Making the rounds on twitter, thanks to Joshua Tait and his article at the Bulwark (and to Greg McBrayer, for bringing it to my attention), is an article written by Thomas Pangle in 1985 for National Review. Bearing the title “Patriotism American Style,” it’s a sober and, to my mind, prescient reflection on what one could call the problem of patriotism. It’s well worth a read, as I hope my brief comment below shows.
The essay begins with the following observation:
Patriotism implies the readiness, at least, for awesome sacrifice; and such sacrifice presupposes love. This love requires that we see our country as standing for something noble enough to dwarf our small lives, comforts, and happiness. But such love and such loving vision can be blinding. Patriotism, like every other form of loyalty or allegiance, must be judged by the intrinsic worth of that to which we give allegiance.
That is, in its noble form patriotism includes, however vaguely, some consideration of the good. It often consists of an appreciation of the nobility or venerability of one’s tradition, but in America it entails some examination of our founding principles and, consequently, the extent to which they have been achieved in practice. Patriotism thus takes on a peculiar character in America:
The questioning of America is not un-American; it is part of the very core of what it means to be a patriotic American.
As he says later, American life
calls each and all of us to an intellectual probity, an education in political theory, and an unending quest for self-knowledge as a people that is perhaps unprecedented. It is, indeed, so trying as to seem often to strain the capacities of our human—all too human—nature.
Hence (I suppose) the image included with the article in National Review:
(Someone told me I should put pictures in these posts.)
Now, the proper or politically healthy outcome of our “questioning patriotism” is, Pangle argues, a “reasonable pride.” But he is also sensitive to the fact that this unprecedented quest necessarily comes with unprecedented risks. The first risky outcome Pangle lists is also the most obvious, namely, a “morbidly self-hating and indignant cynicism about America.” The second outcome, also predictable, is a “nostalgic lament” for “some early Golden Age during which respect for pristine virtue flourished.” It isn’t difficult for us to find examples of these possibilities, especially the first.
The third, however, is “a new mythic Americanism” (emphasis mine), according to whose proponents (Pangle names Harry Jaffa and his followers) America is “the direct heir to classical political philosophy and in particular the Aristotelian tradition.” Pangle maintains that this plainly mythic understanding of America necessarily blurs
the distinction between scholarship and poetry…[thus] creating thin poetry and compromised scholarship.…Those who seek to maintain the myth are compelled to obscure, with feverish zeal, the true roots of the nation.…[F]rom the fever spreads the germ of nihilism. (emphasis mine)
This rather scathing indictment reaches its apex in the essay’s final paragraph, where Pangle writes,
A call to patriotism that claims to find in our national tradition the fulfillment of every high standard proposed by the theological and philosophical wisdom of the ages will not only be untrue to our tradition; such a call will earn the distrust rather than the allegiance of America’s best youth.
To whom, we wonder, will they turn instead?
I must clarify that I do not endorse the article in all its details. Some of the points Jaffa makes in his reply seem important, though beyond my expertise to assess. Nevertheless, Pangle’s concern that such mythologizing risks earning distrust rather than allegiance does deserve some attention, especially in light of the vast scholarly criticism of the recent “1776 Report.” Tait makes much of such criticism; some might say too much. Nevertheless, this criticism, valid or not, does expose the limited persuasiveness of this approach and the disrepute (or guilt by association) that necessarily awaits similar attempts.
Still, this controversy seems to me beside the point. The real merit of Pangle’s essay is his articulation of the problem of patriotism and, moreover, the distinctively American form that problem takes today. Cynicism, nostalgia, and novel but weak mythologizing do seem like permanent possibilities for such a questioning patriotism as is ours. This is worth thinking about. Cognizance of this problem may well serve as a new wellspring of that now much depleted political resource, moderation—a moderation Pangle nicely names “reasonable pride.”
If you’d like a pdf of the article and Jaffa’s reply, feel free to send me an email: alexpriou@gmail.com.