U.S. Nationalism, “Glory Days” and the Power of “Great Expectations”

“Glory Days. Well they’ll pass you by…In the wink of a young girl’s eye…” – “The Boss,” Bruce Springsteen

Great expectations presume that what you expect, in your mind, is great, even if it is not. Listening to the phrase, “Make America Great Again” for the past three years, I have come to see its power. Not only the power in electing a President but the power of hope; a hope seeking refuge in the past and steered by nationalism.

Imagine being the one or the group that feels they were “dealt a bad hand” especially when it comes at you fast. How does one change a culture of customs, familiarity of community tied to one’s work, land, and pride of country?

Almost without warning, change affects everything one holds dear. Overnight, one feels their life is slipping. Unlike the big and fast moving cities, in mid America, one looks to those nostalgic days. In states like Iowa, some may look to Grant Wood.

Grant Wood is best known for his iconic painting, “American Gothic.” But I wish to draw attention to one of his many other works that depicts peaceful landscapes, “Fall Plowing.” Some residents of Cedar Rapids reportedly questioned whether the paintings gave an actual depiction of their city. At the time, some argue, life was not as beautiful as Woods painted it. Perhaps, they saw the change that was to come. But where could they go?

Americans have become so conditioned to the rights and privileges their country has granted them for almost three centuries that living under a different regime seems improbable for some and impossible for others. Even the 50 states are different from each other, as are their cities.

New York City and Cedar Rapids are as different as Italy’s Milan and the landscapes of Tuscany. Or Germany’s Berlin and Bavaria’s Füssen. An American in Texas may not see eye to eye with an American in California. One’s sense of identity is typically governed by the state one lives in and its respective history to the extent of how far back their family’s generations have lived there; a history that may also determine their sense of national consciousness and nationalism.  

In my early 2016 paper, Nationalism: A Dangerous & Powerful Weapon?, I argued that the power derived from nationalism and identity has been underestimated by some and manipulated by others. Consider the following words from part of a speech circa 2016:

“That we wish to remain British or Germans, for example, is obvious when we consider how much importance we attach to our respective languages and cultures. And to football…or cricket…Yes, nation states are here to stay and that is a good thing because people need a home, they need identity.”     

The speech was clearly not delivered by an American national, but a European, Martin Schulz. Schulz, a German politician and former President of the European Parliament, delivered his speech to students of the London School of Economics on May 2, 2016. Schulz’s speech brings attention to some of nationalism’s pertinent topics.

How Will Nations Inherit the “The Wretched of the Earth” in “Turbulent Times”?

Nationalism, where did this idea come about?  I thought it best answered through special insight of scholars of various national viewpoints:

According to Irish political scientist Benedict Anderson, nationalism is an “imagined political community.” Yet, British historian E. J. Hobsbawm argues that it is an “optical illusion” brought up after the 1700s with its origins in Europe and spread. It is a “historical phenomenon.” What is the view held by the French poet, author and politician Aimé Césaire’s? For him “the nation is a bourgeoisie phenomenon.” Yet, Frantz Fanon does not seem to see the wonder in it.

Frantz Fanon, French West Indian psychiatrist, political philosopher, revolutionary, and writer from the French colony of Martinique is “one of the most important writers in black Atlantic theory.” Fanon sees the “nation” as a problem and that “we shall analyze the problem, which is felt to be fundamental, of the legitimacy of the claims of a nation.”

In Fanon’s “Les Damnés de la Terre” (The Wretched of the Earth), he argues that “National consciousness, which is not nationalism, is the only thing that will give us an international dimension. If man is known by his acts, then we will say that the most urgent thing today for the intellectual is to build up his nation.” It seems that Fanon prefers to stop at a peoples’ consciousness of sharing a language, culture, and ethnicity without it being representative of a nation and defending its state.

Though such thinking may be deemed necessary for promoting a pride in ones heritage, it is clearly insufficient for those whose nationality is also tied to patriotism and the symbolism reflected in national identity. Hanah Arendt offers a unique and pertinent perspective.

Hannah Arendt, American political theorist of German descent argues that “Because only savages have nothing more to fall back upon than the minimum fact of their human origin, people cling to their nationality all the more desperately when they have lost the rights and protection that such nationality once gave them. Only their past with its “entailed inheritance” seems to attest to the fact that they still belong to the civilized world.” I find Arendt’ argument shows people’s contempt of what they deem lesser mortals and attempts to separate themselves from the beasts.  

Leah Greenfeld, “the great historian of Nationalism,” and Professor of Sociology, Political Science, and Anthropology offers some distinct key insights. She points out that “Unlike the case in so many other nations, American national identity was not sustained by the hatred of the other; it knew no ressentiment. The free, and no longer British, Americans needed not and could not afford to brood over real or imagined offenses in the past….” Some may dispute her argument as such viewpoints do not appear to be held in today’s America. Then again, she is speaking of the past, which begs the question, “What has evoked this new thinking towards others?”

Also, if by “the other”, Greenfeld means Europeans she is likely correct. These once British and now Americans, who took possession of an expansive land they called America, had no need to retain ties with the rest of Europe. However, I imagine the native Indians would be the ones who harbored real “hatred of the other… ressentiment” as they were offended and no longer free.

American Allies and “Democratic” Misrepresentations

America’s Star-Spangled Banner and national anthem have been powerful symbols. Yet, nationalism conjures up different perspectives and images for different people.

According to Samuel P. Huntington, “In the final decades of the 20th century, however, the United States’ Anglo-Protestant culture and the creed that it produced came under assault by the popularity in intellectual and political circles of the doctrines of multiculturalism and diversity; the rise of group identities…dual nationalities and dual loyalties…” Case in point: some Democratic political non-elites who offend America and her Allies, specifically the State of Israel.

Madame Secretary, your House is not in order.  Let me be clear, critique of U.S. policy and those of other nations is not in dispute here. By all accounts, it readily appears that the Democratic House Speaker failed in her “leadership” position to instruct some of her newly arrived members in knowing the difference between critique and insult.

First, accurate historical lessons need to be inculcated in those who apparently were sadly disenfranchised of such a privilege. Their shameful public spectacle of erroneous and loathsome words have been interpreted by some as disrespectful to the victims of the Genocide of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, Holocaust in Nazi Germany and German-occupied Europe and its persecution and Genocide of Jews, and Apartheid in South Africa. The suffering of each is incomparable.

Second, it would appear by some Democrat members’ words that representation of the interests of their constituents has been displaced by the interests of stakeholders from their ancestral countries. Dual loyalties or are they representing these countries’ interests under the guise of patriotism? Speaking of scoundrels…

“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” – Samuel Johnson

Patriotism

It is said that Samuel Johnson viewed patriotism as something to hold true as opposed to flaunting it falsely. It seems apropos that an Englishman, seemingly loyal to the King, would “call out” the British Americans for their apparent treasonous act of abandoning their country.

Amongst the newly arrived Founders, some “British Americans” feigned patriotism to America remaining loyal to the Crown. Similarly today, some newly arrived Democratic members have taken seats in Congress. Unlike past ingrates, they have auspiciously shown themselves for what they are and the country they are beholden to.  

When speaking of nationalism, one naturally asks how one’s identity is shaped by their country. For some, their country is linked or is synonymous to a patriarch or matriarch. Such correlation clearly shows the powerful attachment attributed to one’s country. But is it love of country or loyalty? There is a difference especially when differentiating between nationalism and patriotism.

Notes Hobsbawm, “the state confronted nationalism as a political force…distinct from ‘state patriotism.” In other words, patriotism is similar to nationalism but unlike nationalism’s heritage, patriotism is connected to ones relation to the State and defense of country.

According to Maurizio Viroli’s book “For Love of Country”, “loyalty to the nation’…patriotism has been used over the centuries to strengthen or invoke love of the political institutions and the way of life…[whereas]…nationalism was forged in the late eighteenth-century Europe to defend or reinforce the cultural, linguistic, and ethnic oneness and homogeneity of a people.”

Three centuries later, walls and borders came crashing down from countless wars and the influx of migration and refugees. Moreover, the impetus for globalization manifested itself in trade deals, the formation of the E.U. and creation of the Euro currency. The old world, oneness and its familiarity was becoming extinct transforming the globe.

Viroli’s argument that the enemy of patriotism is “tyranny, despotism, oppression, and corruption, the enemies of nationalism are cultural contamination…” suddenly seem distant memories. How does a true patriot abide by the laws of the nation state assuring the cultural bloodline remains pure? 

Clash of Cultures in “Turbulent Times”

Nationalism has clearly become a staple in a nations’ culture but will this continue or end? Prominent scholars are bleak and hopeful. No, “this does not mean that the national or the local are becoming extinct or irrelevant” says Steger. Yet, Hobsbawm is not so hopeful, “it is not impossible that nationalism will decline with the decline of the nation-state…the phenomenon is past its peak.” Not so says Anderson, “the reality is quite plain: the ‘end of the era of nationalism,’ so long prophesied, is not remotely in sight.” I’d agree with Anderson. Since his passing in 2015, nationalism has re-arisen with a vengeance, yet again.

The beginning and end of 2016 were very telling. President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz’s remark “We are living in turbulent times,” may have been a forewarning of what was to come. Donald Trump, the then Republican nominee for President of the United States, appears to have heeded Schulz’ words. Some, like Democratic nominee Hillary R. Clinton (HRC), seemingly did not.

HRCs reported statement describing some of Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables” appears to have added insult to injury to Americans who find government’s elites are not representing their interests. I was reminded of Arendt’s words in her 1951 book “The Origins of Totalitarianism” and Chapter on “The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man.” In it Arendt notes that:

“With the emergence of the minorities in Eastern and Southern Europe and with the stateless people driven into Central and Western Europe…Denationalization became a powerful weapon of totalitarian politics…made it possible for the persecuting governments to impose their standard of values even upon their opponents. Those whom the persecutor had singled out as scum of the earth-Jews, Trotskyites, etc.-actually were received as scum of the earth everywhere; those whom persecution had called undesirable became the indesirables of Europe.”

The bells of history rung and HRC appears to have heard them loud and clear. President Trump may have strategically utilized his political spheres of influence and power to address these “turbulent times” promoting “make America great.”

Sir, Mr. President, consider that returning to the past entails a return to a time of battles and wars. Recall, abolition of slavery came with a deadly price, for both the Yankees and Confederates, a century after these “brothers in arm” declared independence against a tyrant King.

Leading the Yankees, President Abraham Lincoln is noted in calling to “the better angels of our nature.”  It is not surprising that “U.S. intellectual, business, and political elites” continue to refer to these words. I hereto bestow my words:

Ladies and Gentlemen, we’re no angels. We are living and breathing men and women and whose actions and inactions of those in power make and control our world.

Madison may agree as he notes, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

If one accepts Aristotle’s noted observation that “Man is by nature a political animal” then the State is man’s creation. And with a country made up of 50 states, there is bound to be critics and skeptics. Madison argues, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” Michael Shermer’s observation is relevant, “Human nature’s constitution dictates the constitution of human society.”

As Huntington noted, “The United States’ national identity, like that of other nation-states, is challenged by the forces of globalization as well as the needs that globalization produces among people for smaller and more meaningful “blood and belief” identities.” To his point we are witnessing the impact of these forces in the West.

End of the “American Dream” and Nationalism?

The delineated borders put into place centuries ago have been ingrained in America’s culture. It can be argued that declaring ones independence from a King emboldened British men and women with a sense of “god given rights.” Naturally, the new owners of the land the British claimed as “their land” and named America saw it fit to shoot trespassers. Is it any wonder some clinch just a little bit tighter to their guns remembering those revolutionary days.

Since the days of the Founders, Americans are no stranger to the idea of defending their rights. Guns are in the blood, culture and history of Americans. Some of the people and times may have changed, but it is still the “wild west” in some respects.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 29, poses prescient and incredibly relevant questions to the current debate. He writes, “Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?” History tells us Hamilton did not judge correctly as he came face to face in a duel with this “shadow of danger” resulting from his own use of “fighting words.”

Some may agree with Hamilton that some of our brothers’ fears are unfounded. Yet, others feel justified in their mistrust of government and their neighbors, arguing that today’s countrymen do not share “the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests.” Not surprisingly, the country continues in the practice of “fighting words” irrespective of lessons of the past. What has changed? Everything, say the generations that followed Hamilton. For some, the “American Dream” like Hamilton is dead.

Has the idea of the “American Dream” been hijacked by special interests and deconstructed by the very people in search of it? Time will tell. Yet, for those who were betrayed by the country they’ve abandoned seeking refuge in the U.S., though they may not agree with the great expectations of the U.S. and pride in nationalism, they may wish to respect them. Otherwise, in due time, they may transform the America they ran to into the country they left behind; instability, no rights, no freedoms, no economic opportunities and for some corruption.

Arendt recognized that “Deadly danger to any civilization is no longer likely to come from without… The danger is that a global, universally interrelated civilization may produce barbarians from its own midst by forcing millions of people into conditions which, despite all appearances, are the conditions of savages.” Another example of globalization’s impact?

As for those who now feel “left behind” and are misguided in their attempt to “make America great” again, Iowa’s farmers may be amongst them. Given the ongoing “turbulent times”, it seems only natural for Iowa residents not to identify with such rich and glorious landscapes.

Sadly, but realistically, the country they knew left them and appears to have been replaced with the likes of an international port run by the engine of globalization. Americans may want to turn their focus away from the past to that of a future of “higher expectations.” Otherwise, they will resort to hating the other more than they love themselves.

Greenfeld acknowledged that “The uniqueness of the American nation consists in that in the course of its long existence, a national existence longer than that of any other society with the exception of England…” This may no longer hold true as “Brexit” demonstrates.

In his Statement made at the Second Congress of Black Artists and Writers, Rome, 1959, Fanon concludes “It is at the heart of national consciousness that international consciousness lives and grows. And this two-fold emerging is ultimately only the source of all culture.” So who will inherit the “wretched of the earth” in 2076, three centuries after America declared independence from a King?

Will these new revolutionaries no longer have “Peau Noire, Masques Blancs” (Black Skin, White Masks)? Or as Fanon book is described, “black people are locked in blackness and white people are locked in whiteness.” I envision a colorful nation facing challenges with courage, forte and creativity as bold as the colors it represents.

U.S., A Country’s Fabric Resewn into the U.N.?

From the Appalachian Mountains to California’s “La La Land” Los Angeles, to the city that never sleeps in New York, to the proud southern state of Louisiana, I’ve listened to Americans. I found one thing they have in common is their love of sports. I myself am a Yankees and Patriots fan.

The power of symbolism can be seen and felt listening to America’s National Anthem and the Blue Angels flying above the stadium. I enjoy and celebrate the game whether my team wins or loses. Yet, for some life imitates sports and for others sports is their life. No outside team coming to their “House” can beat them at their own game.

I think no singer-songwriter captures the sentiment of many Americans quite as well as “The Boss,” Bruce Springsteen and his album and song “Born In The U.S.A” that features “My Hometown” and reminds us of those “Glory Days.” But for a growing number of Americans, they feel those “Glory Days” have in reality passed them by. Still, many ignore the other exciting and powerful songs in the album – “I’m on Fire” and “Dancing in the Dark.”

I imagine that as the body politic continues to evolve, corporations and academia will have a hand on the nation, national consciousness, and its people. And while on the surface of the map the U.S. may be depicted as an image of the Star-Spangled Banner, what lies beneath appears to be a country of many nations uniting.

Global Currency for a United and Global Nation?

Stephen C. Schlesinger may delight in the ideas I put forth especially given his book on the United Nations, “Act of Creation.” Though the book is an excellent source in man’s affairs with his nation and international community, I’d remind Schlesinger that God creates and Man experiments.

All that remains to complete the transformation is the creation of the “Amero” currency. The U.S. may have been awaiting Europe’s Euro experiment. But, after two decades, America’s social media company Facebook proposed digital global currency “Libra” appears to be past experimenting and into implementation. Of course, with one apparent variance – its reach is both national and global.

Matlock and Washington’s Outlook in Tumultuous Times

Nationalism, multiple identities and languages, multiculturalism, patriotism, a surplus of flags, and common and digital currencies may not be accepted by some.  Still, loyalty is expected of ALL.

Lest we forget, this is the United States of America, where one pledges allegiance to one flag and Constitution. Although a union was obtained, expecting it to be “more perfect” with everyone in agreement has not been realized. As citizens, your “Pledge of Allegiance” or “Oath of Allegiance” bonds you. Pledge allegiance to this country or choose another. That is your Right. A right, that is secured by the men and women who entered into a contract to serve this country and have died to protect it.

George Washington’s 1787 “Letter of Transmittal to the President of Congress makes my argument clear. I redirect said Letter to the 2019 Congress:

It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.

– George Washington, President