America has been successful at blending the two, but I was taught to put religion in the front seat and nationalism in the back.

Can't one conquer without creating the vanquished?

Heck, I'll probably turn it into a D5GW post, either way…

Excellent writing again.

“I don't understand how the loss of credibility to the world stage can't be a blow to the chin of every intellectual patriot. I”

Credability in what sense? Credability meaning reliably pleasing European sentimentalities? Credability in that the heads-of-state who we spent most of the 1990s going after (Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein) are dead and their imperial ambitions smashed? Or someway else?

“An example of lefty pragmatism I might proffer is Pelosi offering to fly commercial so she could go home in a reasonable amount of time. I”

Very similar to the righty pragmatism of the White House in defending Pelosi's right to use a military jet appropriate to her needs to get home. The Tancredo crowd of conservatives is both sickening and dangerous, and is rightly condemned.

“I would think the patriot would be the type to say “Let them blow up our bridges and banks, we shall not torture nor detain.”"

Would a patriot also say, “Let them attack our bases and ports, we shall not bomb nor injure.” Is your patriotism actually pacifism? Or is it the case that injuries our enemies, or making them feel bad, or hurting them especially badly, is wrong but killing them and their dreams is fine?

Curtis,

Props for cross-posting at Dreaming 5GW!

“The point is, I think, that conducting 5GW will be impossible for anyone who calls himself a patriot — whether jingoist or not — because the complex global system, static, and the necessity for co-optation will require loving one's enemies as well as we love ourselves.”

I don't understand this. Can't one embrace and conquer?

[1] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2007/03/patriotism_and_stumblingblocks.php#more

Um, no.

See this URL:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_04-06/fonte_ideological/fonte_ideological.html

You're absolutely right, and that's why I said what I did. The TNP perspective of “everyone's beliefs are just as valid as everyone else's” is complete and utter narcissistic nonsense! That's why more violent crimes are committed under UN jurisdiction than any other in the world. The TNPs don't care about results; just funding for their white Land Rovers and lifestyle.

Mike

Perhaps I was hasty in my boiling-down, but I definitely had the Never Forget crowd in mind when I equated patriotism to racism.

If we're talking about a more cerebral form of patriotism, however, I don't understand how the loss of credibility to the world stage can't be a blow to the chin of every intellectual patriot. I can't understand how true patriots would stand by while we engage in mental masturbation over Afghanistan (self-defense) while bobbling Iraq (imperialism).

To Jay@Soob, I say that I always espouse Democratic-ness because of my pragmatic nature. The Republican party's idealism doesn't appeal to me, although the far-left doesn't either… Maybe I'm just trying to follow the Google mantra of partisanship and “Don't Be Evil” simply won't allow me to swing righty A non-binding resolution was all we could muster, because a binding one wouldn't have gotten nearly the votes the non-binding one garnered. The point is to put chinks in the armor, or at least make Executive Branch pay attention. We could reach for the stars and fail spectacularly, or we could ask for an inch and maybe pull off a half-foot. An example of lefty pragmatism I might proffer is Pelosi offering to fly commercial so she could go home in a reasonable amount of time. I don't see a problem with it. The Right was apoplectic, although that could have been Fox News' doing. Perhaps the public didn't actually care.

To Mike I would say that having respect for the Holy Documents of America doesn't make you a racist at all. Rather, I would think a patriot would jeer their trampling by Executive Branch. However, I don't think I want to head down that road if you would be one of the types who thinks the 2nd Amendment is the most Holy. Many, TDAXP intermittently included, seem to think that the ends justify the means in some cases. I refer to the military tribunals, etc. I would think the patriot would be the type to say “Let them blow up our bridges and banks, we shall not torture nor detain.”

As far as Mike's second comment, I do not doubt that there are a number of statistics one might throw out to discredit UN-style governance, although I would ask what his alternative would be. Perhaps I'm too progressive in thinking that if we don't eventually move to a world-governance system, we shall never escape the bounds of planet Earth, which I deem highly necessary for our species' survival.

Regardless of whether I think others are entitled to their viewpoint, I have yet to receive my Land Rover Last I checked, it was the What's In It For Me? crowd that was driving expensive SUVs at 3rd World Countries expenses.

I don't believe I score under most of the checklist on TNPs. I tend to label the reparations crowd as crazies. I'm not terribly worked up about racial (or other classification) fairness in representation. I think there's something in there though… Do you know of a similar group who's more concerned with mankind's progress than my own chosen-viewpoint group's?

As for the Democrats “will” I'll withhold comment as it is decidedly as muddled as their Republican counterparts and consequently cannot be effectively qualified. A “non-binding” initiative doesn't seem to be “the will of the people” any more than “stay the course” was.