Posted on 07/06/2017 8:35:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
First let me tardily congratulate Rich Lowry, Charlie Cooke, Ian Tuttle, and Michael Brendan Dougherty for a really outstanding episode of The Editors podcast. It was a joy to listen to, given how much all four really love the American Founding and the debates around it. I learned a lot from it. Just because the Fourth is behind us doesnt mean its not worth your time.
Here comes the But . . .
Around the 50-minute mark I was quite surprised to hear Rich pretty much echo the often-caricatured version of Barack Obamas American exceptionalism.
Rich started by saying that America is a nation, not an idea. He then went on to demonstrate the ways in which America is a nation (its got borders and a people and a culture and the like).
Thats fine with me, I suppose. I concluded a while ago that the Nation vs. Idea argument is poorly framed. If all you have to do is cite borders, roads, and a post office to prove its not an idea, then whats the point?
Of course America is a nation. I just dont think its just any other nation. But Rich, in his riff on Americas nation-ness, went on to say that pretty much every country thinks its special and a Shining City on a Hill.
And thats correct. Every country does have ideals. But the specifics matter. Its a bit like saying every human has talents sure, but some talents are greater than others. A great composer and a great armpit-farter may be equally rich in their degree of talent, but not in the quality or desirability of their talents. I am just a bit shocked that Rich would so blithely reduce all national ideals to the same any three-for-a-dollar bargain bin on sale to every nation on the U.N. roll call from Albania to Zimbabwe. Are our ideals really no better than any other countrys? Are they worth defending only because they are ours?
It seems The Editors are closer to this position than I would have ever guessed. (And here we should note they do not speak with an editorial voice for the magazine. I would very much like to see the internal discussion of an NR editorial dedicated to the proposition, American Ideals: Meh.)
Rich asked an exit question: If America had different ideals, would you still love her?
They all said yes.
Ian offered little more than an absolutely to Richs question. Michael almost let down his guard to reveal he might like it better if we had different ideals. And Rich was of course a full throated yes. He then went on to say that hes coming around to the idea that theres no such thing as a bad nation, only bad governments.
Couldnt someone ask, What ideals are we talking about here? Forget dystopian scenarios from The Man in the High Castle or The Handmaids Tale. What if America just had the social and political priorities of Sweden or Norway? Its fine to say youd still love her, but you know what? Its also fine to say you wouldnt.
Charlie came closest to making this point. When asked if hed still love America if it had different ideals, he said Yes, but less. He went on to explain that as an immigrant from a decent country, what appealed to him about America most is its culture and its system of law. He conceded, grudgingly, that if we changed our ideals wed lose some of the stuff he loves. But at the end of the day hed still love America regardless of her ideals.
Going by the text alone, without knowing the gentlemen involved, I would say this is all terribly wrongheaded. But I am more than confident that all of my colleagues do, in fact, believe it depends on what ideals were talking about. But they didnt say it. Rather they nodded along (I heard nodding!) as Rich argued for the everybodys special school of patriotism and nationalism.
Still, at least Charlie acknowledged that there is some relationship between a nations ideals and our love for it (another word for patriotism). He just couldnt bring himself to say he could stop loving America.
The rest of the gang didnt even acknowledge that such a relationship between ideas and love exists. If National Review had completely different editorial positions pro-choice, progun control, etc. would the cast of The Editors not be less in the love with National Review? The question answers itself.
Ideals say a lot about a person and nation. Change the ideals, you change the person and the nation. It sounds nice to say that youd still love the American people if America became a continental socialist commune in the Republic of Berniestan. It sounds patriotic to say that American culture is bigger and more important than the government. Its also true. But what shapes government and culture? Well, lots of things. But very near the top of the list are ideals, broadly understood. Change the ideals and you change the people (and vice versa).
Yet Richs uncontested formulation is that there are no bad nations, only bad governments. How can that be? Wasnt the whole idea, as promulgated by the Founders, that the people should get the governments they deserve? Dont some bad governments reflect the shortcomings of their people?
Wasnt the whole idea, as promulgated by the Founders, that the people should get the governments they deserve?
Im being a bit unfair, I know. But they had just spent the better part of the hour celebrating the glory and genius of the Founding in expert and loving detail. And then, when it came time to defend the exceptional essence of American patriotism from the grubbiness of generic nationalism, the only nod to the importance of the American idea came from the gun-nut immigrant (I say that with love).
And this brings me back to this whole nation-versus-idea thing.
Imagine one person tells you that his ideal form of government would be to get rid of the Constitution and make Kim Kardashian queen. Youd think that person is silly, probably even deranged. Now imagine that 270 million Americans believed that and, having the necessary supermajority to pull it off, voted away our Constitution. As the coronation of Queen Kim, First of Her Name, unfolded on every channel, would you not change your view of America, her culture, and her people? Might you not fall out of love with America as it is?
My hunch is Rich et al. would still love America, but you know what America they would love? The America That Was. They might even join the resistance to the regime of Queen Kim (Im fairly certain Charlie would) in an effort to restore self-government to America. And heres the funny thing: Theyd be fighting against the American nation in the name of that great and glorious cause, the American Idea. And thats the crucial difference.
Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of
If America and I were husband and wife, we’d be sleeping in separate bedrooms and have lovers. We’re still married because of the benefits it brings beyond loving each other. We have an agreement and, so far, it’s working.
It’s had to say when I stopped loving her. Is it when I caught her with the pool boy? Was it when I found out she was accepting every credit card offer and maxing out all of them? Was it when I found out she was throwing hundred dollar bills at street people that used it to buy more drugs.
I dunno. I think the day came around the time the blue dress first entered the news.
Statists are trying hard to separate America from its ideals and render it a geographical spot on the map of no philosophical significance. So you flood the country with immigrants and you stop teaching the founding ideals completely even to home grown citizens. In a generation, your job is done.
Once people have forgotten who they were, and who they once aspired to be, it will be as if we never were. Talk to people; fewer and fewer of them have any idea.
The America that I love rides a BMX bike all summer and has to be home when the street lights come on.
It lives in my heart and they can never take it away. If this one dies I’ll build another.
Trick question.
First distinguish between America and the brutish fedbeast which lairs in DC.
Because they are two different things.
If this one dies Ill build another.
I don’t love America, but I love the constitution on which it was founded. It left that quite a while ago. I’m thinking around the time the 17th amendment was ratified. It went downhill from there.
>>>The America that I love rides a BMX bike all summer and has to be home when the street lights come on<<<
Mine rides a Schwinn Stingray, but I’m an old guy.
There weren’t any BMX Bikes when I was a Kid.
>>If America and I were husband and wife, wed be sleeping in separate bedrooms and have lovers. Were still married because of the benefits it brings beyond loving each other. We have an agreement and, so far, its working.
Your whole post is brilliant and spot-on. America the nation is nothing without America the Ideals.
The day President Hillary declared it to be a Peoples Republic.
When either Kolin Kapernick or the Pittsburgh Steelers win a super bowl.
America won’t have different ideals. Politicians come up with different ideals. “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it. Mark Twain
I love my Country. The Greatest Country on the planet .
You are spot on. However, to sharpen the point a bit, the Left in this country have been working tirelessly to separate America, the idea, into America, a geographical point on a map. Our heritage as a country is inextricably founded upon Judeo-Christian tenets. These tenets are explicitly codified throughout the documents that established the framework of America.
Liberals, such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation and others, have fought tooth and nail to confuse and separate America from these ideals. In this way, like Obama, they claim America is a place on a map, no different than any other place on the map. The reality is that America is/was different.
So, could I love America less? Definitely. An America envisioned and desired by liberals which has turned its back on God is not a country worth much. It would be a country indistinguishable from almost every other country on the planet.
This is what Obama and liberals cannot see. And this is why they cannot grasp why many Americans hold this country to be special. It is this very Judeo-Christian foundation that causes Obama, and Liberals, to pejoratively smirk about many who “cling to their guns and Bible”. So in its most reductionist form, this is great divide currently in this country, those who hold Judeo-Christian values and which to uphold them, and those who are cool, hip, and edgy and desperately want to separate us from this birthright.
The E Plebnista will be obeyed. Eventually.
When I read this, I thought you were describing my marriage...
I love America because I cling to the belief that there is only one Nancy Pelosi.
I am sure that if I permitted myself to acknowledge that there are more than a hundred Nancy Pelosis in Congress, and millions more of her walking around in the streets, I would hate America with all my heart.
NeverTrumper still butt hurt his boy Jeb didn’t get the nomination and lose with dignity
Was Jeb really Jonah’s boy in the 2016 elections? I failed to read that at all.
America: Land of the fee, home of the depraved...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.