It's been common, in recent years, to hear defensive-sounding complaints from "the left", protesting loudly that, yes, they love their country just as much as Republicans do -- and counter-attacking that Republicans are really the unpatriotic ones. In fact, a case can be made (here, for example) that liberals make this charge far more often than conservatives do.

Frankly, in my biased opinion, I suspect the problem is that conservative arguments, when made effectively, can seem to make Democratic stances and actions appear harmful. And that Democrats thus can't help but feel that their feelings or intentions were impugned.

Why? I suspect this is because, in their minds, only people with bad intentions support harmful policies. If you doubt this contention, simply listen to liberal rhetoric: When Republican actions are viewed as harming the poor, the charge is always "hatred" or "greed", and never simply "economic illiteracy" -- which is what we constantly charge them with.

(In all my years of debating these points, I have never once heard a liberal charge conservatives with "economic illiteracy." It doesn't seem to occur to them, in this area, that we could be well-meaning but mistaken. So I suspect they also can't concieve that if they have good intentions, they could do tremendous harm. Imply harm, and you automatically impugn the intentions -- in their way of thinking. Because the alternative is, literally, unthinkable.)

Defining "Patriotism"

So, getting back to the main point: What is patriotism?

Patriotism is, minimally, love for one's country. Since we were each born into some country, we owe that country a bit more than others -- just as we'd owe our own families a bit more than others. We have warm feelings towards them, and we do the dishes when it's our turn. But this doesn't necessarily mean we insist our families are better than all others -- simply because we were born into them. Such a view would be absurd! Only children think that way.

This is the liberal definition of patriotism. And it is, quite frankly, right and reasonable. So when a liberal says they are "patriotic", they mean that they have a feeling of love for their country, and that they feel they fulfill various minimal duties they owe their country by virtue of having been born here and benefitted from it.

And, to that extent, we conservatives certainly agree.

So what's the beef between us?

As a conservative, I don't simply value my country as the nation I was born. I see the US of God-blessed A as embodying a rare ideal which was found almost no-where on earth or in history: that of a limited, deliberately-thwarted federal government, of people who were given "inalienable" rights by "Nature, and Nature's God", of a strong informal system of religiously-informed morality, and a government which is not hostile to those values, but instead exists mainly to guard their free expression.

So there are two things going on: I love my country because I was born here and owe it as much, but I also love this "American way". If I were to suddenly find I was born into another country -- with my values otherwise intact -- I would do my best to be loyal to that country. But I would, values-wise, perfer the American system. As a Soviet, I would have served my country, but I also would have wished for an American-style government, with property rights et al. (I could be patriotic and, in Soviet eyes, traitorous all at once.)

"Liberals" don't usually share this affinity, in my experience.

First, they tend to see America as just another country. Simply being born here doesn't make it special! True, but there are people born all around the world who believe in this "American ideal" -- and many of them pay a great price to move here. So there's more going on than just birth-location.

Regarding distinctions, they'll usually focus on materialistic aspects and differences. I can understand that, but I see those as the result of the American ideal. (Otherwise, we should prefer Monaco, which has more millionaires people per capita than any other nation.)

When liberals see us conservatives going beyond minimal patriotism to defend this "American ideal", they often seem to think we're only doing so because we were born here, and don't know any better. Again, like touchingly naive children who still think their mommy or daddy is the best in the world.

(The same motive is imputed to our religious beliefs.)

Often, they call this behavior "dangerous" "nationalism". According to some, we're uninformed and unquestioning hicks, "rednecks" (quoting the Dixie chicks), or sheep, operating at the level of the child I've described above. They don't understand our affinity for the American ideal could be a reasoned and philosophical one, because they themselves don't share that particular conviction, to the same extent.

So they often perceive our devotion as a fluke of our birth-location, combined with enthnocentrism and/or skilled political maneuvering, and conclude we'd be avid Nazi supporters if born in Germany. "Hyper patriotism" = Nazism.

If they believe in a historical "American ideal", they see it differently: they believe in a history of the US which is, frankly, more like the actual history of France, as if our country was created to ensure the victory of secularism. Or they find our past horrid and regretable (a-la Howard Zinn), the American "ideal" mere myth or cynicism -- promoted only to justify war and economic disparity -- and thus support the idea of "progress" away from those dark ages of ignorance.

But usually, it simply comes down to just seeing America as another country -- just the one they happened to be born into. And not much more.

For example, after noting that America was better materially than many other places, one reader recently commented:

I'm slightly biased towards America, since I'm interested in American security. I want the US to have nuclear bombs but I don't want Iran to have them, for instance. And I can think of no fair standard to justify that stance.

I sure can: We're a pluralistic democracy that safeguards speech and property rights. Moreover, we have no stated intention to wipe out another country, nor impose a mandatory religious system on anyone. To paraphrase Reagan, I want our system to win, and theirs to lose.

(It astounds me that this isn't clear to non-conservatives and doesn't leap to their minds, but, hey, that's what a college education can do for you. ;-))

I believe our culture and values are objectively better than those which Iran wants to see dominate the mideast and (if you listen closely) the US. And I make no apologies for this stance. I think it's better for women to have a choice in their clothing, or whether to get an education. I think it's better to allow other religions than one. I don't think people should be beaten for not praying enough.

Is that a "fair" standard for supporting the US? The belief the American ideal is better than the Iranian one? No, it isn't, if you imbibe the standard tentants of secularism. In that view, no culture is better than another. By that rule, it's blasphemous to say our culture is superior to theirs, and downright dangerous.

Impacting the Debate

In the conservative mind, we are at war to protect American Way, and the main thing is that everyone contribute, or at least not undermine the effort. Conservatives are therefore mainly concerned about what people people do, to what effect, and what works.

Thus, conservatives will make generally complaints about actions and stances: "You don't support the troops; your actions undermine the administration's efforts; your behavior was treasonous; you compromised our security." In the conservative's mind, these are about the impact of what is done and said.

Frankly, conservatives could care less what the motives were. It doesn't concern them much. Generally, they don't care if you were misinformed, or have different values, or have a different way of expressing your patriotism, or are just being anti-Bush, or if you truly have bad motives. They just don't want to give terrorists the upper hand, and get mad when you do things that seem, to them, to benefit our "enemies".

Think of it as a football game: If one player keeps giving the ball to the other team, you'd be more concerned about that fact than you would be worried about their feelings and intentions for doing so. You're not sure if they're incompetant, confused about the rules, whether they think they're helping their team build character, or were bribed by the other side.

Mostly, you'd just want them to stop that, please.

This is why conservatives point out when our enemies quote Democrats approvingly. Not because they are utterly convinced Dick Durbin, Jimmy Carter, or John Kerry mean to help terrorists or dictators. They're just mad that the results appear to "give aid and comfort" to the enemy.

Conversely, since liberals are obsessed (in my experience) with the goodness of their intentions and inner motives, they can't help but see such criticism as attacks on said intentions. So if a conservative makes a case that liberals are more concerned about fighting Bush than national security -- even in cases when it is demonstrably true -- they will feel you meant to attack their good intentions toward their country -- i.e. their "patriotism".

They are projecting their way of thinking onto their opponents.

Conclusion

I wish I could see some way out of this, but my only hope is that by clarifying these differences, each side will better understand the other. And perhaps even change a few minds.

Or, if I'm wrong, that someone can correct me and show me the error of my ways -- that would also be helpful. And, if so, you're welcomed to do so in the comments section below.

Appendix: A Few Straw Men

Finally, and inevitably, in response to arguments like those above, some straw man arguments will be raised. I'd like to close, but I know I must refute a few of these before doing so.

For one, the accusation is made that we are trading our rights for a police state: that our desire for security is undermining the very rights we imagine we're protecting.

I'm not saying the concern is illegitimate, but I've studied the matter, and concluded those charges are simply wrong. The Patriot Act, for example, is not the evil bogeyman the left makes it out to be. And what Bush is doing with NSA international intercepts is neither new (legally) nor illegal.

Another claim is that we conservatives support America "at all costs" or "by any means necessary." Again, of course not: I want our troops to be prosecuted when they commit atrocities. I don't want to see our right to free speech taken. And anyone who has read this blog knows I'm incredibly critical of the "realpolitik" approach this charge implies.

I'm also highly critical of many things my country has done in the past. I was aghast at the way GHWB betrayed the Kurds. I think it was terrible that we overthrew elected leaders in various countries. I didn't like Bush Sr.'s desire to support Saddam. And I think we've made many mistakes in the past.

Another: Conservatives don't value "peace", or don't give it a chance.

Of course we value peace. We just don't think "peace" is happening when a group of people talk endlessly at a meeting, while one side does nothing and the other kills people, or makes preparations to kill people or harm them. We feel that's an illusion of peace, and ultimately causes more harm than taking serious steps towards forcible containment or defense.