Dialouge drives you to humility, and the GOP's general absence of that trait isn't a matter of religion, but philosiphy. There's a resonance between the certainty with which the right approaches religion, and the insistence that the absolute, unquestionably correct thing for Obama to do is to jump in, with both feets, on Iran. Think about this statement which Steve Benen flagged from Liz Cheney:
The best nation that ever existed in history. No conservative skepticism. No Niebuhrian humility. Now consider the resonance between that statement and this one from George Wallace which I flagged a few weeks ago:We've now seen several different occasions when he's been on the international trips, where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe unequivocally, unapologetically, America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today.' Instead we've seen him do what we saw him do in the speech in Cairo, which is sort of, 'on one hand this, on the other hand that,' and then attempt to put himself sort of above it all. I think that troubles people.
In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.Now, per the bold type, the equation isn't with the racism, but with the unbridled nationalism. The worst part of Wallace's statement isn't the segregation part, it's the myth, the candy that he's feeding his audience--the greatest people that have ever trod this earth. (One could wrap the arrogance of the Lost Cause in here too, if you were so inclined.)
What you have, in both cases, is a hustle, a bait and switch, in which one claims to be hawking patriotism, but in fact, is selling jingoism. If patriotism is love of country, then much of the unquestioning GOP rhetoric fails on the rudiments. Is love of kin, love of siblings, love of spouse, telling your beloved, that they are the best person that's ever existed in history? Or is that sycophancy, fast talk proffered by loose friends, who in your darkest hours, appeal to your worst self.
The religious right isn't what's wrong with the GOP. It's the pervasive, unthinking, unreflective nationalism. It's the arrogance of thrice-divorced adulterers reaching for the banner of traditional families, and it's the arrogance of men who prosecuted a poorly planned war, on weak intelligence, presuming to lecture us on national security.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Good thoughts. Before I got to the next-to-the-last paragraph, I was thinking just that--that love isn't blind adolation. Love sees flaws, understands weaknesses, works with the loved one to make changes. There's an ebb and flow to love.
I love America for what it aspires to be in its best moments, not for its might. Sometimes the image of the flag brings a lump to my throat; other times I wince with memory and fatigue at the horrors that flag has sanctioned or condoned.
"Greatest" country? Who would even begin to know what that means? Isn't that just a fancy version of "My country--love it or leave it?"
"'The nationalist is by definition an ignoramus,' wrote Danilo Kis, the Yugoslav writer. 'Nationalism is the line of least resistance, the easy way. The nationalist is untroubled, he knows or thinks he knows what his values are, his, that's to say national, that's to say the values of the nations he belongs to, ethical and political; he's not interested in others, they are no concern of his, hell--it's other people (other nations, another tribe). They don't even need investigating. The nationalist sees other people in his own image--as nationalists.'" (qted. in "The Plague of Nationalism," War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, Chris Hedges)
I think you mean Liz Cheney, not Lynn.
thanks.
My rss feed has this posted twice, the second with a couple of extra paragraphs at the end (which I liked), and an extra word in the title.
I clipped the end. Didn't like it. People at home get to see some of the sausage before it's encased. Enjoy.
Great post. One quibble ...
"The religious right isn't what's wrong with the GOP. It's the pervasive, unthinking, unreflective nationalism that's wrong."
I would argue that the religious right is just another manifestation of that kind of "pervasive unthinking, unreflective" approach to the world. Whether it is thinking that the US can do no wrong, or whether the Bible is inerrant, both attitudes come from not wanting to think to hard about things.
Great post. One quibble ...
"The religious right isn't what's wrong with the GOP. It's the pervasive, unthinking, unreflective nationalism that's wrong."
I would argue that the religious right is just another manifestation of that kind of "pervasive unthinking, unreflective" approach to the world. Whether it is thinking that the US can do no wrong, or whether the Bible is inerrant, both attitudes come from not wanting to think to hard about things.
The Lynn Cheney bit reminds me how little smarts and education help in specific cases. (In the aggregate education makes people more liberal, it seems.) Because both Lynn and Dick are very smart, and very educated, and yet they say the most ludicrous things. I think it must have to do with not asking questions because you already know all the answers--something that fits with both Cheney's approach to intelligence gathering and what we were just saying in the Father's Day thread about how different families do and don't affect children.
Specific to what she's saying, in what possible way would it help for any President to go overseas and say to the rest of the world: "You Suk. We R Number One. Lozerz."
You can love your country without denigrating all the other countries.
Just saw a post at Andrew's which sort of relates to this mindset--no idea if the authors are left or right. (The left is not immune from unquestioning dogmatism, but it had to reign it in to get elected in the past decade or two.) The writers' cast realism in foreign policy not as acknowledging reality, but as a specific desire to negotiate nukes with Iran's leaders that requires claiming the election results are legitimate and the regime's attacks on protestors both constitutional and restrained, laudable even. Nate Silver might look at the results statistically and point out the election was fixed, and clumsily; these people think Nate should shut up because the fp outcome they want would be affected by acknowledging pesky reality.
I don't think "realism" in foreign policy was meant to include viewing "reality" as only what the government of a given country constructs.
Woah, I just caught a dose of literary deja vu. Just before reading your take on exceptionalism, I was reading Lauren Slater's piece in the NYT mag, "The Trouble with Self-Esteem."
Wow, there's definitely a connection there that's worth exploring. Interesting article, thanks.
It reminds me of George Carlin talking about the Self-Esteem movement in regards to reducing crime
"Turns out, serial killers think pretty highly of themselves"
The biggest bit of the stupidity of Cheney and crew isn't that they think visiting someone else's house and rubbing their face in how much of an ego they have is good diplomacy, it's that they think they can pander to the baser urges of right wing rednecks as a strategy for survival by shaming Obama for not doing that.
This whole "Obama is anti-American because he's treating the rest of the world with respect" only gets the votes of the 30% or so who were die hard Bush loyalists, while Obama is peeling off Republicans who're *not* drooling redneck racists left and right. You can't create a national party based on mean spirited nationalism in the US, but the Republicans are insisting they need to be doing just that. "Punch a hippie" is not actually a party strategy.
In light of the George Wallace quote, I might start referring to neocons and their ilk as "American supremacists". I like the connotation that brings.
Great observation.
My one quibble is that you don't seem to mention Sanford in the post even though he is named in the title of the post.
LOL. Dude, you ALWAYS have "one quibble." Joshing you. Even if it's true.
I do. I do.
I thought he was your editor, man! The Atlantic isn't paying him to quibble?
Well, then you're getting the full service package as a gift. Can't quibble with that.
It's a curse.
T, the hypocracy and the sense of being 'sanctified' ie not a sinner is a problem for some of the Right-wingers but I worry here that we may be falling into the idea that if they just saw the truth/facts as they are and not through an ideological lense, set of faith commitments, that they would be open to persuasion/Reason but there is no such thing as Reason that isn't grounded, blinded?, by faith commitments, and so there is, unfortunately, no necessary relationship between dialogue and humility, the ethical connection between these two which I have tried to make the case for here before and which you exhibit so powerfully in this blog is in fact one of these faith commitments,ways of being called by the world, and maybe not even something that one can choose to accept or deny which is why actual politics/govt is irreplacable by conversations/philosophy/theology, not sure if that is clear but I appreciate the forum and the topic
Dude, did you ever meet Mr. Punctuation? Use that little period key near the bottom of the keyboard occasionally.
This reminds me of the discussion of how we define liberal versus conservative, and one of the differences being empathy. I think that - as practiced in this country - it also has to do with humility. Andrew Sullivan talks about "conservatism of doubt", which surprised me at first, because it is not what Republicans generally practice. I would call that a form of humility (which is not humiliation, as some people seem to feel.) So perhaps Andrew's conservatism is about humility, while my version of liberalism is humilty plus empathy. Of course, that may be prejudiced by my view, but heck, that's what opinions are for, right?
By their name, conservatives want to conserve institutions, conserve what is currently working, though they will make necessary changes if things are manifestly failing. Liberals don't want to see others suffering in the current system -- see it more as already failing -- and may be more willing to make changes because of that.
But of course Republicans and Democrats don't equal conservatives and liberals. Perhaps the thing that politicians on both sides lose is the humility. Maybe you have to, to some extent, to survive the competition and the adversarial culture in Washington. It's hard to make headway if you are constantly questioning whether the other side's attacks are true.
Maybe when you lose humility, Republicans become those who try to keep things the same because they work for them, and Democrats start wanting to fix everything because not everyone is happy.
I think Obama does have that magnificent combination of humility and empathy... though how long he can keep the same level of humility in the situation he's in will be interesting to see. I think it's not something people in Washington are used to seeing, either, which may explain why so many commentators thought his jokes about himself at the press events were arrogant. I saw them as an ability to laugh at himself.... which we all need.
Andrew is not a good test-case for understanding the American-Right (and he is actively falling out from them) in the sense of those White guys from the Congress or on Fox News because he is philosophically conservative and ever increasingly theologically liberal, whereas the Moral Majority type Republicans are not students of any academic theologians but radio/tv Southern Bapstist type evangelicals for whom their Nationalism/exceptionalism is a central part of their religiousity, they are very old testament kinds of folks, ie hurricanes as punishement for gay parades, and the idea that God rewards his chosen country/People, guess who, with power and wealth, see my ramble in yesterdays open thread about Manifest Destiny, and it seems important for the sake of clarity/accuracy/understanding to keep clear these kinds of distinctions so perhaps instead of generalizing, as I have done ealier here, we could try and stick to talking about individuals and their explicit actions.
Seriously. I thought that Liz Cheney quote was a joke, or at least sarcasm, the first time through. Guess not.
There's a book TV interview with Anne Coulter where she goes into this in some depth. Fascinating stuff, it's almost like stepping back in time.
Interview
She actually said "if Barrack Obama has to worry about assasination from anyone it's his base."
What universe is she living in? I'd almost put her up there as an example of reality t.v. gone awry.
I don't mind conservatives who preform a service. Robert Conquest could concievably be classified as such a conservative, although, Conquest doesn't really belong to any party despite being given the presidential medal of freedom by George W. However, in the main there's a massive unawareness and refusal to self examine that might be another symptom of the Heidi and Spencer phenomenon as it manifests itself in our political discourse.
I've been not well the last couple days and was behind on my reading, but I really wanted to applaud you for your posts on Reconstruction in the South and your "putdown" of MLK as a saint and your subsequent "clarification". As a political writer (nonprofessional), I have to give you props; they are beautiful pieces of work. They cover ground not really trod on much in contemporary American Political Thought. The right has started using MLK as a symbol that anyone can achieve anything regardless of his skin color (forgetting that they hated him and his trouble-causing kind back in the day) and the left has put him on a pedestal with FDR, JFK, and Lincoln, and no one seems to recall that this man was just a man who lived not that long ago and who some of the people that we have known all of our lives (our parents and grandparents) actually met him, knew him, and some of those people loved him AND/OR hated him.
The MLK, Reconstruction, Sanford, 'Spiedi' posts and even the stuff happening in the Islamic Republic all have one thread that tie them all together: we have lost the ability to construct a coherent historical narrative for ourselves. MLK can't be a hound dog and the savior of his people, can he? Lincoln, Grant, and McClellan couldn't have been racists and Unionists could they? Sanford can't be an evangelical family man and a philanderer can he? What's up with those fame whores? Obama must support the rebels strongly or he's for the Mullahs isn't he? Our Manichean political discourse has leached into private life and everything has to be black or white or we can't make any sense of it anymore. The Dems are for it, so the Repubs must hate it! Single Payer is Socialism, so we must keep the Health Insurance market exactly as is! Cap n Trade is expensive so let's keep poisoning the planet!
How will we survive as a people if we can't understand that recognizing that people can be sinners and saints and the fact that each is capable of making good and bad decisions outside of instinct is what separates us as higher mammals?
The Shouting Heads on the TV screen thrive on the fallacy of the excluded middle. So yes, for them, everything must be all one extreme or all the other. There are exceptions out there, but they are becoming more and more rare.
This reminds me of a commentary I heard on NPR during the Lewinsky scandal. I think it was a rabbi, responding to the cry at the time: How can we trust a leader like this? What so we tell our children? The commentator said to tell them that just like David and Bathsheba, there can be great leaders with deep flaws -- because we are all human.
Okay, I have a question related to this... I've heard it said that without Malcolm X, MLK wouldn't have succeeded, or not as quickly, or would be seen as more radical. I have no idea if this is true, not having lived through it. Does anyone want to comment?
not sure if this whole slant here is on topic but since you asked there is no real way of measuring this kind of historical what-if question of cause and effect but for the Feds Martin's links, real and imagined, to international communism was seen as much more theatening/radical than the Nation or other people who were identifying themselves Muslim as we can see from the FBI files and all, you have to remember that as big, and important as the civil-rights/race issues where they paled, pardon the pun, for the white majority to issues around the Cold War; Nukes, Vietnam, etc. which impacted their lives more directly, at least as a threat.
I agree with this, and it has been the history of this country. There is a Washington to balance DuBois. There's Garvey, then Malcolm X. You look at Malcolm X and then the Black Panthers-who scared the shyt out of the average White person - and MLK doesn't look so bad. Folks who thought Malcolm and MLK were so different have never read their writings and speeches en masse.
Hallelujah!
In light of Liz Cheney's comment, it's hard not to imagine Obama at a podium yelling, "Suck it, Spain! Eat it, Sweden! You losers got nothin' on the U. S. of A! Bite it, Belarus!" As if the leader of the free world is some insecure bully. Not that such a thing would ever happen.
xochi,
a phrase for you to prove your point, just imagine: McCain/Palin '08!
Xochi has put his/her finger on the problem with the Cheney quote. It's not whether it's good or sensible or whatever to think that the US is the greatest country ever, or even to say it for domestic consumption. (In that regard I think T-N's invocation of the Wallace quote doesn't quite do it.) Rather, it's a problem of elementary civility, which used to be a value of patrician conservatism but has since been abandoned, as has patrician conservatism. What kind of buffoon--liberal, conservative, what have you--would go into someone else's house to brag about themselves?
Although the idea of Obama in Minsk saying "Bite it, Belarus!" is more than a little intriguing.
Xochi, that's funny becuse it's so true. And it could happen. Maybe not in such blatant terms, but it pretty much did happen with GWB. That's what Neocons want the American head of state to be like. It's so difficult for me to wrap my head around, but there's the truth of it.
Another kick-ass post, TNC.
Shorter TNC:
Dear America - Republicans don't love you; they're just saying you're pretty so you'll go home with them.
This thread really isn't about Sanford - I guess you could see him as an example of this kind of arrogance, but in his case, he strikes me as more disturbed, like he really has a tenuous grip on reality, or at least did for a few days.
Liz Cheney has no such excuse. What gets me about this is how transparently WEAK it is. What person living in any other country wouldn't look at that and think, how scared are they? They have to say they're the best ever?
It seems like pure insecurity about a future in which white conservatives no longer hold the reins of power at home, and more broadly, the United States is no longer the world's sole superpower. In my eyes, the true promise of Barack Obama is that he is trying to lead us into that reality so that when we get there, we aren't complete toast. And the Cheney ilk is just digging in their heels.
So yeah, "Lost Cause" is about right.
I remember back in the early nineties (I think... I was young then) the US was in a recession and Japan was kicking our butts in terms of great products and a great economy. You know, threatening our self image as the best at everything. At the same time, there started to be a huge amount of resentment and stereotyping of Japanese people -- camera clicking tourists and "buying up our country."
It reminded me of the stereotype of the French hating Americans. (I know how flawed that stereotype of the French is, BTW.) Anyway, it got me wondering about what it must have been like for France to go, metaphorcally, from being the center of world fashion/culture and politics (French was the international language at one point, and still is on our passports) to, well, not being that. It's something Americans will almost certainly have to grapple with at some point -- I mean no one can be at the center forever.
Ta-Nehisi, you've put your finger on the aspect of our culture that I think I hate the most -- the assumption of American superiority. No, assumption is probably not the right word. It's really more of an ideological commitment to the proposition that America, and Americans, are intrinsically superior to everyone else on Earth.
I'm sure every people likes to be told flattering accounts of themselves, from us Americans to the French to the Maori to the Bolivians. But the US actually has the power to bash people who have the audacity to provide evidence contrary to our self-image. The combination of commitment to the illusion and that kind of power is sickening and frightening.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote in the weeks leading up to the 1972 election:
Or is that sycophancy, fast talk proffered by loose friends, who in your darkest hours, who in your darkest hours appeal to your worst self.
At first I thought Wormtongue. But now I'm thinking, maybe Denethor.
Wormtongue does seem to fit. (Why am I having the mental image, all of a sudden, of Wormtongue as a boxing promoter?) But why Denethor? Denethor ended up giving in to his worst self, but he wasn't the one who talked himself into it.
Wormtongue would be the loose friends - but Denethor, he was the one being talked to (and Sauron is of course much worse than Wormtongue, as a loose friend). Instead of doing the hard and humble thing and standing up at the end, he listened to the palantir and gave in to his pride and despair. He was the one listening to the fast talk and made the darkest hour even darker than it needed to be, with Gandalf saving Faramir couldn't save Theoden on the battlefield.
Well, that does make sense, now that I think on it.
@Tim McGaha -
Excellent. LOTR nerds unite, right?
Excellent post. Whenever I read about a "person of faith" stating that "we're the greatest nation on earth", I imagine God in heaven shaking his head and saying: "Idiot".
While your post has some merit, you manage to discredit yourself as a partisan hack when you try to paint this failing as a Republican foible . . . by quoting George Wallace (D - AL).
If anything, I'd say that a uniquely Republican flaw is their tendency to erroneously assert that their opponents across the aisle don't believe that the U.S. is the best nation on earth.
Dude, Wallace was a southern Democrat. Southern Democrats being inherrently conservative and only democrat because they hated Lincoln.
Your second thought was the entire point of the post.
This post is spot on. I am reminded of a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes:
"Certitude always leads to violence."
The religious/grandstanding right could do well by spending some more time in Phillipians 2 - where, of all the attributes of Christ, Paul thought it particularly important to point to his humility...
TNC.....it runs deeper than that.
All the GOP really runs on is gypsyhooks to pull the rubes into the tent.
Patriotism is one, "family values" is another.
How else can they scam the lefthalf of the bellcurve into supporting taxcuts for the masters of the universe?
Interestingly enough, much of the most scathing criticism of GOP arrogance, exceptionalism, and lack of self-awareness comes from the "other" right: the paleos, the agrarians, the crunchies, etc. Humility, realism, and respect for non-American national cultures and traditions are themes that run deep with them.
I'm sure a lot of you have heard of Andrew Bacevich, but he wrote an excellent (and not too lengthy book) about exceptionalism and its costs.
I aso strongly recommend this Bil Moyers video:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html
I view nationalism and patriotism as very different animals.
Patriotism - when we landed on the Moon, when the US beat Spain this week, when Obama warmed the hearts of billions when he spoke in Cairo, - that is Patriotism. A justified pride in a great accomplishment.
Nationalism - a dangerous, "we are right, everyone else is wrong" attitude which often leads to conflict, even armed conflict, especially when it was not necessary to resolve the problem. Neocons and PNAC are among the worst when it comes to Nationalism, as is their willingness to shoot first, and ask questions later, but only questions directed to those who complain about their shooting first.
I agree that you've definitely put your finger on something really important here. If you need another prominent example, you can look to Sean Hannity, who regularly talks of the U.S. being the greatest nation God has ever given to mankind on this earth, or words to that effect.
I also like the comment by Jennifer B, building on your second-to-last paragraph, and by pastor agnostic, differentiating between patriotism and nationalism.
I'm newly registered here, and I'll definitely be back. Perceptive post and a helpful discussion!
Didn't Al Franken call it?
"Republicans love their country like four year olds love their mommies."
Senator Carl Schurz defined patriotism best back in 1872: "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
He was a Republican, too. Of course, that was back when the GOP could still realistically be called the "Party of Lincoln" rather than the party of Limbaugh.