Hello blackswan,
Excellent point. Our nation's founding was unique in its day, in that it had a conscious design from its beginning. I only wish we were living up to our original ideas and ideals.
Respectfully,
O.A.

OK. Done

A few years ago, government in this nation took over as the largest employer in America. (By 'government' I am lumping together all it's forms...city, county, state and federal.). To me, patriotism will always mean a loyalty to an ideal, in our case the ideal would be to the people of our constitution form of nation, and not to whatever pogue or REMF happens to infest the halls of power. By that definition, any who believe the same now find ourselves at odds with our government.

Not a happy situation at all.

Precisely; that's what I'm saying.

the best posts in here are ones where the poster makes an assertion, gives up something a little personal-opinion, incident, philosophy, and then ask a provocative question. that's like two or three sentences. you can basically cut and paste your comment from above. It is a topic we have discussed in here usually to a robust response.

A good comment is easy to put together. A good post has proven to not be so easy to put together. I don't know how you guys write whole books. lol

On the contrary, beware such calls precisely because they're asking you to set aside your reason. Think twice before ever doing that.

Not as much, but still fundamentally exceptional.

Love of my country is unconditional because it is love of the principles of its founding. Love of my government, however, is highly conditional, according to its fealty to those founding principles.

that's a great post. make it kevin :)

I do see a resurgence among certain people of pride in American exceptionalism. If it can be fostered and grow, perhaps we'll have a chance. The Roman Empire example has been used about America until it's sickening. the USA is nothing in any way the same as Rome was. Even with its current downslide it still in no way resembles Rome except for being the only superpower (here comes China).

DeTocqueville noted in 1832 that Americans have so much freedom they pay most of their attention to their private lives until there's a terrible crisis. Then they wake up and do something about it.
AFAIK, that's what's been going on since 2008. Or maybe, January 2009 when Steve Moore wrote his "Atlas Shrugged from Fiction to Fact in 52 years" and it went viral.

About 3 years ago, I heard Timothy Sandefur, a Constitutional lawyer say that he'd been speaking to lay audiences about the Constitution for years, but in the previous 3 years, the audience had suddenly become very knowledgeable about the details of the Constitution.

This is in direct opposition to the doom and gloom-saying which the anarchist libertarians promulgate, BTW - they're sure we're going the way of the Roman Empire.

Today I'd say some countries are better, but not overwhelmingly better, or I'd go if I had to sneak across the border. If I could choose any country in the world to live in today, I'd be a Swiss.

It was once; but not any more.

well said. . . . but, read my latest book:::

http://www.amazon.com/Unsustainable-Tuck...

actually, I'm the "executive editor" -- but the theme
is this::: the flyover States secede from the others
and, being self-sustaining, watch the others melt
down. . . and, eventually, offer them a solution:::
change your ways and sign on with our new
constitution and our new laws, to make the New
U.S.A. . . it's Rand, on a State level. -- j
.

American exceptionalism is a perfectly appropriate term: Amer. became so because of its founding documents defending individual rights and the implementation of capitalism to a much greater extent than any other country.

To be short, Patriotism can be rational. One simply should not defend his country for non-rational reasons.

I hope you are right. There is so much I love about America that it kills me seeing her die at the hands of Fascists.

Most countries began as tribal areas, without a founding idea, other than survival in a hostile world. There are very few countries that have been founded on an idea. Given that people from all over the world are clamoring to get here, it seems that that idea has universal appeal.

It boils down to definition. Ayn Rand herself was highly supportive of her concept of America, for instance, and it would be difficult to argue that she simply didn't understand Objectivism. Would we call that "Patriotism?" Perhaps, but digging deeper it seems her affection for the concept of America was based on its adherence to or support for her philosophy.

And then we must ask, does any patriot actually support what his or her country /is/, or what they believe it ought to be?

If we look around the world, at all the countries, how would the US rate? Are there any other countries that are better? Worse? We'd clearly want to be in the US or in another country that we considered to be better (which might suggest that we're planning on leaving the US, just like the immigrants did to get here). Objectively, since we're in the US, we consider the US to be the superior option. Given that, our loyalty should be to the US and to no one else. That is patriotism. If we have stronger loyalties somewhere else, we should leave the US and go there. Otherwise, we might be tempted to become traitors to the US. What is it about the US that demands our loyalty? It clearly isn't just a piece of real estate. The IDEA of the US, as defined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers is what should hold our loyalty, and out fidelity to those documents is the strongest indication of our patriotism; any deviation from that is not patriotism.

Great question, and the excellent comments here have established that patriotism and Objectivism are profoundly related and not antithetical.

"Patriotism" is rooted in the word "pater", father, the fatherland. And the concept of fatherland is rooted in territorial possessions that a group of people, whether clan, tribe or nation-state, declare as theirs. The land on which their survival depends, where their settlements are built and their food is grown, is a powerful center of "belonging" and loyalty.

These grew from local regions to fiefdoms and kingdoms, carrying with them the bond among their populace. Blood ties were strongest, though overcrowding and feuds begat splits, with some groups abandoning the old loyalties and moving away to new lands.

Group allegiances were strengthened by cultural ties, and dependence on the soil kept people united in common purpose. Obedience to a chief was hardwired behavior, in exchange for protection from outsider aggressions. Most wars come out of wanting to take others' land by force.

When huge migrations took place, tribal ties among people were stronger than the attachment to geography. "Kin survival" is built in. And had those ancient peoples engaged in philosophy, they might even have said that their self-interest lay in group protection and collaboration, whether "in unity there is strength" or "all for one, one for all" or "e pluribus unum".

Fast forward to the 20th century, of which I am an eye witness. Schools indoctrinated with pledges and loyalty to the status quo defined by the dominant politics. In high school in the 1950s we wrote essays for The Voice of America, expressing our love for democracy that could be broadcast to the nations we were trying to win over to our ways of thinking, in opposition to the seductive promises of communism. Foreign immigrants were quickly brought into the "melting pot" and Americanized into American values and being proud to be an American. The patriotism expected of all of us was to that ideal of America as the bastion of freedom in the world, separate from the reality on the ground. Respect for all "officials" and "authority", and being law-abiding, was a given.

Looking at it with the eyes of a Martian anthropologist, patriotism describes the dynamic of a great attractor at the core of a culture that pulls all of its members into a homogeneous mass. Small, beleaguered groups tend to be stronger in their mutual adherence. Large, diverse groups readily break into ethnic or generational subgroups, each with its own gravitational field. Every group clamors for its special privileges so as not to feel discriminated against. It makes for an interesting hierarchical chart of subdivisions. The major group these days that throws the word "patriot" around assertively is the Christian Right, assisted by the conspiracy theorists and survivalists.

In her passionate defense of the individual, Ayn Rand spurned tribalism. Against all historical precedent, the evolution of societal values defending the sovereign individual was a magnificent accomplishment of the Enlightenment era and America's founders. It is fully congruent with Objectivist values. "Don't let it go." That is the real patriotism.

Definitely not, particularly if you believe that the system we have offers better opportunity to employ Objectivism than others.

If one took patriotism to the limit (e.g. Fascism) then one would have to set aside Objectivism to participate. There is not reason to avoid supporting the US in general just because it is not perfect in the face of Objectivism.

A very good argument indeed. Thank you for posting it. I waited to watch it until after I commented to see how much difference it would make since this is the first time I have considered patriotism in terms of Objectivism. Considering the current use (misuse) of the word I don't think I would change my comment much. Although I would much rather see Mr. Cohen's definition be the standard, to actually use the word in conversation one would still have to make a reference to ones' meaning/definition.

What I really liked was Cohens point about how enjoying the advantages of the system we have without doing anything to protect them or improve them amounts to expecting a free ride. I personally know several people who are ready to pick up a gun and fight but will not lift a finger nor spare a moments thought on how to stop it before it comes to that.

Absolutely. I've referred a couple of times in posts to the Catholic high school I went to in the 60's, when they taught Reason and Logic. I paid my own tuition, which was $240/year! That same high school still exists, only I looked it up and the current tuition is $8000/year. My guess is they still teach Reason and Logic...