Brian Lamb is great. We have worried about losing the republic since its beginning. The schools have been an unreliable ally in my attempts to teach my kids about how good we have it, & why. They get a lot about the failings and imperfections of the country, and not nearly enough about the successes. Although Mearsheimer's realist approach to international relations is the lens that I look through, & I agree with him about his gratitude for being born into a liberal republic (although he uses the word democracy), I part company with him when he says the USA isn't an exceptional nation. Perhaps he thinks so because he views us as just one more Great Power. There have been Great Powers throughout history, & they do share goals, traits, and methods. If realism treats relations between nations as being between black boxes, where internal politics and forms of government make no difference at all in their relations, I would say that at least those internal politics and forms of government make a great deal of difference to those living in those countries. I should find out if he's ever written about the American Civil War. That, plus more than a century of an unguarded border with Canada, are why I think that sometimes a form of government does make a difference in foreign relations. A strong argument against that is that there almost certainly would have been a second general European war with or without the Nazi party taking control in Germany.
I'm unsure about nationalism as what needs to be restored, vs patriotism. A number of people have made solid arguments as to why patriotism is better than nationalism. My objection, to what I would otherwise agree with, is that nationalism is defined almost exclusively as a belief of superiority of one nation over another, and as the justification for conquest. I can't abide that because of numerous counter-examples, including the Nationalist side in the Spanish civil war. Franco, following the Civil War, had no interest in further war or conquest.
I hope that the upcoming 250th anniversary increases patriotism.
I should investigate what I think to be the difference between nationalism and patriotism. At first glance, I think the object of patriotic desire is more the people. It's emotional. Whereas nationalism is more disciplined, economic and legalistic. It seems to me, for example, a patriot would love everyone to be an American with no means testing whatsoever. But you're right to suspect a jingoistic edge to harder nationalisms. Much to consider.
I was going to write more, but my writing spiraled into railing against the lack of assimilation of immigrants, which is not the point! I don't see any conflict between a focus on economic & legal discipline with patriotism. A conversation for a later date.
I miss Jim Lehrer too. Did you read his book Crown Oklahoma? I miss trusting the talking heads on TV. I did trust him and some others to provide insight on the news. Now I can’t trust news people to provide the news.
I almost never read the work of journalists outside of their journalism. The exceptions are when they are capable of biography or history and R.W. Apple's "Apple's America".
The thing about the military is that people think it will teach them things: discipline, duty, a useful skill in the civilian world. Mostly it doesn't, or you learn the kind of skills that will get you ten years in Club Fed if you try to use them on Main Street. Looking back on those "what if I..." choices will drive you crazy. Don't do it.
Yes, I hear you. I was a Teamster after I dropped USC, and I quickly learned what I should and should not do. My intelligence was constantly insulted and I was the newb at the back of the line. So I feel like I knew very well the distance between management and union paralleled that of officers and enlisted men. I also realized that every skill was reduced to that world. Not your ability, your responsibility.
Alongside Duty exists Faith, I would suggest. The internet dictionary tells us Faith is the complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Was it a sense of duty or unshakeable Faith that led a young Baptist pastor to a backwaters black college in Washington, D.C. in 1926? It was faith in the coming of a better time that steeled President Mordecai Johnson for the duty before him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai_Wyatt_Johnson Why did Howard Law School Dean Charles Hamilton Houston work himself into an early grave in 1950? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hamilton_Houston It was faith in a duty owed to black law students like Thurgood Marshall and others to steel his charges for the litigation road ahead. Why did Principal George B. Vashon in August 1862 rise up in an Open Letter to President Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln doubted the future for blacks in America. Where was their faith ? Vashon put it to Lincoln plainly, the faith of black people was unshakeable. They felt worthy of themselves. Where was their faith in 1862? Their faith was in the coming of a better time.
I liked your discussion of Duty. The constant companion of Duty in American history has been Faith. Every American from the Battle of Brooklyn (Washington) to the Battle of Petersburg (Grant) to the Battle of San Juan Hill (Roosevelt) has always known Faith. Should we forget Faith, I wonder if Duty alone will suffice. Just a thought on an otherwise penetrating essay. Faith need not be organized religion. Faith does require innermost conviction. Always has, always will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC5Y3c9Z6CQ
You're absolutely right. Type A: God, America, Self. I would not want to live in a nation without the Faithful, because life often throws you into the foxhole. But our society doesn't bear it well, I'm sad to say. This is definitely a deep set of weeds. We must jump in.
Brian Lamb is great. We have worried about losing the republic since its beginning. The schools have been an unreliable ally in my attempts to teach my kids about how good we have it, & why. They get a lot about the failings and imperfections of the country, and not nearly enough about the successes. Although Mearsheimer's realist approach to international relations is the lens that I look through, & I agree with him about his gratitude for being born into a liberal republic (although he uses the word democracy), I part company with him when he says the USA isn't an exceptional nation. Perhaps he thinks so because he views us as just one more Great Power. There have been Great Powers throughout history, & they do share goals, traits, and methods. If realism treats relations between nations as being between black boxes, where internal politics and forms of government make no difference at all in their relations, I would say that at least those internal politics and forms of government make a great deal of difference to those living in those countries. I should find out if he's ever written about the American Civil War. That, plus more than a century of an unguarded border with Canada, are why I think that sometimes a form of government does make a difference in foreign relations. A strong argument against that is that there almost certainly would have been a second general European war with or without the Nazi party taking control in Germany.
I'm unsure about nationalism as what needs to be restored, vs patriotism. A number of people have made solid arguments as to why patriotism is better than nationalism. My objection, to what I would otherwise agree with, is that nationalism is defined almost exclusively as a belief of superiority of one nation over another, and as the justification for conquest. I can't abide that because of numerous counter-examples, including the Nationalist side in the Spanish civil war. Franco, following the Civil War, had no interest in further war or conquest.
I hope that the upcoming 250th anniversary increases patriotism.
I should investigate what I think to be the difference between nationalism and patriotism. At first glance, I think the object of patriotic desire is more the people. It's emotional. Whereas nationalism is more disciplined, economic and legalistic. It seems to me, for example, a patriot would love everyone to be an American with no means testing whatsoever. But you're right to suspect a jingoistic edge to harder nationalisms. Much to consider.
I was going to write more, but my writing spiraled into railing against the lack of assimilation of immigrants, which is not the point! I don't see any conflict between a focus on economic & legal discipline with patriotism. A conversation for a later date.
I miss Jim Lehrer too. Did you read his book Crown Oklahoma? I miss trusting the talking heads on TV. I did trust him and some others to provide insight on the news. Now I can’t trust news people to provide the news.
Thank you for another thought provoking column.
I almost never read the work of journalists outside of their journalism. The exceptions are when they are capable of biography or history and R.W. Apple's "Apple's America".
The thing about the military is that people think it will teach them things: discipline, duty, a useful skill in the civilian world. Mostly it doesn't, or you learn the kind of skills that will get you ten years in Club Fed if you try to use them on Main Street. Looking back on those "what if I..." choices will drive you crazy. Don't do it.
Yes, I hear you. I was a Teamster after I dropped USC, and I quickly learned what I should and should not do. My intelligence was constantly insulted and I was the newb at the back of the line. So I feel like I knew very well the distance between management and union paralleled that of officers and enlisted men. I also realized that every skill was reduced to that world. Not your ability, your responsibility.
Alongside Duty exists Faith, I would suggest. The internet dictionary tells us Faith is the complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Was it a sense of duty or unshakeable Faith that led a young Baptist pastor to a backwaters black college in Washington, D.C. in 1926? It was faith in the coming of a better time that steeled President Mordecai Johnson for the duty before him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai_Wyatt_Johnson Why did Howard Law School Dean Charles Hamilton Houston work himself into an early grave in 1950? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hamilton_Houston It was faith in a duty owed to black law students like Thurgood Marshall and others to steel his charges for the litigation road ahead. Why did Principal George B. Vashon in August 1862 rise up in an Open Letter to President Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln doubted the future for blacks in America. Where was their faith ? Vashon put it to Lincoln plainly, the faith of black people was unshakeable. They felt worthy of themselves. Where was their faith in 1862? Their faith was in the coming of a better time.
I liked your discussion of Duty. The constant companion of Duty in American history has been Faith. Every American from the Battle of Brooklyn (Washington) to the Battle of Petersburg (Grant) to the Battle of San Juan Hill (Roosevelt) has always known Faith. Should we forget Faith, I wonder if Duty alone will suffice. Just a thought on an otherwise penetrating essay. Faith need not be organized religion. Faith does require innermost conviction. Always has, always will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC5Y3c9Z6CQ
You're absolutely right. Type A: God, America, Self. I would not want to live in a nation without the Faithful, because life often throws you into the foxhole. But our society doesn't bear it well, I'm sad to say. This is definitely a deep set of weeds. We must jump in.