|
A
Patriotic Left
by
Michael Kazin
Dissent Magazine
Back
to Alternative Reader Index
I
love my country. I love its passionate and endlessly inventive culture, its
remarkably diverse landscape, its agonizing and wonderful history. I
particularly cherish its civic ideals-social equality, individual liberty, a
populist democracy-and the unending struggle to put their laudable, if often
contradictory, claims into practice. I realize that patriotism, like any
powerful ideology, is a "construction" with multiple uses, some of
which I abhor. But I persist in drawing stimulation and pride from my American
identity.
Regrettably, this is not a popular sentiment on the contemporary left. Antiwar
activists view patriotism as a smokescreen for U.S. hegemony, while radical
academics mock the notion of "American exceptionalism" as a relic of
the cold war, a triumphal myth we should quickly outgrow. All the rallying
around the flag after September 11 increased the disdain many leftists feel for
the sentiment that lies behind it. "The globe, not the flag, is the symbol
that's wanted now," scolded Katha Pollitt in the Nation. Noam Chomsky
described patriotic blather as simply the governing elite's way of telling its
subjects, "You shut up and be obedient, and I'll relentlessly advance my
own interests."
Both views betray an ignorance of American history, as well as a quixotic desire
to leap from a distasteful present to a gauzy future liberated from the fetters
of nationalism. Love of country was a demotic faith long before September 11, a
fact that previous lefts understood and attempted to turn to their advantage. In
the United States, Karl Marx's dictum that the workers have no country has been
refuted time and again. It has been not wage earners but the upper classes-from
New England gentry on the Grand Tour a century ago to globe-trotting executives
and cybertech professionals today-who view America with an ambivalent shrug,
reminiscent of Gertrude Stein's line, "America is my country, Paris is my
hometown."
One can, like Pollitt and Chomsky, curse as jingoistic all those "United We
Stand" and "God Bless America" signs and hope somehow to
transcend patriotism in the name of global harmony. Or one can empathize with
the communal spirit that animates them, embracing the ideals of the nation and
learning from past efforts to put them into practice in the service of
far-reaching reform.
An earlier version of American patriotism was a forerunner of the modern genre:
pride in the first nation organized around a set of social beliefs rather than a
shared geography and history. In its novelty, Americanism gave citizens of the
new republic both a way to understand and to stand for purposes that transcended
their self-interest. Of course, these purposes were not always noble ones. As
historian Gary Gerstle points out in his recent book American Crucible,
"racial nationalism" dominated much of American life through the
nineteenth century and into the early decades of the twentieth. It led some
white Americans to justify exterminating Indians, others to hold slaves, and
still others to bar immigrants who did not possess "Anglo-Saxon"
genes. But the tolerant alternative, which Gerstle calls "civic
nationalism," also inspired many Americans in the modern era to help
liberate Europe from fascism and Stalinism and to organize at home for social
and economic justice.
For American leftists, patriotism was indispensable. It made their dissent and
rebellion intelligible to their fellow citizens-and located them within the
national narrative, fighting to shape a common future. Tom Paine praised his
adopted homeland as an "asylum for mankind"-which gave him a forum to
denounce regressive taxes and propose free public education. Elizabeth Cady
Stanton issued a "Woman's Declaration of Rights" on the centennial of
the Declaration of Independence and argued that denying the vote to women was a
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Union activists in the Gilded Age such as
Eugene Debs and Mother Jones accused employers of crushing the individuality and
self-respect of workers. When Debs became a socialist, he described his new
vision in the American idiom, as "the equal rights of all to manage and
control" society. Half a century later, Martin Luther King, Jr., told his
fellow bus boycotters, "If we are wrong-the Supreme Court of this nation is
wrong" and proclaimed that "the great glory of American democracy is
the right to protest for right."
One could easily list analogous statements from such pioneering reformers as
Jane Addams and Betty Friedan, unionists Sidney Hillman and Cesar Chavez, and
the gay liberationist Harvey Milk. Without patriotic appeals, the great social
movements that attacked inequalities of class, gender, and race in the United
States-and spread their messianic rhetoric around the world-would never have
gotten off the ground.
Even slavery couldn't extinguish the promise radicals found in the American
creed. On Independence Day, 1852, Frederick Douglass gave an angry, eloquent
address that asked, "What to the slave is the Fourth of July?" Every
account quotes the fugitive-turned-abolitionist speaking truth to white power:
"Your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your
national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and
heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts
of liberty and equality, hollow mockery." But fewer commentators note that
when, at the end of his speech, Douglass predicted slavery's demise, he drew his
"encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles
it contains, and the genius of American Institutions," as well as from a
spirit of enlightenment that he believed was growing on both sides of the
Atlantic. After emancipation, Douglass never stopped condemning the hypocrisy of
white Americans- or continuing to base his hopes for equality on traditions he
and they held in common.
A
self-critical conception of patriotism also led Americans on the left to oppose
their leaders' aggressive policies abroad. Anti-imperialists opposed the
conquest of the Philippines after the war of 1898 by comparing President William
McKinley to King George III. Foes of U.S. intervention in World War I demanded
to know why Americans should die to defend European monarchs and their colonies
in Africa and Asia. In 1917, a mass movement led by socialists and pacifists
called for a popular referendum on the question of going to war. Neither group
of resisters succeeded at the time, but each gained a mass hearing and saw its
arguments incorporated into future policies. Congress promised independence to
the Philippines sooner than colonial officials favored. And, challenged by such
antiwar voices as Debs, Robert LaFollette, and William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow
Wilson proclaimed national self-determination to be the core principle of a new
world order.
A good deal that we cherish about contemporary America was thus accomplished by
social movements of the left, speaking out for national ideals. It may be, as
the idiosyncratic Trotskyist Leon Samson argued in 1935, that Americanism served
as a substitute for socialism, an ideology of self-emancipation through equal
opportunity that inoculated most citizens against the class-conscious
alternative. But leftists made what progress they did by demanding that the
nation live up to its stated principles, rather than dismissing them as fatally
compromised by the racism of the founders or the abusiveness of flag-waving
vigilantes. After all, hope is always more attractive than cynicism, and the gap
between promise and fulfillment is narrower for Americanism than it is for other
universalist creeds such as communism, Christianity, and Islam.
It's difficult to think of any radical or reformer who repudiated the national
belief system and still had a major impact on U.S. politics and policy. The
movement against the Vietnam War did include activists who preferred the
Vietcong's flag to the American one. But the antiwar insurgency grew powerful
only toward the end of the 1960s, when it drew in people who looked for
leadership to liberal patriots such as King, Walter Reuther, and Eugene McCarthy
rather than to Abbie Hoffman and the Weathermen.
Perhaps one exception to this rule was Malcolm X, who stated, in 1964, that he
was a "victim of Americanism" who could see no "American
dream," only "an American nightmare." But Malcolm was primarily a
spokesman for black anger and pride, not a builder of movements or a catalyst of
reforms to benefit his people.
He was, however, a prophetic figure. Soon after Malcolm's death, many on the
left, of all races, began to scorn patriotic talk and, instead, to celebrate
ethnic and sexual differences. In 1970, writer Julius Lester observed,
"American radicals are perhaps the first radicals anywhere who have sought
to make a revolution in a country which they hate." At the time, there were
certainly ample reasons to consider Americanism a brutal sham. After World War
II, the word itself became the property of the American Legion, the House
Un-American Activities Committee, and the FBI. In the 1960s, liberal presidents
bullied their way into Indochina in the name of what Lyndon Johnson called
"the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of
Pennsylvania." Fierce love for one's identity group-whether black, Latino,
Asian, Native American, or gay or lesbian-seemed morally superior to the master
narrative that had justified war abroad and racial exclusion at home.
Yet
the history of the last thirty years has also exposed the outsized flaw in such
thinking. Having abandoned patriotism, the left lost the ability to pose
convincing alternatives for the nation as a whole. It could take credit for
spearheading a multicultural, gender-aware revision of the humanities
curriculum, but the right set the political agenda, and it did so in part
because its partisans spoke forcefully in the name of American principles that
knit together disparate groups-anti-union businesspeople, white evangelicals,
Jewish neoconservatives-for mutual ends.
In the face of such evidence, many leftists would respond that civic idealism
should not be confined within national borders. In a provocative 1994 essay,
philosopher Martha Nussbaum argued that patriotism is "morally
dangerous" because it encourages Americans to focus on their own concerns
and minimize or disregard those of people in other lands. "We should regard
our deliberations," she wrote, "as, first and foremost, deliberations
about human problems of people in particular concrete situations, not problems
growing out of a national identity that is altogether unlike that of
others." Echoing her words, activists and intellectuals talk of challenging
global exploitation with some form of global citizenship.
As an ethicist, Nussbaum is certainly on solid ground. Americans ought to take a
massacre in Africa as seriously as one that takes place in lower Manhattan and
demand that their government move rapidly to halt it. But she offers no guidance
for how global leftists can get the power to achieve their laudable objectives.
A planetary government is hardly on the horizon, and rich nations would no doubt
hog its agenda if it were.
In the meantime, Americans who want to transform the world have to learn how to
persuade the nation. At minimum, this means putting pressure on the national
government, organizing coalitions of people from different regions and
backgrounds, and debating citizens who think their tax money ought to be spent
only at home. Disconnected as they are from any national or local constituency,
global leftists now live at risk of being thrust to the margins-abstract sages
of equity, operatives of nongovernmental organizations engaged in heroic but
Sisyphean tasks, or demonstrators roving from continent to continent in search
of bankers to heckle.
In the wake of September 11, the stakes have been raised for the American left.
Even if the "war against terrorism" doesn't continue to overshadow all
other issues, it will inevitably force activists of every stripe to make clear
how they would achieve security for individual citizens and for the nation. How
can one seriously engage in this conversation about protecting America if
America holds no privileged place in one's heart? Most ordinary citizens
understandably distrust a left that condemns military intervention abroad or a
crackdown at home but expresses only a pro forma concern for the actual and
potential victims of terrorism. Without empathy for one's neighbors, politics
becomes a cold, censorious enterprise indeed.
There's no need to mouth the Pledge of Allegiance or affix a flag pin to your
lapel or handbag. But to rail against patriotic symbols is to wage a losing
battle-and one that demeans us and sets us against the overwhelming majority of
Americans for no worthwhile moral or political purpose.
Instead,
leftists should again claim, without pretense or apology, an honorable place in
the long narrative of those who demanded that American ideals apply to all and
opposed the efforts of those who tried to reserve them for favored groups. When
John Ashcroft denies the right of counsel to a citizen accused of terrorism or a
CEO cooks the books to impress Wall Street, they are soiling the flag and ought
to be put on the patriotic defensive. Liberals and radicals are the only people
in politics who can insist on closing the gap between America as the apotheosis
of democratic strivings and the sordid realities of greed and arrogance that
often betray it.
There is really no alternative. In daily life, cultural cosmopolitanism is
mostly reserved to the rich and famous. Radical environmentalists and anti-IMF
crusaders seek to revive the old dream of internationalism in a version indebted
more to John Lennon's "Imagine" than to V. I. Lenin's Comintern. But
three years after bursting into the headlines from the streets of Seattle, that
project seems stalled indefinitely in the Sargasso Sea that lies between
rhetorical desire and political exigency.
In hope of a revival, left patriots might draw inspiration from two voices from
disparate points on the demographic and ideological spectrum. During the Great
Depression, the white, conservative skeptic George Santayana observed that
"America is the greatest of opportunities and the worst of influences. Our
effort must be to resist the influence and improve the opportunity." At the
same time, Langston Hughes-black, homosexual, and communist
sympathizer-expressed a parallel vision:
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed -
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above…
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath -
America will be!
Throughout our history, and still today, the most effective way to love the
country is to fight like hell to change it.
(Michael
Kazin is on the editorial board of Dissent. His latest book, co-authored
with Maurice Isserman, is America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s..)
October
25,
2002 Bulatlat.com
We
want to know what you think of this article.
|