Patriotism the Opposite of Objectivism?
I was in a conversation about this last night and am curious what the consensus is here. It feels to me ,at this time, that I would struggle to be both patriotic and an Objectivist. Patriotism seems to equate to a blind faith in the face of a growing government. I feel that during my lifetime my country disappeared and in its place was left just a government. It's too large to help, often it harms. For example - In California the largest employer is the State of California. Do you think this inverse relationship is a transient thing (if you agree with it at all)? I hope I'm making sense...no coffee yet. To me, patriotism seems to go the other direction as self-interest. Sobering thought for the day.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
If patriotism means to you love for a government, then it is indeed opposite to belief in freedom (and probably to objectivism).
If patriotism means to you love for a place or people, it is quite compatible with objectivism, but will often go against the government.
I'm not wedded to one definition or the other, but when someone expresses "patriotism" in a way that could be either version, I ask questions.
The notion of American exceptionalism, though, has always been misguided in my view. I believe in capitalist exceptionalism, and would like to see capitalism take root anywhere and everywhere.
there might be some reason to be patriotic towards
one's own country, as in the case of the Hundred
Years' War; French or English, the people were
going to be under tyranny; and I guess there was
a slight chance that a foreign tyrant would be
worse,being more likely to think of the subjects
of the conquered country as inferior, etc.; so,
given the medieval situation, it was slightly bet-
ter to be under your own tyrant than a foreign
one. (Still, the British judicial system is better
than the French--innocent until proven guilty,
etc.).
But, for an American, patriotism is patriotism
because of the ideas upon which this country
was founded;"That, to secure these rights, gov-
ernments are instituted among men..."
The notion that conscription is justifiable on
the grounds of "service to one's country", is a
sickening attempt to abrogate the rights of man.
As to this being a contradiction of Objectiv-
ism, far from it; Ayn Rand was very patriotic to
this country, often extolling it as the greatest
on earth. She made a remark once about peop-
ple who failed to distinguish between "rational
patriotism and blind, racist chauvinism".
I am feeling the confusion. In some ways I am extremely patriotic. It feels particularly dissonant when I am supposed to be singing "the land of the free and home of the brave".
I think that patriotism is, or has become, overrated. Maybe it always was. I use the "qualifier", I think, because, as OA said, "the dictionary definition is vague and wanting": "love that people feel for their country : Love for or devotion to one's country". By today's standards this would imply a blind dedication of one's life to the support of the country and by all accounts this is the way it is used and normally understood. If you refuse to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance you are being unpatriotic. (I prefer to remind people that a country that is worth pledging allegiance to needs no pledge of allegiance.)
But from Francisco's money speech we know that to love something is to understand it's nature. This is the step that is forgotten or deemed unnecessary. The Germans under Hitler were said to be patriotic for supporting and/or fighting for their country. I find it hard to believe that more than a few actually understood the nature of Nazi Germany.
If the word was hijacked like so many others it would be difficult to say when so, perhaps, it was coined with the purpose of blurring lines with the sole purpose of manipulating people. Either way, it should not be confused with being an American, and what it means to be an American.
I was browsing through my Ayn Rand books looking for some unrelated info the other day and got caught up in the last chapter of "Philosophy: Who Needs It" called "Don't let it go". Worth re-reading for everybody. She talks about sense of life and specifically the American sense of life. IE; what it means to be an American. Too much to fit here but this paragraph seemed particularly fitting;
"A European is disarmed in the face of a dictatorship: he may hate it, but he feels that he is wrong and, metaphysically, the State is right. An American would rebel to the bottom of his soul. But that is all that his sense of life can do for him. It cannot solve his problems."
Now, re-think what you know of the riots in Baltimore. Generations living under the thumb of the state. More and more and more intrusion into their lives. More and more controls. They don't know why, or how to fix any of it. They have generations of conditioning and yet they resist. They Will Not Live Under A King! I think that Ayn Rand would say that that is a uniquely American sense of life. Even if they are completely bass-akward about it.
Quite so!
Nationalism seems to be blind allegiance and devotion to a piece of dirt... to land... not ideals. I would not see this as true patriotism, just emotional attachment to a homeland.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Interesting question. I'm sure many also share a devotion to country, but I would find that alone wanting. There are many fine historical achievements and figures of their respective countries, but I would suggest their patriotism is more nostalgic or oriented as a devotion to their fellow citizens still desirous, hopeful of a better future. If it is to their governments then they are patriotic to governance in ways I would find objectionable. No doubt those that benefit at the expense of others because of local politics are more devoted. Of course if one is born to a more paternalistic government, what frame of reference do they have? To the degree that many from these nations still wish to immigrate here I believe they demonstrate a lack of patriotism and an enlightenment that redirects their devotions and thus eventual patriotism.
Of course once here, they may find we no longer fully live up to the ideals they desire, though it may still be better than from whence they came.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Edit: P.S. I believe philosophercat has put his finger on this question. To a degree what these citizens of other nations exhibit could be colored by nationalism. How does one weigh the level of each? Are we not experiencing a great deal of this same confusion here?
there are nationalist every where with no value higher than corrupt cultures. Patriots stood at Lexington and Concord not for a government but the idea of individual sovereignty. That is worth fighting for. thanks John Locke.
I believe in the principles our nation were founded on: liberty of thought, protection of personal rights, and freedom to pursue ideas. My patriotism extends to those. It does not extend to those who currently occupy the seat of government.
I believe it is a mischaracterization or misnomer to state that one is patriotic to one's country, because when you ask anyone to explain, they never talk about lines on a map, but ideals. Quantify the ideals you have in mind and whether or not you identify with them as being "American" ideals one can be "patriotic" to and you will answer your own question.
hear hear
Load more comments...