Some commenters and others reacting to my post on nationalism raise the issue of its relationship to patriotism. Even if nationalism is an evil, perhaps patriotism can still be good. Patriotism is certainly distinguishable from nationalism, as I defined that term in my previous post: “loyalty to one’s own nation-state based on ties of language, culture, or ethnicity.” It is also differs from nationalism defined as a sense of moral obligation to members of one’s ethnic or racial group across national boundaries. In common usage, patriotism generally means loyalty to one’s government and/or its ideals regardless of ethnic or racial identity. For example, one can be a patriotic American even if you are a member of an ethnic minority, English is not your native language, you dislike mainstream American popular culture, and so on.
To the extent that patriotism simply means supporting your country when its government promotes good ideals and policies, I’m all in favor of it. Indeed, I place high value on the American political system because, despite serious flaws, it provides a great deal of freedom and happiness to large numbers of people. I also admire it because, unlike most other nations, it is not primarily based on ties of race, language, or ethnicity.
At the same time, I am opposed to patriotism in the sense of valuing a nation or government for its own sake. Unlike senior conspirator Eugene Volokh, I don’t believe that we should “love” our country in the same unconditional way that we love a spouse or family member. That kind of patriotism too readily leads people to support governments that are oppressive and unjust. More fundamentally, it loses sight of the principle that governments and nations are means, not ends in and of themselves. The Founding Fathers, I think, got it right when they wrote in the Preamble to the Constitution that they were creating a new government in order to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The Constitution and the United States generally are not ends in themselves, but means to the objectives laid out in the Preamble. The corollary is that the government deserves patriotic loyalty only in so far as it promotes those objectives better than the available alternatives. If I thought that freedom, happiness and other important values could be better achieved by replacing the United States with some other political entity or by breaking it up through secession, I would not support maintaining the status quo out of patriotism. To do so would be to exalt a mere means above the ends it is supposed to serve.
Some, like Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds in his response to my earlier post, argue that we need “irrational affection” for government in order for it to work well. I am skeptical. A population that values its government for purely instrumental reasons can still give it the necessary support and defend it against external enemies. At the same time, it is less likely to tolerate abuses of government power on the grounds that we have a patriotic duty to support the state for its own sake. But even if some degree of “irrational affection” for government is necessary, it should still be regarded as a means to an end, not a value in itself.
Ultimately, I think the right attitude towards patriotism was best captured by Milton Friedman in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom:
In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country….” Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies that the government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, “what you can do for your country” implies that the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them… [H]e regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served.
The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather “What can I and my compatriots do through government” to . . . advance our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect?
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds (AKA Instapundit) responds to this post here:
I BELIEVE THAT ILYA SOMIN MISTAKES MY POINT: “Some, like Glenn ‘Instapundit’ Reynolds in his response to my earlier post, argue that we need ‘irrational affection’ for government in order for it to work well. I am skeptical. A population that values its government for purely instrumental reasons can still give it the necessary support and defend it against external enemies.”
I don’t think this quite responds to my point. I was suggesting that, in an evolutionary sense, a state whose populace feels irrational loyalty is more likely to prevail against states whose populaces are purely rational. This doesn’t strike me as much of a leap. A parent who values a child for purely instrumental reasons can still give it the necessary support, but I suspect that evolution has favored those who feel irrational loyalty to their kinfolks, too.
Furthermore, a state whose populace feels irrational loyalty probably has greater threat-value when dealing with states whose populace is only rationally loyal. This is not a defense of nationalism on any sort of moral grounds, of course — merely a suggestion that efforts to get rid of it will be difficult. This is particularly true if, as seems likely to me, evolution has favored irrational group-loyalty (for basically the same reasons) over periods extending long before the development of the state, so that such traits are largely hardwired.
I thank Glenn for the clarification. There is, I think, less disagreement between us than I at first thought. I certainly agree that “irrational loyalty” can give a state an advantage in some conflicts, and that nationalism will be difficult to root out. At the same time, I’m not convinced that that advantage is necessarily decisive in a conflict. Indeed, it could be outweighed by the disadvantages created by that very same irrationality. For example, German and Japanese troops fought very hard in World War II, in part because of attachment to irrational nationalistic ideology. But that same ideology also led their leaders to grossly underestimate their enemies and ultimately caused their defeat. Also, relatively non-nationalistic states that limit the power of their governments as a result are likely to be more economically productive and therefore have more resources to commit to any conflict. This factor underlies a large part of America’s geopolitical success over the last century.
It’s certainly possible that evolution favored “irrational group loyalty.” But such loyalties need not be directed at a state or a nation. I think it is less dangerous if they are directed towards smaller groups, such as friends and family, or towards adherents of universal principles of freedom and justice. Granted, some universalistic ideologies, such as communism, are even worse than nationalism. But others are vastly better. In any event, there is nothing hardwired or inevitable about nationalistic commitments as such, as indicated by the fact that most people were not nationalistic for the vast majority of human history. I’m not sure how much of what I say in the update Glenn would disagree with. It’s possible that the difference between our views is actually very minor.
catchy says:
So you (qualifiedly) support right wing populism, but don’t like nationalism or patriotism.
Given that patriotism and nationalism is most concentrated and promoted by the right wing, doesn’t this strike you as inconsistent?
December 2, 2009, 2:53 amJohn Thacker says:
Doesn’t it follow that loving a spouse or family member too readily leads people to support spouses and family members that are oppressive and unjust, and to violate the rights of others on behalf of their family members?
I don’t understand how you can make the distinction and say that one is right and the other wrong. It seems to me that you should be suspicious and opposed to love of spouses and family members for the same reason.
If you counter that you can unconditionally love a spouse or family member without trampling the rights of others to help them, then why does that not apply to patriotism?
December 2, 2009, 2:54 amJohn Thacker says:
The best defense of patriotism (and of loving one’s mother, for that matter) as an imitation of and as leading towards loving humanity is found in the works of G.K. Chesterton, IMO.
December 2, 2009, 2:57 amJohn Thacker says:
To the contrary, not necessarily. Some are more likely to tolerate abuses of government power on the grounds that they are perfectly content to move elsewhere if things get out of hand. It is the person who loves the country who is desperate for it to remain respectful of rights. The others are like students and professors who love humanity in theory but care not what happens to the university town and the townies, since they’re leaving after a few years anyway.
December 2, 2009, 3:03 amcatchy says:
“To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them…”
To the reductionist man, free or otherwise, he is nothing over and above the collection of molecules that compose him; and no molecule is anything over and above the collection of atoms that compose it; etc.
We hope this bottoms out somewhere, but there’s no guarantee that Friedman has thought through his mereology farther than to take a swipe at government.
December 2, 2009, 3:03 amIlya Somin says:
So you (qualifiedly) support right wing populism, but don’t like nationalism or patriotism.
Given that patriotism and nationalism is most concentrated and promoted by the right wing, doesn’t this strike you as inconsistent?
I never said that I “support” right-wing populism. I merely said that, right now, at this moment in history it is not as bad as it could be and that it might serve some useful instrumental ends in the way it’s adherents responded to the economic crisis. That doesn’t require me to agree with all their views on everything, and indeed I noted several disagreements in that earlier post.
December 2, 2009, 3:06 amIlya Somin says:
Doesn’t it follow that loving a spouse or family member too readily leads people to support spouses and family members that are oppressive and unjust, and to violate the rights of others on behalf of their family members?
I don’t understand how you can make the distinction and say that one is right and the other wrong. It seems to me that you should be suspicious and opposed to love of spouses and family members for the same reason.
The difference is that spouses and family members are valuable for their own sake, not just as means to an end. Not so with nations. Moreover, people are much more knowledgeable and skilled at monitoring family members than they are at monitoring government, for reasons I have discussed elsewhere (e.g. here). Thus, unconditional love of family is much less likely to lead to toleration of abuses than unconditional love of a nation or government.
December 2, 2009, 3:10 amIlya Somin says:
To the reductionist man, free or otherwise, he is nothing over and above the collection of molecules that compose him; and no molecule is anything over and above the collection of atoms that compose it; etc.
We hope this bottoms out somewhere, but there’s no guarantee that Friedman has thought through his mereology farther than to take a swipe at government.
I think you misunderstand Friedman’s argument. He’s not claiming that a nation lacks intrinsic value because it is composed of individuals. He is claiming that nation lacks intrinsic value because it is merely a means to an end (providing various benefits for those individuals, and protecting their freedom). By contrast, no one seriously argues that individuals are valuable only in so far as they provide some benefit for molecules or atoms.
December 2, 2009, 3:12 amJohn Thacker says:
Ah, but when it comes to family members, I am much more unstinting and honest in my criticism of flaws, and they with me, than with others. Secure in the knowledge that love is unconditional and no matter what is said, we will remain family, we are able to criticize.
It is with strangers and others with whom love is not unconditional that we hide our criticism, for fear of losing friendships or love. Those that we feel deserve our love and friendship only in so far as they are better than the available alternatives we don’t seek to improve; we instead continue to scan the alternatives. Those who we love not unconditionally, but because of a particular trait that we imagine them to have, are those that we refuse to examine too closely for fear of discovering that they are not all we imagine, and thus becoming unable to love them and losing that love.
I prefer the unconditional love that I have for family to the love that causes one to silence criticism, to not look too deep for fear of not liking what you see, and to look at alternatives instead of trying to help the one that you love.
December 2, 2009, 3:21 amIlya Somin says:
. Some are more likely to tolerate abuses of government power on the grounds that they are perfectly content to move elsewhere if things get out of hand. It is the person who loves the country who is desperate for it to remain respectful of rights.
I think the person most likely to promote respect for rights is the one who actually values the rights themselves, as opposed to the instrumentalities that are supposed to protect them – including nations and governments.
December 2, 2009, 3:23 amIlya Somin says:
when it comes to family members, I am much more unstinting and honest in my criticism of flaws, and they with me, than with others. Secure in the knowledge that love is unconditional and no matter what is said, we will remain family, we are able to criticize.
It is with strangers and others with whom love is not unconditional that we hide our criticism, for fear of losing friendships or love.
This incorrectly anthropomorphizes nations. A nation is not a person whose feelings can be hurt by criticism, and it certainly isn’t capable of loving anyone such that we need worry about losing that love. If we fear to antagonize people by criticizing the nation too much, it is only those who take undue offense at such criticism because they are nationalistic or because they incorrectly value the nation for its own sake as opposed to seeing it as a means to an end.
December 2, 2009, 3:26 amJohn Thacker says:
When you define a nation as the collection of its people, this goes away. Surely all the individuals who make up a nation are valuable for their own sake? Furthermore, can I take it that you’re happier with ethnic pride than with patriotism, since ethnic pride is only familiar pride extended to a larger group of individuals valuable for their own sakes?
I’m sorry, but I must view this point as absurd on its face. People have, do, and will tolerate all sorts of abuses in order to benefit family. In addition, merely because one case could be worse than other does not mean that love of family does not have the same kind of abuses. You stated previously that socialism was worse than nationalism, but nationalism was still bad. Even if love of family is not as bad as nationalism in this respect, surely you’re admitting that it’s still a negative? How do you defend unconditionally loving family more than other parts of humanity, by your lights?
December 2, 2009, 3:27 amLarryA says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
December 2, 2009, 3:31 amJohn Thacker says:
No, not only. We fear to hurt our own “rational affection” by criticizing the government. Those who value the government “for purely instrumental reasons” hesitate to criticize or investigate too much for fear of destroying their own rational reasons through their self-knowledge.
And surely it’s rational for others to think that someone who only values a government for instrumental reasons would flee rather than defend it against external enemies or against internal threats to its own values.
December 2, 2009, 3:35 amLarryA says:
There’s a big difference between loving humanity and loving government. I’m friends with a fair number of Democrats and Republicans. That doesn’t mean I particularly like their organizations.
December 2, 2009, 3:41 amRicardo says:
This is the fallacy of composition. The fact that each individual that makes up a nation is valuable for their own sake does not imply that the nation as a whole is valuable for its own sake. It could be the case but it doesn’t follow from the premise.
December 2, 2009, 4:03 amGuy says:
Well, truly unconditional love is a problem. If a husband is abusing his wife or their children, she should leave him (works the same way with genders swapped, but it’s less rhetorically powerful).
And although I usually agree with Eugene on legal and ethical matters, this is a case where I do think that Eugene’s analogy is specious. First, it ignores that many people (like me) really do think that wearing a flag lapel pin has become a meaningless gesture intended to convince voters that they’re more “patriotic” than the competition, most people don’t feel this way about saying “I love you” and this informs their emotional response to that, making them feel justified in translating their emotional response onto the flag-pin issue. Second, the equation of wearing a flag lapel pin isn’t necessarily analogous to saying “I love you” – how many non-politicians go through their daily lives wearing such pins? Not many. Does that mean politicians are more patriotic than the average American? Hardly. Third, saying “I love you” to your wife generates an emotional response, you’re being nice to her. A country is an abstract concept and has no emotions.
I’m not even going to address the issue of how loving one’s spouse should be like loving one’s country, except to say that they are very different kinds of love (I don’t usually get sexually aroused thinking about the Constitution, I’m sorry to say, even though I think it’s a wonderful founding document with a great personality), so analogies on the specifics can be very misleading.
December 2, 2009, 4:34 amPerseus says:
That is basically correct, but Publius also recognized the need for irrational affection: “the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side.” This is especially true because modern constitutionalism makes the constitutional form subordinate to the ends of government, namely, natural rights, which creates an inherent tension between the two. Your view is similar to Jefferson’s view, which emphasizes vigilance and the ends of government. But that view is an open invitation to populism (left or right), for if we keep the ends uppermost in people’s minds, it becomes much easier to slight or to disregard formalities such as due process, property rights, etc. in the name of the ends of safety and prosperity.
December 2, 2009, 5:21 amPersonFromPorlock says:
I think ‘catchy’s’ point is more that a nation lacks intrinsic existence, being merely a group description of its people, just as a ‘person’ is the group description of the ‘molecules’ (read: tiny bits) that comprise an individual – or would comprise an individual if there was anything there besides the molecules. This is a valid logical position and the fact that it fails so badly to describe our reality is good evidence that reductionism is false.
December 2, 2009, 7:00 amRichard Aubrey says:
I think there’s some confusion between “government” and “nation” or “country”.
December 2, 2009, 8:05 amI first heard “I love my country but I fear my government.” from Reagan supporters. It may have been around earlier, but I don’t know.
If you separate love of country from love of (whichever current) government, you solve some of the problems outlined above.
Sara says:
Well, no having seen it before, I’ll agree that Eugene’s analogy certainly looks batty. Ugh!
December 2, 2009, 8:13 amcorneille1640 says:
I think part of what Mr. Somin, in his post, is addressing is different definitions of nationalism. His definition relies on characteristics, such as linguistic, ethnic, and racial affiliation. However, what about “civic nationalism,” which, as I understand it, means that the nation’s identity is tied, primarily, with adherence to certain shared ideals (e.g., the constitution and the rights affirmed by it)?
I’m not sure what I think. And I suspect Mr. Somin would still say that patriotism can be good as long as it’s not uncritical, regardless of what kind of nationalism he is discussing.
December 2, 2009, 8:17 amsk says:
“In common usage, patriotism generally means loyalty to one’s government and/or its ideals regardless of ethnic or racial identity.”
Really? I’ve never heard of patriotism defined in this way. Admittedly, I haven’t heard patriotism formally ‘defined’ in a long time (perhaps in school decades ago?). Rather, in common usage, patriotism has generally meant love of country, probably specifically because of our own country’s emphasis on freedoms (the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the striving for religious freedom by original settlers). But patriotism defined as ‘loyalty’ to one’s government? And specifically independent of ethnic or racial identity? Is this a modern ‘racial politics’ version of patriotism? Perhaps academia has redefined patriotism to square with its own obsession with racial identity. It may be an accurate statement of the formal definition of ‘patriotism,’ but I doubt if it is common usage.
“A population that values its government for purely instrumental reasons can still give it the necessary support and defend it against external enemies.”
Most of the posts disagreeing with you disagree with this particular statement. Is this simply an assertion, or do you have any argument, or historical example, for believing this to be true?
sk
December 2, 2009, 9:08 amreadery says:
It should also be noted that there’s no rational, scientific reason to believe or behave as if ones spouse or children or parents are in any way special or different from anyone else.
Those who behave that way are, like practitioners of patriotism, behaving as if they were participants in life, and not solely as observers of it.
The things people say about their spouse and children simply aren’t objectively true, from a scientific perspective. Very, very unscientific behavior. Terribly unobjective.
December 2, 2009, 9:17 amJ1 says:
“In common usage, patriotism generally means loyalty to one’s government and/or its ideals”
I can see why you’d oppose patriotism on those grounds, but your definition is wrong. Patriotism has nothing to do with loyalty to any government. It’s interesting and revealing that you think it does, but you need to ask for a dictionary for Christmas.
December 2, 2009, 9:19 amEapen Thampy says:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the word ‘organismic’ used before.
December 2, 2009, 9:36 amPersonFromPorlock says:
What, incidentally, is the alternative to a world in which nationalism or patriotism – some sort of limited group identity, at any rate – is the rule? It looks like either individual self-interest or identification with ‘the whole of mankind’ are the only options: in the real world, the latter leads to authoritarianism and the former to claims of ‘enlightened self-interest’ that can’t be told from plain old selfishness. There’s family, religion and friends, of course, but each is as subject to bad outcomes as nationalism and patriotism are, albeit (usually) less far-reaching ones.
The point is simply that while limited group identities may be less than ideal, the limits they place on both rampant selfishness and the world state may be better than either of the alternatives.
December 2, 2009, 9:37 amOlorin says:
Maybe this is a somatic argument, but I think Ilya and our good Dr. Friedman are confusing “government” with “country”. I feel that the average Joe in WWII was fighting for his country, America, and not the “Government of the United States”. In this light, it’s perfectly possible to ‘love your country’ and at the same time ‘loath your government’. This is, I guess, at the root of most of the populist movements, which I believe Mr. Somin gave guarded approval of some time back.
December 2, 2009, 9:42 am11-B/2O.B4 says:
Allow me to hold forth on this topic, for it is dear to me.
I was not raised patriotic. In fact, I largely was not raised in this country. To this day, I have spent the better part of my life in various foreign locales. My experience with America is that of an outsider, though I was born here. I do not love my country because my parents told me to, for they did not (they told me to love god, and that failed). I do not love my country because school instilled it in me, for I was home schooled most of my life. I do not love this country because I am privileged within society, for I am neither wealthy nor influential.
December 2, 2009, 9:47 amBut I do love my country. Not in some flag-waving, bumper-stickered, prepackaged way, but simply and deeply. I have been everywhere and seen everything, and nothing compares to America. I love America because even our poor people are fat, and have the free time to bitch about the inequality of our system. Must be nice. Most poor people in the world just starve to death. I love that even when we really get pissed off and curb stomp some dumb country (Germany, Japan, Korea) they wind up being better off than they were before. Even our mistakes are better than the greatest aspirations of other nations. I am not blind to the myriad problems that plague our society, but I do love this country of mine. I have given much of my adult life to repaying the debt I owe it for the opportunities it has provided. America is not its government, America is not its land nor its people. America is an ideal, and patriotism is fidelity to that ideal, and gratitude for the sacrifices that have been made to give all of us a small taste of what that ideal can be.
~FR says:
I apologize to Prof. Somin for my rather flip comment in the previous thread: I clearly did not read the post carefully.
In an effort to be more careful and helpful:
“In common usage, patriotism generally means loyalty to one’s government and/or its ideals regardless of ethnic or racial identity.” -Somin
I have to agree with the above comments that this is not how patriotism is commonly understood, at least in English-speaking countries.
Patriotism might seem to involve a love/affection/respect for a people who subscribe to a set of common beliefs even if such subscription is not total, or if the belief set contains inherent contradictions?
December 2, 2009, 9:55 amGaryP says:
Patriotism is simply another manifestation of the survival instinct.
This may be a difficult for sophisticated readers (such as are found here) to grasp, but unless you are willing to die (and kill) to ensure the survival of your family, your village, your polity, these entities (and by extension your genes) will not survive.
The only way to avoid this is to find someone to do the fighting and dying for you. We do this by employing police and volunteer armies to take the risks and do the job we no longer believe is worth doing ourselves.
Eventually, our protectors will see that they are being duped by people who despise them (because they are willing to die for concepts–like community and country–that their betters don’t believe in) and they may decide to become our masters.
Thinkers despise believers of all types. However, without a belief that some things are worth dying for you can only keep your head down and hope that someone else will protect you.
Freedom can only exist if the bulk of a society is willing to die to remain free. A nation can only exist if the bulk of its citizens are willing to die to defend it. For the majority of the citizenry, only patriotism provides the emotional motivation to risk death to defend their fellow countrymen.
Ultimately, all power does come from the barrel of a gun and all of us must choose some group (has not always been a nation but that is mostly the entity we currently use) and be ready to fight for it. Maybe in a better world this wouldn’t be necessary but this isn’t the best possible world, just the only one we have. If you aren’t willing to fight to defend your family and your nation only luck can save you (and them) from people who are willing to fight. No amount of wishing (or talking) can change this fact. Get used to it.
December 2, 2009, 10:24 amMark Field says:
Many of the early nationalists made exactly this argument. They wanted to replace the local and tribal loyalties of people with something more inclusive as a means of eliminating the petty squabbles which, in their view, hindered human progress.
The socialists, who were generally internationalist, carried this logic one step further.
December 2, 2009, 10:31 amDavid E. Young says:
Here is a quick historical look at usage of the term “patriot” from the founding era.
This description of a “true patriot” is taken from a letter of Thomas Rodney written after ratification of the Constitution and prior to the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights:
“The Objects of a True Patriot are To Protect and defend his Country against all foreign Attacks; To protect the Citizens in their just rights and liberties, and guard them against the Tyranny & Injustice of Government; To Comfort the unfortunate, and persue Such Measures as Will Make the people happy and render the State great & prosperous.” [Origin of the Second Amendment, p.601]
Thomas Jefferson’s use in a letter to William Stephens Smith is much better known: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & Tyrants.” [OSA, p.102]
In the founding political struggle over ratification and the need for a bill of rights, “patriot” was used to describe those who opposed tyranny and supported the rights of the people. In one instance, it was used in a reverse, sarcastic sense, “modern patriots”, in reference to those advancing a new constitution that would endanger liberty due to its lack of a bill of rights. [OSA, p.301]
December 2, 2009, 10:57 amDavid says:
I think the most powerful apologia for patriotism I’ve come across is that given by Robert Heinlein, in his Forrestal Lecture to the mids at Annapolis. It’s been reprinted as “The Pragmatics of Patriotism” in several anthologies and can also be found online in various shapes and sizes: this one looks both complete and legible:
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/03/pragmatics-of-patriotism.html
As to the “country/government” dichotomy, perhaps the funniest version of that is encapsulated in the following bit of WW2 humor:
A veteran of the Pacific island-hopping campaigns explains to one of his rookies that the Japanese are fanatic diehards but that you can often provoke them into foolishly exposing themselves by yelling “To H*** with the Emperor!!!”
The rookie applies this bit of wisdom until one time that he lets the Japanese soldier live. The sergeant asks him “Why didn’t you pop the guy like I told you?” To which the rookie replies: “I would have, Sarge, but this guy, he yells back ‘To H*** with Roosevelt!’ and I couldn’t very well shoot a fellow Republican!”
December 2, 2009, 11:08 amBrian Tamanaha says:
Ilya,
The problem with arguing against patriotism is that it is not a rational phenomenon.
I do not “love my country,” as I stated in this post: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/06/your-country-loves-you-more-on-dangers.html
As one would expect, an emotional backlash followed. That’s what patriotism is about, and that’s why it is dangerous.
Brian
December 2, 2009, 11:12 amEMB says:
While I don’t really disagree with the point he’s trying to make, Milton Friedman appears to be misinterpreting the JFK quote in question (though perhaps he was responding to others who likewise took it out of context).
December 2, 2009, 11:37 amDavid Chesler says:
Some folks I chat with on Facebook, the online social networking site, are hard-line conservatives and birthers. They spew an incredible amount of vitriol against the President for whom they didn’t vote, maybe more intensely than that spewed against his predecessor from the left. As far as I’m concerned he’s the President of my country, even though I didn’t vote for him, and in fact he was my third choice. I think that’s good patriotism or good nationalism.
December 2, 2009, 11:45 ambyomtov says:
The point is simply that while limited group identities may be less than ideal, the limits they place on both rampant selfishness and the world state may be better than either of the alternatives.
I think this gets at an important idea.
Why should we care more about our family, our neighbors, our friends, our compatriots, than about the rest of the world?
I think one answer is that this is a practical solution to the moral problem of how much we should care for others. This hierarchy sets reasonable limits on our obligations. We are human. We can’t care as much for people in strange foreign countries as we do for own family, abstract moralizing aside. But we can care somewhat more for others in our town, even strangers, than we do for foreigners, and more for friends than strangers, etc.
That structure may not hold up to strict logical analysis, but it fits with our psychology.
December 2, 2009, 12:04 pmGainesvilleGuest says:
Bob Novak said it well: “Always love your country – but never trust your government.”
December 2, 2009, 12:48 pmOn Patriotism « Daniel Joseph Smith says:
[...] On Patriotism [...]
December 2, 2009, 1:56 pmDE says:
I think Friedman is reading something into Kennedy’s quote, and that the quote itself is actually (absent context) neutral to good. To invert Friedman’s assumption, we could read Kennedy as saying that we should not take the role of a master towards the government, even though it is created to serve us. Rather, we should treat the government as our ward, something to nurture and teach and help to grow in the direction of liberty, justice, and equality for all.
So I think Friedman’s reaction to that quote is actually caused by his feeling of personal powerlessness as compared to the might of the government. Which is an entirely understandable feeling, and one that reflects the reality of the situation, but I would submit that “reaction against” is a poor source of motivation and direction, and that he comes off much better in places where he advocates for his view of what government should be.
(I.e., apophasis may be useful in theology, but it’s much less useful in politics or engineering, IMO.)
December 2, 2009, 2:11 pmTwirlip says:
Yes, and one can be a good nationalstic American as long as you are willingto identify your nationality as American, regardless of your ethnic background.
December 2, 2009, 2:20 pmTwirlip says:
Yes, but the clause in this which you seem to be ignoring is “to ourselves and our posterity.” There’s nothing universalist in this sentiment. It’s a classic Lockean formulation of the state as a coming together of a particular group of people.
As the phrase “ourselves and our posterity” makes clear, it is so based.
December 2, 2009, 2:26 pmTwirlip says:
J.S. Mill addressed the central question being posed here in “On Representative Government”.
“But, when a people are ripe for free institutions, there is a still more vital consideration. Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another. The same books, newspapers, pamphlets, speeches, do not reach them. One section does not know what opinions, or what instigations, are circulating in another. The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of government, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities than from the common arbiter, the state. Their mutual antipathies are generally much stronger than jealousy of the government. That any one of them feels aggrieved by the policy of the common ruler is sufficient to determine another to support that policy. Even if all are aggrieved, none feel that they can rely on the others for fidelity in a joint resistance; the strength of none is sufficient to resist alone, and each may reasonably think that it consults its own advantage most by bidding for the favour of the government against the rest.”
“Above all, the grand and only effectual security in the last resort against the despotism of the government is in that case wanting: the sympathy of the army with the people. The military are the part of every community in whom, from the nature of the case, the distinction between their fellow-countrymen and foreigners is the deepest and strongest. To the rest of the people foreigners are merely strangers; to the soldier, they are men against whom he may be called, at a week’s notice, to fight for life or death. The difference to him is that between friends and foes — we may almost say between fellow-men and another kind of animals: for as respects the enemy, the only law is that of force, and the only mitigation the same as in the case of other animals — that of simple humanity. Soldiers to whose feelings half or three-fourths of the subjects of the same government are foreigners will have no more scruple in mowing them down, and no more desire to ask the reason why, than they would have in doing the same thing against declared enemies. An army composed of various nationalities has no other patriotism than devotion to the flag. Such armies have been the executioners of liberty through the whole duration of modern history. The sole bond which holds them together is their officers and the government which they serve; and their only idea, if they have any, of public duty is obedience to orders.”
December 2, 2009, 2:30 pmTwirlip says:
You must have been comatose between the years 2001 and 2008.
December 2, 2009, 2:32 pmTwirlip says:
There is a supposition bulit into this which seems to be contrary to Prof Somins beliefs. That is, the existence of “compatriots” is not compatible with the belief in radical individualism which undergirds modern libertarianism.
Secondly, Friedman is wrong, or a least incomplete, in his descripton of the purpose of the state. States are not established by men to protect freedom. As every political philosopher of note has recognized, people who come together to form a state give up a measure of their natural freedom in doing so.
December 2, 2009, 2:41 pmGramarye says:
Re: Prof. Somin on nationalism:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
First, I don’t think that Jonah Goldberg’s definition is the same as yours, as it would exclude the possibility of an American nationalist of Indian or Japanese or possibly even German heritage, and I seriously doubt that Goldberg would make such an argument if the question were put to him directly. American nationalism–or patriotism, perhaps better termed–is more inclusive than the definition you’re using permits.
Second, I think the three criteria you’re using vary in their perniciousness: An American nationalism/patriotism based on ethnicity is far more pernicious than one based on language or “culture” (with all the usual caveats about using such a broad term). Race and ethnicity are immutable. Language can be learned; culture can be adopted. (Whether any given cultural phenomenon *should* be adopted is, of course, a separate issue, but I think that America has more going for it than against it, culturally.)
Third–and this has already been pointed out in part–there is a difference between the state, the nation, the nation-state, and the government of a state (nation-state or not). “Nationalism” used to be very much cross-border. German nationalism under the Nazis focused on the “German people,” whether they were in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein (I presume), or a tiny piece of Czechoslovakia. Neither nationalism nor patriotism needs to mean having an uncritical eye towards any government.
It does, however, view the country as something more than merely the collection of individuals that comprise it–as something larger than any person or any 300 million persons. Analogies are hard to come by, but I would suggest that sports teams, military units, etc. all similarly try to foster a sense that the unit is something more than just the individuals that comprise it. There are instrumental reasons for this, of course: a group that sees itself as a group rather than a collection of self-interested individuals will almost inevitably accomplish more. I think Goldberg would advance the argument that there is independent value in America, not just in its motley collection of Americans, because in the abstract sense, America can and does accomplish more–economically, culturally, militarily, perhaps even spiritually–than its 300 million component parts could ever do so. Its institutions–including, but hardly limited to, its governmental institutions–are part of the reason for this. The common language and dominant culture that you denigrate as no basis for a shared identity or feeling of belonging are also part of the reasons for this.
I know that you said that it’s patriotic to support your government when it promotes good ideals and policies, and it’s true that there are limits past which I would no longer be able to love America if its government promoted sufficiently bad policies sufficiently long. That said, if you really hold only to the notion that you should support your country when its government promotes policies you agree with, then you’re really only supporting yourself, not your country.
December 2, 2009, 2:59 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » On Patriotism -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Alexander Wolfe, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: On Patriotism: Some commenters and others reacting to my post on nationalism raise the issue of its relationshi.. http://bit.ly/8HZM8W [...]
December 2, 2009, 3:17 pmGuy says:
I disagree, one of the great and amazing things about America is that it is a nation based on a voluntary sense of belonging in a community, not racial, religious, or ethnic ties. I’m aware some don’t feel this way, but they are, frankly, a minority. The United States isn’t like India, for example: any person of Indian descent who becomes notable anywhere in the world garners press coverage in India, because “Indianness” is simply an ethnic/racial thing, it has nothing to do with cultural belonging, or living in India; indeed, People of Indian descent who don’t feel strong bonds to India can be seen as “lost” or “confused” by the people of India. I don’t mean to pick on India; most nations are like this, that’s why it’s so great that America isn’t. To the extent that America is defined as a shared anything, it’s a shared commitment to democratic/representative government, the rule of law, and the principle of fundamental rights.
December 2, 2009, 3:19 pmXanthippas says:
Me too. But I agree that patriotism, to the extent that it co-exists with some form of triumphalism, is dangerous. I’m a liberal, but I agree with Friedman that the first purpose of government should be to protect freedom, whether from outside invaders or oppressive majorities within our own borders. The sort of patriotism that gets mixed with triumphalism (and so starts to resemble nationalism) is dangerous. “Love” of country is an over-rated phenomenon, and we ought to be suspicious of any entity that requires your love but is not obligated to return it in kind.
December 2, 2009, 3:27 pmTwirlip says:
I guess that’s why Lance Armstrong received no coverage in the US for winning those bike races in France then.
There ain’t nothing “voluntary”" about it.
That’s your opinion but it’s not one which is supported by the countries founding documents, as I’ve already noted and as you’ve basically ignored.
December 2, 2009, 3:28 pmDG says:
Being American is an idea, not something of blood and earth. Ironically, Ilya, your ability to reject patriotism as somehow incompatible with your political desires is enabled by the blood shed by better men to ensure your freedom.
I am not unthinking nationalist of any variety. But neither do I reject the basic obligations of a citizen in a free society, which you seem to, Ilya.
December 2, 2009, 3:31 pmTwirlip says:
The first purpose of government is NOT to protect freedom, at least not as liberals define freedom. The first purpose of government is to maintain order.
The Constitution of the United States explicitly states that the majority, oppressive or otherwise, can do whatever they darn well please.
December 2, 2009, 3:33 pmCharles says:
Neither nationalism nor patriotism – relating to a virtuous country – would be an evil. Indeed, both would be positive goods. Loyalty (patriotism and/or nationalism) to a virtuous country is part of the virtuous circle that helps build-up support for good nations and helps destroy bad nations.
It makes no sense to define nationalism as good or bad without reference to the virtue or lack thereof of the country involved.
December 2, 2009, 3:36 pmJames C. Bennett says:
Culture matters. As a species, human beings are tribal and territorial, and dangerous predators, too. Trust is essential if people are to interact peacefully, and, as Robert Putnam’s study released in 2001 shows (sorry, can’t find a good live link with a quick Google search), trust declines as cultural diversity increases. Sure, people ought not to be like this, but people ought to be happy to share, too, and look what happened when the Communists tried to build a society based on that notion. A political theory will fail if it is based on people behaving as they ought instead of as they actually do. Which is why I, alas, can never be a doctrinaire libertarian like Mr. Somin.
The modern political construct is called a nation-state because it is premised on a government (state) that serves a group of people with a shared culture (nation). Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, this was shortened to simply “nation”, so people naturally start to think of its constituant parts as one thing. And the question becomes, what are we talking about when we are talking about “patriotism” and “nationalism”? Love of our culture? Loyalty to our government? Or perhaps the reverse?
I think that what people are trying to say when they talk about “nationalism” being good or necessary is that, in order for a group of people to function as a stable nation-state, they have to agree to some sufficient extent that they are part of the same culture and are happy that that is the case.
Now, a culture is a fuzzy construct. Some say it doesn’t even exist. I think that a culture is a sort of circle of minimal trust and affection that comes from identifying people as being of your “tribe”, and that it is defined by several borders of varying strength:
Language: Is it possible to interact with you and build trust and affection?
Proximity: How often do I have an opportunity (or obligation) to interact with you and build trust and affection? Obviously, as communication technology has advanced, this cultural border has become ever weaker.
Race: Do you look like other people that I already trust and care for? “Phenotype” is probably a better word than the ambiguous “race”. This is about sight being our dominant sense more than anything else.
Creed: Are you working off of a set of beliefs similar to those of people I already trust and care for?
History: Did I interact with people like you in my youth? Have I been taught that people like you betrayed the trust of people like me in that past?
Mr. Somlin states that since it is neither logical nor good to use at least some of these criteria to divide people into “us” and “them”, and I think he implies that we ought not to divide into “us” and “them” at all. I claim that ought is irrelevant, and we need to organize in the best way possible based on what people ctually do, which is to have very limited governments that each protect the lives, liberty, and property of the members of a particular nation from force and fraud.
I guess I’ll start the National-Libertarian party as soon as I can decide on a shirt color. Red, green, and black are taken, unfortunately. Who likes purple?
December 2, 2009, 3:41 pmOrion says:
Enlightened self interest perhaps isn’t the best motto for a citizen of any city-state. The rational decision for a soldier is to run away from the sound of guns not toward it, after all. It’s loyalty to a state or a cause that persuades us not to divulge information or otherwise act against the interests of the nation in exchange for money or favors, not usually reason.
The counter-argument is what if you’re expected to be loyal to an “unworthy” state, such as Iraq under Hussein or North Korea? Don’t the crimes of the State compel one to disavow it? Perhaps. It’d certainly be more convenient for those trying to overthrow an “evil prince” if the populace would rise up against him first. But this would be a people rising up against a government that has betrayed their trust; it’s not “their” government anymore. And in practical terms there the difference between loyalty and disloyalty is more that of breathing versus not-breathing, so it’s a bit unfair to criticize the Iraqis and North Koreans for not rising up w/o the promise of 15-20 tank divisions and air wings to back them up.
December 2, 2009, 3:42 pmTwirlip says:
Among the many many problems with this definition is that it means that a large number of “Americans” (people born in the US) are not American, and that a large number of people in China, India, etc can say they are American. At least until such time as their feelings about democracy change, at which point they can announce they are no longer Americans.
There are enormous problems with redefining a nationality (French, American) as being the same things as a system of political belief – be it communism, socialism, or “the principle of fundamental rights”.
The logic behind such systems of political belief is that they are universal. Making the word “American” be a synonym for a univeralist belief system makes it identical in kind to such things as communism, Jacobinism, and Islam.
Setting aside the problems with such universalist belief systems for the moment, we are still left looking for a word to describe what used to be known as “Americans” before the term was hijacked.
December 2, 2009, 3:49 pmAllan Walstad says:
Many thanks to Ilya for bringing up this topic and giving a good libertarian account. I’ve come to the thread rather late to comment on many of the earlier posts, but here’s one, from Twirlip:
That’s just a bald assertion, isn’t it? Those who believe in the principles of liberty and limited government proclaimed in our country’s founding documents are my compatriots. I stand with them. My sense of patriotism is to those principles. Those who trample on those principles do not deserve my love or loyalty.
As far as nationalism and patriotism are concerned, I really don’t care if my neighbor waves a flag–as long as he doesn’t presume to parade on my lawn or bill me for the price of the flag. I don’t much care if people “buy American” out of patriotism (as the economists say, “There’s no arguing about tastes”), as long as they don’t presume to infringe my liberty to do otherwise.
When it comes to defense–well, ya gotta have it, or liberty itself becomes vulnerable to the predations of collectivist states or barbarian hordes. Defense, that is, not chronic global interventionism. It’s a sad irony that the institution (government) that we perhaps must rely on to defend liberty is at the same time probably the biggest threat to it.
And so, going back half a day to what PersonFromPorlock posted:
“What else” there is, PFP, is adherence to principle.
December 2, 2009, 4:02 pmAllan Walstad says:
I doubt many libertarians will lose sleep over that search, Twirlip. We’re concerned about promoting and protecting individual liberty. The whole idea of trying to define “Americans” as against other people seems somewhat less-than-worthy a quest to me.
December 2, 2009, 4:10 pmXanthippas says:
And who says that protecting freedom is not an essential element of maintaining order?
I would like you to point out where it “explicitly” states that.
December 2, 2009, 4:11 pmTwirlip says:
Perhaps they are. But the Founders were not libertarians or believers in radical individualism. Or any sort of individualism it seems.
There’s no such thing as patriotism to principles. Patriotism means love of country.
December 2, 2009, 4:12 pmTwirlip says:
Pretty much throughout the document. For instance, read the part about constitutional amendments, where is explains how the majority can alter the constitution. I just counted fourteen instances of the word “majority” in the document, and they all are in the context of saying the majority may do x,y, or z.
If 80% of Americans want to ban guns, or ban free speech, do you think the Constitution says they cannot?
December 2, 2009, 4:19 pmTwirlip says:
I think that libertarians have as much understanding of what liberty is and where it comes from as liberals do of what wealth is and where it comes from.
The Founders were of a different opinion, which is why you possess the freedom to say what you wish today.
December 2, 2009, 4:22 pmPubliusFL says:
Depends. The 20% who disagree may have enough influence in enough states to prevent ratification of the necessary constitutional amendments (ratification takes approval by 75% of state legislatures or conventions in 75% of states). It’s quite easy for a majority not to get its way under the Constitution.
December 2, 2009, 4:27 pmTwirlip says:
That’s evasive. May have enough influence?
Legally speaking, what’s the answer to this question, questions of “influence” aside? Bump the 80% up to 95% or 99%. What’s the answer? Can the majority do what they want or not according to the US Constitution? It’s not a debatable issue, the majority legally CAN do what they want. The US Constitution is an explictly majoritarian document, one which was ratified in a majoritarian fashion.
December 2, 2009, 4:35 pmRINO in Name Only says:
Have to chime in to agree with others here – I am totally baffled that anyone would think patriotism has anything to do with love of government, other than perhaps a few power-mad bureaucrats in the government, and even they would probably be a bit embarrassed to say it out loud.
I have always interpreted patriotism to refer to a love of country, and more specifically, the very large extended family consisting of the citizenry of said country. I think most people see it the same way.
December 2, 2009, 4:40 pmXanthippas says:
If you believe the Constitution is a “majoritarian” document because you can find a high enough percentage of people to support something to get it passed, then yes you’re correct. But the Constitution comes with text that is explicitly designed to thwart the will of the majority. That such safeguards might not work against a 95% majority doesn’t really prove your point.
Honestly though, I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. Do you favor direct democracy, where a simple majority can deprive a substantial minority of any right they please? I’m not really sure what you think is wrong with my initial point.
December 2, 2009, 4:44 pmPubliusFL says:
It’s not evasive. “Have enough influence” is not susceptible to a short definition because the facts are potentially complicated. It may be that the faction opposing banning guns or speech controls a majority of votes in one half of the legislature but not the other in the 13 least populous states. Those states have about 4.5% of the U.S. population. Depending on factors like state gerrymandering, election turnout, state rules on plurality elections versus runoffs, etc., it may be that a constitutional amendment could be defeated despite having 99% support in the general population.
Bottom line, the Constitution is complicated enough that your original statement can only be made true by adopting a definition of “the majority” that bears little resemblance to the commonly understood definition (more than half).
December 2, 2009, 4:55 pmTwirlip says:
That’s sort of the definition of the word “majoritarian”, isn’t it?
As far as I can tell, over whether the Constitution is a majoritarian document.
A majority, if not a simple majority, can deprive a substantial minority of any right they please. That’s the case in all democracy, whether direct or representative. It’s hard-coded into the very essence of democracy and its a big part of the reason why serious libertarians regard democracy of any sort as fundamentally wrong. I work from different basic assumptions from the individualist-libertarians and think that they are fundamentally wrong. You can build a pretty nasty tyranny on the pretext that you’re just interested in defending the rights of individuals.
December 2, 2009, 5:11 pmTwirlip says:
You’ll have to explain that to me, as you failed to do so there.
Of course, if the one percent is made up of politically powerful people who are determined to thwart the will of the majority by any means neccessary, fair or foul. You can extend this line of argument further to its logical conclusion and say “what about a coup?”.
But according to the way the system is supposed to work, where our “representatives” represent the will of the populace, no.
December 2, 2009, 5:17 pmTwirlip says:
By all means, cite some of this text which “explicitly” thwarts the will of the majority. Here is every instance in which the majority is mentioned in the Constitution.
——————————————————
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) Superseded by the 12th AMdt.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
——————————————————
I don’t see a lot of text there which “explicitly” curtails majority power.
The Amendment clause does not explicitly mention “majority” but does so implicitly.
—————————————
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
————————————————–
Which seems to explicitly reaffirm majority rights, unless two-thirds or three-fourths constitute a minority in your math.
December 2, 2009, 5:33 pmAllan Walstad says:
Really? By the standards of their times, they were quite radical in defense of liberty–indeed, by the standards of what passes for political thought in most places today.
Really?
Huh? They threw off the rule of the British king and established a limited government with a Bill of Rights. What does that have to do with defining “Americans” as against other people?
Good point, if you’re tone-deaf to metaphors.
A rather odd and cryptic statement. Care to elaborate?
December 2, 2009, 5:48 pmCharles Crawford says:
I have spent years grappling as a UK diplomat with ‘nationalism’ in the former Yugoslavia space, as well as South Africa, Russia and latterly Poland. See my website for examples a-plenty.
Quick thoughts on a fascinating couple of posts and all the excellent comments.
Nationalism and ‘familyism’ are all about the outer limits of personal Trust. Who will treat us fairly and kindly as individuals (perhaps in accordance with wider principles of kindness and fairness) and who will not?
For most of human history, rulers and ruled have lived at best in uneasy equilibrium, with people relying on extended family networks for survival some Balkan families have a couple of hundred highly networked members).
The emergence on the scene of the USA created a quite new standard for managing trust between strangers, namely the rule of law plus the idea of equality before the law (which even in the USA took nearly 200 years to implement fully). Those ideas are still bitterly contested across much of the planet.
People default into the more virulent forms of nationalism when a feeling of general trust and security in an existing order starts to wane. Fear of accelerating uncertainty, discrimination and loss of control means that the advantages of being separate from ‘them’ start to outweigh the advantages of staying in a wider/bigger cooperative community.
Look at Bosnia. Each of the three ethnic communities expects the others to behave in a discriminatory way, and each behaves in a discriminatory way itself. That reality has confounded hugely expensive international attempts to de-ethnicise the country.
Capitalism and markets (plus honest courts) represent powerful mechanisms for creating, supporting and distributing trust in all sorts of ways, including between generations. They allow contracts between strangers on a huge scale, which is really what economic growth is – people agreeing to do new things.
But those systems take decades to grow in a chicken/egg way. Stability creates growth, but growth creates stability. And the very fact that such stability emerges itself becomes a source of pride and wider ‘solidarity’, and why eg uncontrolled immigration is seen as a threat almost everywhere – it brings in new uncertain loyalties, and communities which have built things down many years do not want to see all that work threatened (a sort of ‘organic’ conservative nationalism).
Left-wing etatist nationalism too is a powerful defensive force, the existing state structures frothing up anxiety about external enemies to stay in control: see currently Cuba/Zimbabwe/Venezuela/China, plus the collapse of Yugoslavia for just this reason.
Conclusion? ‘Nationalism’ is another way of looking at loyalty and trust, and pride in collective achievement. Societies which deliver those qualities in a generous open-minded way tend to prosper, since creative team spirit will be that much higher. Once higher-order anxieties start to kick in, people look for loyalty and trust on a much reduced defensive scale, and the whole psychology can quickly change for the worse.
In Bosnia’s case the EU is trying to get round all this by providing a ‘roof’ of trust under which the rival communities can relax into mutual cooperation. But trust is a very personal thing. And when you know that someone down the road killed your father because your grandfather killed his grandfather, you look at these grisly questions over sprawling timescales which tend to defeat genteel faraway policy planners
December 2, 2009, 5:56 pmNot My Leg says:
Somewhere between 97 percent and 99.99957 percent, more or less.
December 2, 2009, 6:06 pmveteran says:
“God, Country, Corps”
You notice government is not mentioned, there is a reason for that.
December 2, 2009, 7:04 pmXanthippas says:
My point is that the looseness of your definition makes the definition less useful.
Okay, but I’m trying to ask you if you’re a proponent of that.
December 2, 2009, 7:12 pmXanthippas says:
Well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Now if you’re just going to say that if you find a large enough majority you can defeat any provision designed to limit rule of the majority, then yes, I guess you win.
December 2, 2009, 7:15 pmTwirlip says:
Indeed they were. But it was not an individualist conception of liberty. It was the liberty of “we the people” to make our own laws. If the Founders had been modern individualist-libertarian types, they’d have said “We’re all individuals, after all. What’s the point in throwing off the shackles of British rule only to subject ourselves to a different sort of oppression at the hands of these American nationalists?”
Good grief! At a bare minimum it would seem to indicate that they were defining “American” as being “not British”, wouldn’t you say?
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another …
They sure seem to believe in this passage that we are “one people” who now need to separate ourselves from “another” people. In fact, they’re defining “us” as being against “them”.
What was cryptic about it? I don’t think that individualist-libertarians have any real understanding of what liberty is or where it comes from. We possess the right to free speech because a collective entity called “the American people” decided that its members should have that right.
December 2, 2009, 7:27 pmTwirlip says:
The First Amendment was put into place BY the majority. I hope that’s not news to anybody here. I’m having trouble seeing how the actions of the majority represent anti-majoritarianism.
I am saying that, yes. It’s an obvious truth which some here can’t seem to accept. But I’m also pointing out that these provsions supposedly “designed to limit the rule of the majority” were in fact the rule of the majority.
Unless you think that George Washington descended from a burning bush bearing the US Constitution on stone tablets, you have to accept that fact that the enacting of the First Amendment was pure majority ruling in action. What was it otherwise, minority ruling?
December 2, 2009, 7:39 pmTwirlip says:
This statement is logically nonsensical. (Assuming we’re still operating in the realm of any type of democracy. It makes sense if you favor some sort of despotism, in which case it means something like “whatever I do, I can never keep down the rabble.”)
December 2, 2009, 7:53 pmTwirlip says:
.
Taking the sentences literally, of course I’m in favor of that. That’s what we fought a revolution for, after all.
The alternative to the majority making the laws is the minority making the laws. That’s something we’re supposed to be against. Let me turn your question back to you, and ask you if “minority rules” are something you’re in favor of.
And if so, which minority would you like to see calling the shots?
December 2, 2009, 8:00 pmAllan Walstad says:
Nonsense. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is not about some collectivist enterprise. The Bill of Rights limits law-making to what does not violate individual rights.
There was indeed a lot of concern about just that–that a national government could be overbearing. So we got a Constitution that sets up a federal
government strictly limited in scope.Well, we agree on the "good grief" part. The point was not to define "Americans" as against other people, it was to break free of British rule.
I think you're the one lacking in understanding...
...and nothing I could say would demonstrate it more clearly than that last statement. Anyway, whether you agree with them or not, it is well understood that the view of the Founders was that individuals have inalienable rights. That was the whole argument of the so-called Federalists, that no Bill of Rights was needed simply because no powers had been given to the federal government to violate pre-existing individual rights. The so-called Anti-federalists disagreed, and we owe it to their persistence that we have a Bill of Rights to specify at least some of those individual rights.
December 2, 2009, 8:27 pmRandy says:
“For example, one can be a patriotic American even if you are a member of an ethnic minority, English is not your native language, you dislike mainstream American popular culture, and so on. ”
I agree. but there are too many people, especially politicians, who don’t agree.
December 2, 2009, 10:05 pmreadery says:
I didn’t catch the special definition either.
I don’t see the value of given a commonly-used word an unusual definition and then arguing against it. It increases web traffic, but at what cost?
December 3, 2009, 1:47 amPubliusFL says:
Certainly. You originally said “[t]he Constitution of the United States explicitly states that the majority, oppressive or otherwise, can do whatever they darn well please.” The normal commonly-understood meaning of “majority” is “more than half.” Your statement is untrue with that definition of majority. It only becomes true if you craft a custom definition of “majority” sufficient to account for the various features of the Constitution that limit the power of majorities. For example, what exactly it is that the majority darn well pleases is relevant. The geographical distribution of the majority is relevant too.
Later you quote the amendment process for the Constitution, and state that it “seems to explicitly reaffirm majority rights, unless two-thirds or three-fourths constitute a minority in your math.” Well, conversely, I assume that 26% does constitute a minority in your math. And if 74% of the states want a change to the Constitution, and 26% of the states prefer the status quo, the minority will win. By design. The bottom line is that the system is designed to allow the minority to win in many cases where the minority prefers the status quo to a change supported by a majority, even a pretty substantial majority.
I’m talking about 1% of ordinary voters. In theory, approximately 1% of voters, if distributed right, could block a constitutional amendment.
December 3, 2009, 9:30 ambyomtov says:
Bump the 80% up to 95% or 99%. What’s the answer?
The answer is that you are redefining the word “majority” to support your point. That’s nonsensical. After all, a 99% majority could, I suppose, do away with the Constitution completely. You don’t need the Constitution to say that vastly overwhelming majorities can do what they want.
Your original claim was that:
The Constitution of the United States explicitly states that the majority, oppressive or otherwise, can do whatever they darn well please.
That’s plain wrong, since “majority” does not mean 80% or 95% or whatever it takes. It means 50% plus one.
December 3, 2009, 1:10 pmTwirlip says:
If you think so, then you don’t understand the actual meaning of the word, which simply means “more than half”. That can be anything from 50%+1 to 100%.
The Constitution says that they can do what they want legally. This is another very obvious point which people don’t seem to want to accept.
Majority does not mean “50%+1″. It means 50% plus some number greater than zero and less than or equal to 50. It’s a shame lawyers never study basic math. Or even a dictionary. Here is “majority” is defined in an English dictionary.
Bolding is mine.
This lesson in basic word meaning brought to you for free courtesy of the internet.
December 3, 2009, 2:08 pmTwirlip says:
Thank you.
It’s not.
See above.
It would help things along considerably if I did not have to keep rebutting points which I’ve already rebutted. The Constitution was made by the majority. The First Amendment was enacted by the majority. If you’re serious about opposing the evil power of the majority, you need to start off by rejecting the Constitution itself. You can’t cite the actons of the majority as … invalidating the actions of the majority.
Yes, by design of .. the majority!
And that majority was intent on protecting the rights of states by doing so, not that of individual people. Tell me I’m not the only person on this thread who’s familiar with the Federalist Papers and the reason why Representatives are allocated in accordance with population while Senators are doled out two per state.
December 3, 2009, 2:27 pmTwirlip says:
I suppose one can be, in theory. But it seems highly unlikely. And in any population of, lets say, 100,000 people who are members of a non-English speaking ethnic minority which dislikes American culture, you’re going to find a majority of people who are unpatriotic.
December 3, 2009, 2:34 pmTwirlip says:
Than its pretty damn strange they they defined themselves as “Americans” as opposed to something else, isn’t it? There are some real idiots on this thread.
The Bill of Rights does if viewed in isolation. Look at the Constitution as a whole and it merely creates a slightly higher obstacle to passing some laws than to passing others. The Bill of Rights is not set in stone for all eternity. In fact it has already been altered in different ways since its first passage.
Go away, you stupid, stupid man.
December 3, 2009, 2:45 pmTwirlip says:
Of course it is, since it is the American Declaration of Independence in which the words appear. And that document is “collectivist” to its core.
“One people” are described as separating themselves from another people. Who has the right to establish a new government, one “most likely to effect their safety and happiness“? “The people” have that right.
A “people” is a collectivist concept. The D of I ends with the following “collectivist” words which would give Ayn Rand nightmares: “we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” Sounds pretty “collectivist” to me. But then, fighting a war is another “collectivist” enterprise, as is writing a Constitution and establishing a country.
This theme is carried over to the US Constitution, which opens with the words “We, the people ..” are doing such and such for “.. ourselves and our posterity“.
A country, by its definition, is a “collectivist” enterprise, and the American country is no different in that respect.
December 3, 2009, 3:10 pmharmon says:
“”The Constitution of the United States explicitly states that the majority, oppressive or otherwise, can do whatever they darn well please.”"
“That’s plain wrong, since “majority” does not mean 80% or 95% or whatever it takes. It means 50% plus one.”
“Majority” has different meanings. What you are referring to is a “simple majority.” What the Constitution does do is explicitly state what kind of majorities it takes to do different things. How many votes it takes to convict on an impeachment, how many votes it takes to amend, &c.
Twirlip is largely correct – the Constitution is a majoritarian document, taking into account that “majority” doesn’t always refer to the same vote distribution.
December 3, 2009, 3:52 pmTwirlip says:
Prof Somin offers a collection of different reasons for why he thinks that nationalism is a bad thing. One is the argument offered by Hayek about nationalism leading to socialism, or in Somin’s words:
The trouble is that there isn’t any solid evidence to support the theory that natonalist states are less likely to be economically productive or to limit the power of their governments. For instance, both Britain and America went through a decade in the 1980′s when they adapted free-market policies and nationalist fevor at the same time. And viewed in the long term, the trend has been for the nations of the West to become both much less nationalistic (see the EU for instance) and much more socialistic (see the EU again). And America has followed a generally similar path.
I’m a fan of Hayek and have read many of his books. But he was just wrong about this.
Prof Somin also argues against nationalism which is based on “ties of language, culture, or ethnicity”. I’m hard pressed to think of a country anywhere in the world which is not based at a least one of these things, and I’d like to see the Prof offer some ideas as to what might replace them as the “glue” for his ideal society.
December 4, 2009, 1:33 pm