Patriotism in the age of extremes

What it means to be a citizen and an American is a central question asked by Steven B. Smith, professor of political philosophy at Yale University, in his new book Reclaiming Patriotism in the Age of Extremes (2021). In it, he tries to defend the concept of (American) patriotism, which was lost in the symbolic struggle of two extreme ideologies of contemporary times – nationalism and cosmopolitanism.

For Smith, patriotism is a sentiment, namely love for one’s country. It is a relatively young phenomenon, its beginnings dating back to the 18^th and 19^th centuries. The modern state – the home of liberal democracy – has since become a fundamental way of people organizing into political communities. It brough about a new form of human affiliation – not to a clan, tribe or religious community, but to the state and the community of fellow citizens liable under the same laws in the same courts. The respect and belonging we feel for our country and fellow citizens is for Smith a sentiment of patriotism.

Patriotism is also a virtue that is expressed as a practice of responsible behavior towards the community (fellow citizens) and its institutions – a good patriot is someone who respects the constitutional order and certain democratic rules, who pays taxes and does not abuse power in order to benefit to the detriment of the community. And like any virtue, it can – according to Aristotle’s logic – degenerate into an extreme phenomenon due to absence or excess. For Smith these are cosmopolitanism on the one side and nationalism on the other side of the spectrum.

Cosmopolitanism (multiculturalism and globalism) has its roots in the Western world in Christianity and Stoicism, which advocate respect and loyalty to all people – brothers and sisters in this world or in this kingdom of God. It developed even more as the idea of the European project of enlightenment, for Smith a noble idea of universal moral responsibility to all people or a universal human standard. The practical (political) applicability of this idea has been realized in the form of universal human rights, which inevitably belong to all people, and the global cooperation of (national) states to ensure global peace and economic development.

Today, we could say that cosmopolitanism is an ideology of elites – a globally mobile class with a standard of living that most people in this world – even in developed societies – cannot afford. Global liberal capitalism shows tendencies to expropriate the working class – of both economic wealth and political power. Namely, it caused huge differences in wealth between people (fellow citizens), and at the same time it transferred the centers of political decision-making to fields that are no longer accessible to ordinary citizens. Thus, it is not surprising that those who do not reap the fruits of the liberalization and globalization of the capitalist economy have organized themselves as a political entity against cosmopolitan elites.

The extreme on the opposite side of the spectrum is nationalism, which Smith understands as too much patriotism and which is characterized by unconditional loyalty to one’s country. Especially in the European tradition, the state is understood as an ethnic-historical political formation, a community whose members are united on the basis of lineage, land, and the historical struggle for emancipation. They are thus bound by common ancestors with a common tradition in a particular territory. Nationalism means blind loyalty to such a state and nation – nationalists do not care if their country is good, if it is just – only thing important is that it is “ours” and ethnically and culturally “pure”.

The problem with nationalism arises when (ethno) nationality becomes the fundamental and only identity of a person, which people cling to in search of their lives’ meaning, and loyalty to the state or nation becomes primary and exclusive to other loyalties people have. Nationality and its “purity” then begin to be used as a means of excluding different and dissenting fellow citizens, often through violence. Nationalism is also characterized by an authoritarian style of politics and a sense of absolute superiority over other countries and cultures, accompanied by a tendency to impose one’s ideology and culture on others.

The symbolic struggle between nationalism and cosmopolitanism has in recent years captured the attention of the public of Western countries and begun to dominate the public field of political discourse. The apparent choice between only the two extremes has led to a high polarization of Western societies, and as a result, trust among fellow citizens and loyalty to the community, which are the conditions for the existence of all social institutions, have collapsed in these countries. In his new book, Smith seeks to separate patriotism from these two extreme ideologies, but does not seek so much to set universal standards for patriotism, but seeks to revive a particular kind of patriotism specific for the United States.

Unlike the European tradition, American patriotism does not mean loyalty to the family, but loyalty to the idea. The United States is an “imagined community” based on the fundamental principles of the American way of life, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In the case of the USA, it is a regime of constitutionally guaranteed political rights, (capitalist) representative democracy and the limited power of the state. The foundations of their political order and culture are also human rights, individual freedom, private property, individualism and the pursuit of happiness.

For such a system to be successful, it needs from its citizens what Smith calls enlightened patriotism, which he understands as respect and loyalty to the American democratic regime and way of life as enshrined in the founding documents. It is therefore a matter of loyalty to a just regime, and the task of a patriot is to try to maintain that justice through his actions and to resist the regime when it becomes unjust.

A special patriotic virtue in this context is something Smith calls constitutional self-restraint. The Constitution itself is supposed to be primarily intended to limit power, but Smith is aware that political activity is always motivated by interests and aimed at achieving goals, which requires special personal character traits from the holders of power. In a situation where power could be abused to achieve one’s own benefit to the detriment of the community, enlightened patriotism requires the power bearer not to do so – because it is not patriotic.

Constitutional Democrats are also separated from tyrants by an awareness of their own, human fallibility, which allows them to accept the fact that they might be wrong and that the best solution is one that has been tested by a wider circle of people – especially those who disagree with the solution. For a constitutional democrat, politics is fair when it’s played through a certain process – that political games take place according to pre-known and agreed rules, through public discussion and testing of solutions, and the widest possible group of stakeholders must be involved in the process.

In the conclusion of the book, Smith describes the fundamental components that make up the American regime and civic character, and make it special, if not exceptional, compared to other arrangements and cultures. In the field of constitutional order, these are equality, the rule of law, limited power, pluralism and respect for diversity, and in the field of culture there is artistic creation, research and invention, economic development, transcendental individualism and faith in the good – all things worth fighting for.