Our political conversation took a brief hiatus this week from its focus on the coming elections and Mueller investigation to memorialize the death of Sen. John McCain. McCain has been a fixture of American politics for almost 30 years and was renowned for his freewheeling, individual political style as well as his intense devotion to his idea of the United States and its place in the world.
Memorials to him have almost universally used the word "patriot" to describe him, noting in particular his time spent in North Vietnam as a prisoner of war and his insistence throughout his career that the US is not only a force for good in the world, but is indeed the beacon of hope for all humanity. Even the official slogan of his 2008 presidential campaign was "Country First." Considering these evaluations set me to thinking about what patriotism is, in what senses it is and is not a virtue, and the degree to which it is exploitable.
The word patriot internalizes a number of tensions and unclear notions we have about the societies to which we belong. I would say that a patriot is most naturally defined as someone who feels passionately connected to their country, but the term "country" is extremely slippery. Is it the land a patriot loves? The people who live there? The cultural traditions those people espouse? The government that rules them?
We have been taught to confuse these very distinct questions by the 18th and 19th century notions that dominated the founding of and early mythology around our government. The philosophical justification for the nation-state presupposes the unity of land, people, and government. It is a tidy, utopian category that masks the very real divergence of interests in any community and the natural fluidity of cultural and economic life.
We might also suggest that a patriot puts country over party or the greater good over some parochial interest. But that way of speaking is just as subject to conceptual problems. How does one define the greater good? Is the national interest the sum of individual interests? But what then when conflicting interests inevitably arise? The notion of the national interest or the greater good is a phantom that disappears every time we get too close to pinning it down.
What is really at issue here is how we group people in our minds. The nation as a concept is not definable and therefore useless in any attempt to understand political realities. It does not exist as a thing outside anyone's mind. Only socioeconomic networks and the power structures that govern them are real. Where those structures begin and end is entirely arbitrary and has no moral significance whatsoever.
There is certainly nothing wrong in the abstract with what might be called public spiritedness or a commitment to the safety and prosperity of ones community. But that spirit, directed by a powerful elite using effective rhetorical tools, all too often turns into something that has nothing at all to do with the actual good of the community.
The natural desire to see our friends, family, and community be safe, happy, and comfortable has been effectively weaponized. For instance, instead of engaging directly with the actual social issues raised by protesting athletes, critics have accused them in grave tones of disrespecting the flag and - worse still - the troops! Symbols of communal unity are coopted to mask real injustices and paint people who challenge those injustices as subversive and dangerous.
The people who are well treated by the established order have every incentive to respond this way. When it is pointed out that our social and economic system aggressively advantages the advantaged, the only way for a powerful minority to maintain majority support is to make the common people feel like they have a direct stake in the power of the powerful. They enlist our love for our communities in the defense of the social system as it is.
None of which is to imply that the feelings of loyalty to the community that John McCain undoubtedly held and which so many of us hold are not a powerful positive force. His unusual fortitude and courage during his military service are proof enough of that. It is because they are so powerful that we would do well to subject the causes for which they are invoked to very close scrutiny. Only the very best causes are worthy of the best of motives. McCain's passion was admirable, but I think it also had a tendency to blind him to the consequences of his actions for people who were beyond the scope of his consideration. We ought to take care that it doesn't do the same to us.
