Jason Kaminsky_ Persuasive Writing: Reaction Paper #2_ (10/13/08)
The topic for this paper arose out of a personal desire to understand my wavering inner sense of patriotism. Watching this great nation swallow itself with its own ego, while careening into financial ruin, has depleted some of my faith in our democracy. Should pride in this, or any other, country be showered unconditionally or does it need to be earned? In a nation where Gallup polls reveal that 69% of the population define themselves as “extremely” proud to be an American [1], a person who is on-the-fence may feel somewhat excluded from this national sentiment. Citing various sources, questions will be raised concerning American nationalism and its place in modern society. Examining the validity and soundness of our various source materials will also be discussed.
What is American nationalism? In the quarterly conservative politics and culture journal, The Public Interest, Writer Michael Barone [2] authors an article discussing the strength of American nationalism. He describes nationalist politics as “a basis for governance” that is adaptable for implementation in other national settings (p 42). His position is that the politics of socialism and liberalism are unsuccessful because they do not have the nationalist’s shared sense of pride, which serves to hold its people together (p 51). Barone argues, to a conservative audience, that our system is superior and should be viewed as such.
For nationalists, shared values are a source of political strength. Believing that a nation’s way of life and system of government are superior to another has become the fundamentals of our empiricism. If we spread democracy abroad, then we are somehow performing a God given duty to the world. The author then suggests that, “We should not be shy about boasting these principles,” (p 52) explaining that those countries around the world which adopt democracy and strong nationalist parties will be less likely to go to war with other democratic nations (p 54). Nationalism, as for as this particular writer is concerned, is a core set of values shared by the people, which drives us to globally implement our highly effective and superior brand of government. The Public Interest’s conservative views and specific target audience should be noted here. The opinions expressed by the writers in this journal will be most likely be providing a biased source of information.
Does the government use national pride as a tool for political action? In the scholarly Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History [3], historian A.G. Hopkins talks about the uncertainty accompanying our nation’s rapid economic growth in the 20th century. He believes that the affects of globalism on older industries, created a level of national anxiety. This fear concerning our future transformed, “conservative patriotism into assertive nationalism after 9/11” (p 95).
To further his point, the author invokes the political theories of Italian sociologist Vilfredo Paret in order to make his claim that the conservative and liberal elite in America are similar to the analogy of the Lion and the Fox. The conservative lion stands for tradition and will use force to protect it if necessary, while the liberal fox seeks to combine ideas and grow through persuasion (p 97).
“Forceful nationalism,” as Hopkins refers to it, is the result of lion’s assertive character and strong nationalist views, which drive its response to world affairs. In response to the 9/11 attacks, the neo-conservatives found their call to action, “resonated with long standing and deeply-held conservative beliefs embodied in the notion of American exceptionalism, which held that the United States was the ultimate custodian of liberty and democracy and had a duty to defend them against assailants at home and abroad” (p 105). With this idea in mind, we can see how our sense of national duty and pride could be a collective force by which the government can gain support for its foreign policy. The soundness of this argument is stronger than the previous article, because it has less of a conservative bias. It also leans less heavily on the basis of opinion.
How have “family values” affected nationalist sentiment? Eric Celeste, writer for the Star-Telegram Newspaper [4], talks about the origins of this concept in America, beginning with the “family values” speech given by Dan Quail in 1992, which specifically pointed to impoverished African Americans. The term has grown to also encompass the more modern conservative definition of Middle American, God-fearing, and proud. Celeste cites the very beginnings of American family values with George Washington who told the people, “his public policies would be grounded in the principles of private morality” (p 1). The author takes jabs at The Missouri Department of Human Services for its encouraging of “traditional family values,” as opposes to those who promote, as he says, non-traditional values like, “sloth or a dislike of football.” Celeste later refers to this value system as propaganda because of its use as a blanket statement with no real definition. The author gives this movement limited credibility for it’s ability to define itself, but does make note of the undeniable significance of people’s reactions when asked about their own family values. Politicians often use personal connections to issues to inspire fear that our individual sense of family will somehow be stripped away from us. Although one might trust in a newspaper article as a definite source of credible information, the reader must consider the author’s more liberal view towards family values.
Nationalism and pride seem to be essential to a society’s cohesiveness, but it appears that their application seems to be more political than interpersonal. Fear seems to be the root of much of our sensibility as a nation, and appears to be the mechanism used to operate and maneuver the national consciousness. Fear has prevented us from questioning the choices our leaders have been making, but it is our crushing national ego that blinds us to our own weaknesses. If we cannot learn from our mistakes, how can we grow as a nation?
*My Wikipedia addition was placed in the article about “pride.” Under the heading of United States, I entered a definition for pride as quoted by the United Nations in the year of its formation, 1945. However, the quote was from letter written by Hitler, in regards to how a government should be running a nation. It has now been 5 days since the original post, and it still has not been removed. Who is fact checking this website? How can we be sure that anything found on Wikipedia is true? Is it possible now to rewrite our entire history by chipping away at its truth with these kinds of small and undetected lies? The thought of that is rather frightening.
References
[2] Barone, M. (1993). The triumph of american nationalism. Public Interest, (111), 41-55.
[4] Celeste, E. (1999, Family values are: A. A cheap political slogan designed to get your vote - b. the thing that holds the country together - c. best defined by needs of a particular family - answer: All of the above. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, pp. 1.
[1] Fetto, J. (2000). Patriot games. American Demographics, 22(7), 48-49.
[3] Hopkins, A. G. (2007). Capitalism, nationalism and the new american empire. Journal of Imperial & Commonwealth History, 35(1), 95-117.
No comments:
Post a Comment