PATRIOTISM IS RELATIVE, NOT ABSOLUTE
Patriotism is relative, not absolute. As a concept, patriotism is an expression of nationalism, and nationalism can be either negative or positive, reactionary or progressive, depending on circumstances. Patriotism may have had its origins in the quest for social rights but over the centuries it has largely come to mean loyalty to the state — at times, in America, unquestioning loyalty.
The overwhelming majority of people in the United States profess to be patriotic to one extent or another. A year ago, a Pew Research Center opinion poll revealed that 54% of the American people described themselves as "very patriotic" without qualification; 38% said they were "mostly very patriotic." In another poll, after the invasion of Afghanistan but before the invasion of Iraq, and ABC/Washington Post poll showed that 97% were "proud" of the U.S. Armed Forces.
In many instances, Washington's call to patriotism and to "love of country," has been misused to coerce people to support the reactionary policies of the ruling administration, particularly its unjust wars such as President Bush's invasion of Iraq. Occasionally, it has positive, progressive connotations, such as when the Roosevelt administration invoked patriotism to galvanize the American people in defense of the U.S. and much of the rest of the world from an attack by fascist imperialism.
World War II provides other examples as well. The "patriotism" of the great majority of the German people in supporting Adolf Hitler's Nazi war of aggression was a negative, reactionary, anti-Semitic expression of nationalism. Those Germans who openly opposed Hitler's policies — most of whom were vilified for being "unpatriotic," and were beaten, exiled, imprisoned or more likely murdered — were expressing the best interests of the German nation and the world. Who were the patriots in this situation — those who supported the regime or those who opposed it?
Consider the Vietnam War. Those American "patriots" who supported Washington's war against the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam and North Vietnam were backing a reactionary manifestation of nationalism based on foreign aggression. Americans who opposed this policy were called "unpatriotic," and were instructed to "love America or leave it," or to "Go back to Moscow." By the late 1960s the majority of the population was against the war. They believed they were supporting the best interests and democratic traditions of the United States and of the world. Who were the patriots — those who supported the government of the United States when its policies were wrong or those who sought to change those policies?
(Almost a month and a half after Sept. 11, 2001, in our first demonstration in Kingston against a war with the Kabul government, an evidently "patriotic" passing motorist shouted at this writer, "Go back to Afghanistan!" Around the same time, the Mid-Hudson National People's Campaign received quite a few telephoned death threats from local numbers, almost all containing the words, "unpatriotic." We also received several calls from people who claimed to be progressives who urged us not to organize a peace protest because it would be "provocative.")
Consider also the war against Iraq, particularly taking the following points into account: (1) The rationale for the war — Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction destined for use against the United States, and Baghdad's alleged connection to the 9/11 raids — has been proven to be false. Iraq neither took steps to harm the U.S. nor was it capable of doing so with a weak, ill-equipped defense force and a sanctions-created dysfunctional economy. (2) The policy of "preemptive" war is illegal in terms of the UN Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, and dozens of additional statutes. The war itself is not only illegal but unjust and immoral in terms of being inconsistent with established religious and ethical doctrines. (3) The idea of "liberating" Iraq only came into vogue as a last-minute justification after the U.S. government's argument for the war was exposed as a right-wing fabrication. What kind of "liberation" is it for the Iraqi people to have their independence, sovereignty and dignity violated as their country is occupied and governed by a foreign state?
The Iraqi war was not imposed upon the American people by the regime in Baghdad. It was imposed upon them by the regime in Washington, under false pretenses, in order to expand its hegemony throughout the Middle East and the world. The war is an example of reactionary nationalism par excellence. Despite this, the government, the corporate mass media, and virtually all the institutions of society acting in concert insist that the masses of people support the war as an act of patriotism, as though it was a positive and progressive act. Who are the patriots in this situation? Are they those who claim they are expressing "love" for their country by supporting government policy based on right-wing aggression, or those who oppose such a policy?
So-called "patriots" who wrap themselves in the flag (regardless of what is done in the name of that emblem) demand to know of peace-minded Americans, "Don't you support the troops in Iraq?" This is an intentionally deceptive question that substitutes for putting forward a convincing argument in support of the war. It is intended to portray opponents of war as lacking patriotism and not loving their country, a decisive indictment at a time of government-induced hyperpatriotism. Charges such as this are inevitable in a society where people pledge allegiance to an emotionally charged national symbol (the flag and the state for which it stands), not to a set of concrete progressive ideals or even the society's founding democratic principals. Indeed, those principles, such as the protection of individual liberties by the Bill of Rights, have often been ignored by these same "patriots" in the name of national security. Examples include the Palmer Raids of several decades ago, the internment of Japanese-Americans in the 1940s, McCarthyism and loyalty oaths in the 1950s, intrusive FBI surveillance in the 60s and 70s, and Bush-Ashcroftism at present.
If by "supporting the troops" is meant backing an unjust war — and that is invariably what is intended — the principled response to the question can only be "no," with an explanation. Logically, in this situation, the progressive position is to support the resistance to the invasion and occupation in both the United States and Iraq. There are, of course, different ways of saying "no." One of them is to declare, "I believe the war is unjust, so I support the troops by calling on the Bush administration to withdraw from Iraq and bring them home immediately."
There is something to be said for the expression, "My country, right or wrong." But the phrase has two interpretations, one implying knee-jerk loyalty to the state, the other implying an individual's civic responsibility to insure that the state adheres to progressive principles. For example:
(1) To some, it means automatic support for whatever actions Washington chooses to take, often at a moment of real or government-contrived peril. This appears to be the definition of the so-called "patriots" who claim the peace movement is "selling out America" by opposing the war in Iraq.
(2) To others, generally those of a progressive bent whom the right-wing characterizes as "unpatriotic" for criticizing the war, the "right or wrong" phrase means to support the country (i.e., the govenment) when it is right and to work toward changing government policies or the regime itself when it is wrong.
Of the two interpretations, the second one has been responsible for the good things about America, starting with 1776, when many colonists considered it patriotic to fight a war to overthrow the existing state to rid themselves from an oppressive regime. Colonists who remained loyal to the British monarchy viewed the rebels as unpatriotic. Decades later, was it unpatriotic to oppose slavery before it was abolished because it happened to be the law of the U.S. government? Was it unpatriotic to support the women's suffrage campaign when only men had the vote and male-only balloting was the law and custom of the United States? Was it unpatriotic to oppose the unjust Iraq war? Of course not. In an important sense, the struggle against this war is also an effort to force the state to adhere to its own expressed rhetoric about sovereignty, independence, legality, nonaggression, mutual respect, and engaging in wars only as a "last resort."
Many people in the peace movement consider themselves patriots who love their country too much to remain silent when it perpetrates a colossal misdeed. And they think of the flag as being just as much theirs as that of the right-wingers and war mongers who attempt to appropriate it for themselves.
Others, including ourselves, are internationalists committed to left-wing political ideals concerning our world and its inhabitants. They do not necessarily claim to love a country or a flag in the abstract or make efforts to portray themselves as national patriots. But as responsible citizens committed to progressive ideals — which of course include a love of humanity regardless of national boundaries and actions to create a truly just society in the United States in fulfillment of a broader vision of world peace and cooperation — they seek to defend what is positive about the country and change what is negative, such as militarism, racism, and systemic economic and social inequality.
The important thing in terms of our movement for peace and social justice is that we remain strong and uncompromising in the face of those exponents of reaction in the White House and elsewhere who try to intimidate us by questioning our patriotism. It is this widespread reactionary form of "patriotism" — when the notion is used as a bludgeon to enforce conformity or adherence to a right-wing agenda — that perfectly fits the definition, "the last refuge of scoundrels."