble over the content of the ideas in the American identity, I do much more than quibble with anyone who would present ideas as the primary or even only important aspect of that identity.
With them my attitude must be opposition, firm and consistent; and my feeling must be distress at their seductive folly of their theory of patriotism.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | The irony of Bob Dylan. — Comments (15) »
Against America the abstraction. 54 Comments (0 topical, 54 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Now how do we forge a consensus on immigration?
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Democrats: Aborting infant democracies since 1961!
The problem, of course, is trying to forge anything reasonable or responsible when the other side of the political aisle is decidedly irresponsible in deference to, even pursuit of, micro-isolationism. What kind of intellectual honesty can the left have when they counsel against withdrawing from the world culturally as a nation, but counsel for withdrawing from the nation culturally as a pocket of the outside world?
The key to consensus policy is going to be owning both sides of the debate, I think. We need practical, conservative persons on the Bush side, and practical, conservative persons on the Tancredo side. By owning both armies, the battle is ours to define. It also leads to electoral success, as we have alienated neither side in total.
In that regard I'd almost say the path ahead is easy. Publicized Republican-only immigration debates, vigorous but principled, coupled with editorials, columns, letters-to-the-editor. People in general are more open to conservative policy on immigration. They will watch and take sides. No matter which side they take, it won't be the Democrat's.
The Democrat position is untenable because it is not grounded. Their gaffes are numerous and public, and are far out of step with the voting population.
If we own both sides of the debate, then the battle is ours. If from there we as Republicans and Conservatives can't work out a consensus or compromise, then I don't know.
It may be a naive position. I've not really thought it through, it having only just occured to me, but I know this: So far we've gotten nowhere.
In a debate about whether the piano looks better in the living room or the foyer, the least helpful person is the one who has decided he doesn't like music anymore.
absentee
let's remember that laws are laws. As such, they MUST be enforced, otherwise we are left with anarchy which is what this issue has evolved into.
I also think we need to ensure we stand on the principles that Teddy espoused. I think most Americans get tired of seeing mass protests of people waving flags of other countries and money leaving our economy to fuel Central and South America.
Part of the debate must center on WHY we have so many illegals. I have always considered illegals as refugees as opposed to immigrants. Until we address the root cause, this issue will never go away. (It's been ongoing for over 100 years!)
We, as free men, have a responsibility to not only hold the torch, but to light fires around the world for freedom. Our parents understood this which is why they were the greatest generation. There's still time for us, however, the pacifists have had too much time to condition the populace to think only of themselves. Time will only tell.
Democrats: Aborting infant democracies since 1961!
The music hater is analogous to the unhelpful dems. Just to clarify.
absentee
I greatly regret that Ronald Reagan approved an amnesty plan for illegal immigrants; major mistake; one that has proven its critics as being correct. Therefore, we cannot have another amnesty plan regardless of the hoops that must be jumped through to gain it.
Enforce the laws, when an undocumented worker is found, deport them, penalize their employer according to the law. No, we cannot round up 13 million undocumented workers in one fell swoop, but why would we even consider such a logistical nightmare. We have enforcement agencies for these laws, insist that they do their job. If they don't have the right to be here, they don't have the right to be here, show them the door.
Close the borders so those who are shown the door find it not to be a revolving one. Provide a means that folks can apply for work visas in our foreign embassy's and eliminate the ability to apply for the same within the US.
What is it about enforcing the laws on the books that seems so foreign to people?
Chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
What is it about enforcing the laws on the books that seems so foreign to people?
We in this country have taken the simple and made it complex for what reason? I wrestle with that everyday. I tend to see the world in black and white and a lot of others tend to want to see it in gray....I cannot fathom the insanity of "well you got here and you worked here and you bought a house here...so we will reward your underhanded behavior"....because "it's for the common good"...recognize that last statment? That is Hillary talking about taking those tax cuts for the "common good" and than we hear conservatives or Republicans use the same term for what appeals to them...sickenly funny, isn't it?
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
America and Americans have a long tradition of ignoring laws which we find at the time inconvenient.
How many on this forum have, and how many in american history have, in no particular order, at one point or another:
Exceeded the speed limit.
Had an "illegal" drink (under 21 years of age, during prohibition, unlicensed home brew 'moonshine').
Used a controlled substance.
Taken a tax deduction for which while entitled they could not produce full documentation.
Parked illegally.
Carried a knife larger than the approved blade length in a jurisdiction that restricted same.
Paid a kid in cash to mow a lawn and did not report it properly.
Let someone pay you in cash "under the table".
Did not report their tips as income.
Throughout our history we have tempered our zeal for the letter of the law (as applied to other people mostly) with a reality check of just how harsh, impractical, annoying, do we want our society to be.
Keep in mind that we issued a de facto invitation to most of the immigrants here without documentation. No de jure for certain, but they came knowing that there was work waiting for them, so that they might live the American dream to live free and provide a better life for their families.
To say to them now - "Sorry, we as a society lied, you are not welcome after all" does not sit well with me.
have done at least one of the above...however were we given absolution from the government for said law breaking...why no! we were probably not caught doing any of the above...and if we were we would have paid a handsome price...lawyers and courts. Bogus argument.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Our government looks the other way all the time, at it appears to be the way we want it to behave.
We don't try to enforce all the laws.
Police regularly ignore anyone going over the speed limit up to 10 - 15 MPH - it would be too disruptive of traffic, and probably society, to strictly enforce the speed laws. They don't try, and we generally don't want them to.
Police regularly ignore certain classes of crimes as not worth the resources to enforce. Pretty much all the crimes I listed have fallen in that category at one time or another.
Prosecutors regularly decide what charges to lay against people.
In short, our government excercises discression, be it for political reasons, ideological reasons, or cost - benefit reasons. They always have, they always will. I don't want to live in a country where there are enough police to enforce ever law.
For a long time most of American society was fine with immigration, legal or otherwise. I guess we liked inexpensive landscaping, janatorial services, maid service, etc. They came because we wanted a service at a price they would meet, and those already here would or could not meet. I think it unfair for us to now demand they be rounded up and sent home, or starved into leaving.
their money off of people going 10-15 miles over the speed limit...we here in VA are not being ignored...god bless your sleeping police officers though...how lucky are you?
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Obviously you can only deport the illegal aliens you catch. But illegal aliens do not belong in America, so if an illegal alien IS caught he should be sent back to the country where he belongs - he shouldn't get to KEEP VIOLATING THE LAW.
So let's take another look at the speeding analogy - let's say you're driving 80 mph. No cop sees you, and you don't crash, no punishment. But if you're going 80 mph and the blue lights and the siren come on you darn sure better stop - don't just keep going 80 mph. A person who keeps going 80 mph with the police trying to pull him over is going to get in a lot of trouble and an illegal alien who stays here after he is caught needs to be in a lot of trouble too.
One other thing about speeding. If you get caught doing 80 mph and you pay your fine, you're not allowed to drive 80 mph whenever you want to just because you paid a fine one time. You have to obey the law like everybody else. Just cause an illegal alien pays a fine for being here illegally doesn't mean the illegal alien ought to get to stay here illegally after paying the fine.
have anything to do with the territorial sovereignty of the nation, the maintaining of which is among the first duties of a government. Nor is there an organized movement to undermine enforcement of those crimes, such that they would no longer be regarded as crimes.
In short, these analogies fail because they (1) underestimate what is at stake and (2) ignore the subversive aspect of the open borders ideology.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
"Nor is there an organized movement to undermine enforcement of those crimes, such that they would no longer be regarded as crimes."
I am fairly certain that there is an organized movement to undermine the enforcement of drug and alcohol laws.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
because we enforce those laws. We should do the same with our immigration laws, except the offenders should be shipped back to their country of origin.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I expect a ticket when caught speeding, jail if caught with drugs, and explaining my tax return if audited.
All are risks we take, but we understand going in what will happen when caught.
You don't get out of a ticket by explaining that you sped on other roads and no one noticed so I thought it was acceptable. I've had drugs for years officer and you never caught me so I derserve to be let go. I've been lying on my taxes for years so you have no basis for now causing me a problem for lying to you Mr. IRS agent.
Illeagals have snuck in or overstayed Visas and knew what they were doing. They knew the consequences and took the chance. It's risk vs. reward, and I would agree it's worth it for them, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to stay. There are many illegals manipulating our benefit system among other things, and trying to figure out who to reward and who not to is fruitless. This issue must be looked at as a whole and not an individual basis, you can find a way to make exceptions forever.
The penalty is leaving and getting in line like everyone else, not to say well, you were here first so the rules don't apply. Allow them to come back legally whenever that is, not keeping them out forever is the reward.
I agree with the earlier post that we always make things harder and more thought out than need be. No jobs or benefits will force them to go home and begin the process to come here leagally. It's working in Arizona and other places except they are going to other states. If all the states followed the same guildlines, they would be going home. Common sense.
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
...we game them.
Are there lawbreakers among us citizens? Surely. Have I offended the law in any of the ways you've listed? Well, I am going to plead the fifth - and that is a big part of America; the respect for the rule of law. I cannot bring myself to publically give a straight answer to that question.
None can keep the law perfectly (I'm Lutheran), but violations do not diminish the law; we know in our heart of hearts that we were merely lucky in not getting caught. Nor do we need to live under the "harsh, impractical" letter of absolute law. The law does not need to be enforced perfectly; the randomness of enforcement keeps us wary.
The questions of law that you've listed can be asked another way. Instead of asking who among us has not exceeded the speed limit, ask rather who among us has been penalized for having exceeded the speed limit. Instead of asking who among us has not had an illegal drink, ask rather who among us has been penalized for having had that illegal drink.
The kid mowing lawns for unreported cash? Ask Zoe Baird about the unreported cash payments; it cost her a cabinet position.
And so on...
The illegals who come here are not unaware of the risks that they take to be here. They do not need to have their illegality addressed to them individually and personnally as a legal writ, any more than they needed the invitation to come and work to be on gilt-edged paper stock. Observe the migration that occurs when ICE goes into one of their enforcement spasms. It's chancy for them to be here, and they know it. We've not lied to them; they're gaming the system.
By focusing on those who would employ illegals and making the risks of doing so far outweigh any perceived benefit, you can remove the greatest incentive for illegal immigration. In a previous blog I mentioned a $25,000 per day/per violation fine and jail time of 1-5 years per violation for the CEO/Owner and HR manager of any entity that hires an illegal. Of course, the law must apply to companies and individuals that hire illegals equally to ensure that ALL incentive for illegal immigration is removed.
Obviously a system must be provided to make ID verification a simple process, but that should not be too difficult to provide. It is a simple matter of providing potential employers with a database where they can login, enter a SSN and the name and address information provided by the applicant and the system will give a simple match/no match answer. For the technologically challenged employer, a toll free number with an automated response system could provide the same service. I would add that those applicants who are here on a work permit should also be provided a pin number that is unique for each account to help reduce the likelyhood of fraud and identity theft. These pin numbers would not apply to American citizens, but only to people who are here on work visas.
Once you remove employment opportunities for those who have not followed the law, you then need to ensure that illegals have no access to any social services at any level of government. Current state laws/district practices, such as those that prohibit schools from reporting the presence of children whose parents' immigration status is questionable at best, must be superceded by federal laws that require disclosure and full compliance with federal immigration laws. There can be no cracks in the system to ensure that all opportunity for illegals is removed.
Once you have stopped illegal immigration, the real problem must be dealt with; what to do with the 12 million plus illegals that are already here? First, it must be made clear what amnesty means. Amnesty is a general pardon for offences. A pardon involves no punishment and no consequences for the offences from which one is being pardoned.
I mention that because I was falsely accused of proposing amnesty recently as the second part of my immigration reform proposal. What I required of those illegals already present in our country was that they pay a fine for each member of their household who was here illegally, they must work ten years without any criminal incident and learn English before they could even apply for citizenship. Failure to pay their fines within a specified time frame would result in their deportation and a forfeiture of any social security benefit they may have earned once they began working here legally. I would add that they should pay a yearly fee for their work permit. I also added a stipulation that said that any illegal alien who has children of school age with him/her must ensure that their children attend school. If a child gets expelled or drops out of school then the entire family would be deported. The purpose of this is to facilitate assimilation and to ensure that those illegals who wish for their children to become citizens do not create a permanent underclass in the process.
The bottom line is that a fine and a delay of 10 years before they can even apply to become citizens is a punishment and is therefore not amnesty. Just because they are not being sent home doesn't mean they are getting away with anything. My reason for this approach was because of the sheer scale of the problem and the fact that many employers are heavily dependent on illegals to meet their staffing needs. I feel it is important to be realistic and understand that there may not be enough Americans that are willing to do the jobs that illegals currently do even if offered the minimum wage.
The problem of illegal immigration must be addressed, but it must be addressed rationally and realistically. Hyperbole has no place in the debate. Thanks to Paul and absentee for their excellent posts on the subject!
or do we have individuals that still believe in servitude/slavery? If the only way you can compete in society is to cheat and profit off the blood sweat and tears of others because you don't want to pay, you are no better than the plantation owners of old and should be enslaved/imprisoned yourself.
Sorry, I don't buy that argument.
Democrats: Aborting infant democracies since 1961!
I am absolutely not defending cheap labor practices. Did I or did I not state that employers should be targeted first to eliminate this practice in the first place? I am simply wondering if there are ENOUGH Americans to fill the void in the industries that currently rely on illegals? The fact is that Americans are increasingly lazy and unwilling to do certain types of work. I say beggars can't be choosers, but I don't see that many of our poorer citizens applying for jobs at McDonalds or as housekeeping staff at hotels, or in the myriad other fields that currently employ a high percentage of illegal aliens. This is not a defense of servitude/slavery and if that is what you thought I was trying to say then you are mistaken.
Okay, let us say you are right, and we need to import labor for "those jobs Americans refuse to do." There are a great number of people waiting in lines to get into the country, but connot because they have no jobs to come to. Eliminate the illegals, and allow those who have pursued the legal avenues to take their jobs.
No, claiming that we need them does not refute the responsibility of the appropriate agencies to enforce the laws.
Chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
We do not have people waiting in lines to get into the country who can not enter due to lack of employment. We have quotas that restrict how many can come in each year. Having a job waiting is a way to boost your position in line, but the impediment is that there is a quota.
Most of those quotas were enacted initially to stem the flow of non-northern european immigrants out of a fear that that they would change America.
There really are three separate (but interrelated) debates we need to have:
1. How much immigration do we want to allow?
2. Who do we want to allow in under what system of preferences?
3. What do we do about past undocumented immigrants?
If the answer to #1 is "As many who qualify (see #2) and want to come" and the answer to #2 is "Anyone willing to accept the rule of US law and become a citizen" then #3 is easy - allow the currently undocumented to apply for legal residence without predjudice.
It is only when we restrict legal immigration, when there is a line we don't want folks cutting in, that we have to worry about the fairness of amnesty.
illegal aliens.
If the illegals want to live in the US, let them go home and apply for legal entry. Hopefully, the illegals who are fleeing Arizona and Oklahoma because of the new laws on employment verification will show up in Maryland. Then you too can learn to be a bigot.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Entering the USA without a visa, or over staying a visa, is a civil violation, not a felony crime or misdemenor as I understand it. Thus the term undocumented immigrant, or if you prefer undocumented alien.
Maryland has a huge immigrant population. I work with more immigrants than native born. I am confident that some of the janitorial staff are undocumented, though I could not tell you her. They are some of the most hard working, polite folks I have ever worked for. They are for the most part not the ones I see spending an hour of each day on smoke breaks.
I do wish we would let the undocumented go home and apply for entry with a realistic chance of getting it. The way we have things structured now, with restrictive quotas and family preferences, it won't happen any time soon.
Why do you think exposure to immigrants would make me a bigot? Did it make you one?
it is a civil violation.
Each time after it is a criminal act either the second or third time it becomes a felony. And current law states that anyone who has been deported cannot get in the line for legal entry in the first place.
There good hard working people yadda yadda yadda. This whole bit is just fuzzy thinking. There are billions of folks out there just like them just because they cut in line gives them zero right to stay. The point is if America wants good hard working people America chooses them not the other way around.
That way leads to mob rule something I am fairly sure is bad.
"The point is if America wants good hard working people America chooses them not the other way around."
Up until the quota laws of the eary 20th century it was the immigrants who chose the US (though I will give you that in some cases some recruiters went to Scandanavia and brought folks over). It is the American ideal that draws them here.
This "cut in line" argument is foolish. No one currently "in line" has been denied a place because someone else over stayed a visa. The undocumented took a different, far riskier route because the lure of America was so strong. America used to reward risk takers, and we still do.
One way around the "how much immigration?" question: work visas. Many illegal immigrants are content to come here, work for a few years, send back money, and eventually return.
But we would have to deal with the issue of how long are they good for. We would also have to assume that quite a few would, during the course of their stay, have children, and I don't think we want to automatically deport the parents of US citizens forcing them to either take citizens out of the US or abandon them.
of birthright citizenship in cases where neither parent is a citizen. Or, we could just face facts and make a few American citizens leave when their parents do.
Abolishing birthright citizenship would be turning our back on what to me is a dearly held American principal, and one of the things that makes us unique in the world.
Birthright citizenship also aids in assimilation from everything I have read of American history - it keeps the immigrant communities from remaining outsiders. See Europe for an example of the problems of not having such assimilation.
Would you seriously deny an American Citizen by birth the right to live in the US? If you kick the parents out do we make the kids wards of the state?
"Obviously a system must be provided to make ID verification a simple process, but that should not be too difficult to provide. It is a simple matter of providing potential employers with a database where they can login, enter a SSN and the name and address information provided by the applicant and the system will give a simple match/no match answer. For the technologically challenged employer, a toll free number with an automated response system could provide the same service. I would add that those applicants who are here on a work permit should also be provided a pin number that is unique for each account to help reduce the likelyhood of fraud and identity theft. These pin numbers would not apply to American citizens, but only to people who are here on work visas."
Have you ever heard of identity theft?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
A national right to work identification system just another way of saying all workers are presumed guilty of being non citizens / undocumented aliens unless they can prove otherwise. Can we all say "Your papers please"? Did we not fight a war against that system a few decades ago?
Paul - always appreciate your insightful writings on this topic.
One question I have, and I know we've talked about this before as well, is what the imperative implications of your position really is. Meaning, I fully understand what you mean by denying the "Only ideas matter" view of American patriotism. I know what you reject.
But what is it that you accept? Your theory, for it to be useful, must have some level of specificity. Else it becomes just a set of slogans and paeans to a mystical American spirit or American cultures or American-ness that cannot serve any pragmatic function.
I know you're in the process of working through these. But I would like to get even a first draft look at the specifics of what you deem a philosophy of Americanism.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
My more modest goal is merely to establish, as clearly as I can, my unqualified opposition to it. “I'm not attached to America as a geographic location”; it’s the ideas that matter. I don’t expect to settle this theory, but I do hope to convey my judgment as to where it should settle: in the dustbin of history.
Those who embrace open borders must lead the public to see citizens as fungible. It requires homo economicus to be imbued with patriotic traits that have no basis in common experience. American exceptionalism results from ideas rather than flesh and blood individuals.
Good work as usual. And like most utopian impulses, this too will end up on the dustbin history.
While our geographic beauty is vast and has spawned a love of Road Trips in my life, I don't think it is what makes America the greatest nation in the world.
At our founding, there were no functionally governments based on the notion that people were free and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. The assumption was that people had liberty with a government limited by that liberty. The belief that we the people could rule ourselves was unique and radical.
Without writing a full diary here, I do believe that American the Abstraction is what makes us unique, special and as President Reagan would put it "a shining city on the hill."
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
While our geographic beauty is vast and has spawned a love of Road Trips in my life, I don't think it is what makes America the greatest nation in the world.
I agree with that. Whether America is the greatest nation in the world, is a question quite irrelevant to my point. She could be poor and subjugated and still I would love her. Love is not contingent upon prosperity, or it is not love. Our literature rings with tales of heroes of defeated or broken nations.
The belief that we the people could rule ourselves was unique and radical.
Agreed on that also. But self-government as a mere idea is worthless. The whole point about self-government is its earthy practicality, which, indeed, will be demonstrated today, when we sit down at grubby school cafeteria tables to vote.
Look, if you want a Revolution based on mere abstractions, you need look no farther than France in the decade after our Revolution. For practicality the Jacobins substituted a fanaticism of abstraction. They seated a Goddess of Reason on Notre Dame. It was the perfection of abstraction.
Again I must ask, do you sing our patriotic songs in parody or bad faith, or do you actually share the gratitude and love of natural beauty contained in all of them?
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
You can find the lyrics here:
http://www.usa-flag-site.org/song-lyrics/star-spangled-banner.shtml
You won't find anything about place really, it seems to beconcerned with the quality of the citizens as the flag flies "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"
Or how about Neil Diamond "America" (AKA "The're Coming to America").
Or "The Battle Criy of Freedom"
My point is that not all patriotic songs, or patriotism, is concerned with place.
America is first and formost a land of ideals. Waves of immigrants came here not because it was pretty. They came because they yearned to be free in a land where they could build their own dreams. They still are and for the same reasons.
It's a battle song, with the flag (a symbol) as its primary subject. Places and ideas both enter only obliquely.
My point is that not all patriotic songs, or patriotism, is concerned with place.
Which point I made myself. Perhaps you neglected that paragraph. "Does natural beauty exhaust the sources of American patriotism? Hardly. And I have never denied the role of ideas in the formation of American identity."
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
The stars and the stripes both represent places.
Ironically, your theory is an "idea" that seldom gets exposure.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
But how does one reconcile his historical certitude of this...
My country, 'tis of Thee,
Sweet Land of Liberty
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountain side
Let Freedom ring.***
My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills,
My heart with rapture thrills
Like that above.***
Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet Freedom's song;
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.***
Our fathers' God to Thee,
Author of Liberty,
To thee we sing,
Long may our land be bright
With Freedom's holy light,
Protect us by thy might
Great God, our King.***
Our glorious Land to-day,
'Neath Education's sway,
Soars upward still.
Its hills of learning fair,
Whose bounties all may share,
Behold them everywhere
On vale and hill!***
Thy safeguard, Liberty,
The school shall ever be,
Our Nation's pride!
No tyrant hand shall smite,
While with encircling might
All here are taught the Right
With Truth allied.***
Beneath Heaven's gracious will
The stars of progress still
Our course do sway;
In unity sublime
To broader heights we climb,
Triumphant over Time,
God speeds our way!***
Grand birthright of our sires,
Our altars and our fires
Keep we still pure!
Our starry flag unfurled,
The hope of all the world,
In peace and light impearled,
God hold secure!
...with the likelihood that there would be attacks coming from both far left and sort-of-right if some paid particular notice, with contemporary emphasis, to the words of the last verse?
I love this song. All of it. But it seems there are those who believe that America is merely an idea who would judge the whole song by taking a line here or there out of context.
Ah, but perhaps I'm too much the purist. I oppose the current effort to replace Florida's State Song, Steven Foster's Old Folks at Home, with something more contemporary.
Curmudgeonly of me, I suppose.
But thank God there was no political correctness in 1831 when America was penned.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/5/19/10497/1473
___________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
It could be recommended. While I'm not sure which side I wish to support on this one, I will say that you have penned an excellent diary Paul.
Isn't the place to begin is how many want to be Americans? I got the answer I didn't want when I saw hundreds of thousands of them marching through our cities carrying foreign flags and shouting that it was their land and not ours.
It would seem that they at least get Paul's point loud and clear.
Any nation dumb enough to do that deserves what it gets. The Soviet Union, The Spanish Empire and Fuedal Japan were all examples of countries that put nationalism and ideology ahead of their economic intrests. It got them each marginalized and turned into backwaters.
All nativism and protectionism ever accomplish is the beggery of a nation. They chase out the people with drive and initiative and give a tribe of trolladytic losers who want America First to mean that their personal balliwicks get protected at the expense of cultural advancement, business success and technological breakthroughs.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
All nativism and protectionism ever accomplish is the beggery of a nation.
That must be why Alexander Hamilton advocated (and got) protectionism for fledging American industry, because he sought to accomplish the beggary of the nation.
They chase out the people with drive and initiative and give a tribe of trolladytic losers who want America First to mean that their personal balliwicks get protected at the expense of cultural advancement, business success and technological breakthroughs.
Indeed, the Hamiltonian system did very certainly drive out business and enterprise, and it's been all down hill since then. It was the agrarian Free Traders of the South who prospered in our history.
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Protectionism only retards economic development. It makes the prices of everything we buy significantly higher. The average US household is taxed over $3,000 a year because they have to pay the tariff-inflated prices of foreign goods in order to buy what they feel is the best that the market has to offer.
As for early American industry, it was competing against a bunch of countries that were mercantilist. In other words, he had the luxury of competing against a number of beaurocratic firms who were suffering from the 18th century version of Eurosclerosis.
If you read Adma Smith's description of the East India Company in The Wealth of Nations, you'll soon realize that if American Industry had not prospered against competition like that, we would have deserved to have been conquered by the Algonquins.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
Can we get back to my question? Do these people even want to be Americans?
it pretty much does. If these people, whomever you may be refering to, do not want to be Americans, they need to denied the right to hold drivers' leicenses, employment and to vote.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
I strongly agree with a three-dimensional understanding of America the nation. I have seen comments from you on this before.
Abstract ideals and ideas cannot be the solitary or even primary embodiment of the national identity. That is not just a function of preservation, is the expression of human nature.
If you move my Carolina Panthers to Oakland, then they are not my Carolina Panthers.
Our psyche is wedded to our reality. Who doesn't feel that New York harbor and Ellis Island and Lady Liberty are an inextricable trio doesn't truly appreciate the Lady, or the history she symbolizes and participates in. Standing where Stonewall Jackson met his fate, or Paul Revere made liberty's heroic ride is a visceral connection with our heritage. It is contact with our national soul, on a real and moving level.
History is our heritage: Benjamin Franklin, Harriet Tubman, Father Flannagan, Clarence Thomas, and Bobby Jindal.
My patriotism is, I think, like yours. For the people, the history, the institutions, the documents, the symbols, the idea, and the land.
absentee