There is no doubt about Americans’ patriotism. We consistently score higher than other countries on polls gauging how patriotic citizens are. We see this every Fourth of July as Americans proudly display the flag and sing the national anthem and watch fireworks.
However, there are some who are weary of our patriotism and they are not shy about telling us so. Howard Zinn, the leftist historian, advised us on the Fourth to “put away our flags” and to renounce “nationalism.” Mark Kurlansky, a popular historian, wrote how he was sick and tired of the Founding Fathers. Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks opined that she just didn’t “understand the necessity for patriotism.”
Lorie Byrd of the blog Wizbang noted several liberal bloggers who felt that they couldn’t show patriotism because they objected to President Bush’s policies. I hope the great majority of Democrats don’t feel this way, but there do seem to be a vocal few who reject patriotism and base their rejection on their disdain for the present administration. In contrast, there never seemed to be any such parallel lack of patriotism in the 1990s among conservatives who despised Bill Clinton.
Liberals and Democrats might assert that they are just as patriotic as conservatives and Republicans. But there seems to be a definite divergence in the parties’ intensity of patriotic feelings, regardless of who is president.
Since 1987, the Pew poll has asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement, “I am very patriotic.” There has been a consistent difference in the degree to which Democrats and Republicans agreed with that statement. In the 2004 poll, 71 percent of Republicans completely agreed but just 48 percent of Democrats did.
What accounts for this difference? I think it goes back to an intrinsic split between how liberals and conservatives view the world.
Thomas Sowell in “A Conflict of Visions” identifies the difference. A conservative (or, as Sowell terms it, a holder of the constrained vision) accepts that man is imperfect and that the choices we have are often between two imperfect alternatives. A liberal (or, in Sowell’s term, a holder of the unconstrained vision) is more likely to focus on faults and refuse to accept less than perfection.
Witness attitudes toward the Founding Fathers. Some people condemn our nation and the Founders because slavery was accepted in the Constitution. Others look at the alternative: not being able to agree on the Constitution, and having the country collapse from all the defects in the government in that critical period. They are able, despite its omissions, to appreciate and to honor the result of the Constitutional Convention.
If you believe that until we achieve the ideal, you cannot love the country, you willnot consider yourself very patriotic. You will also have a very long wait. Your reservations will always outweigh what you love about this country. And liberals are attracted to that view.
Conversely, if you see the faults of this country, but still love it because you recognize that it is the best of the available alternatives, you will be able to answer that question in the affirmative. You will love this country, faults and all, and waving the flag doesn’t reflect your support for a particular president or policy, but for the whole idea of this country. Since conservatives believe it is impossible to reach perfection, they are more likely to love this country despite its faults.
We also see this division in the approach to teaching American history.
Liberals such as Zinn want to focus on the warts of our past, to focus on which groups were oppressed and denied rights. These topics become like the blemish on a friend’s face. You can’t see anything but that blemish, and beauty becomes invisible because you keep staring at that blemish.
I’m not advocating ignoring those blemishes, but I suggest we also look at the bigger picture. And we should recognize that no society has a perfect past, because man is not perfect.
Our country is not ideal, but it was founded on an ideal worth celebrating.
As Abraham Lincoln said of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, “They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.”
Even though we fall short of that ideal every day, we should still treasure that our country had that ideal as its foundation.
Betsy Newmark is a member of The Examiner’s Blog Board of Contributors and blogs at betsyspage.blogspot.com.
