October 16, 2001

[Letter to "The Nation" magazine.]

In his October 29 column Eric Alterman describes patriotism as "an admirable a priori assumption from which to make more nuanced judgments." Perhaps that's true provided that everyone, as Alterman does, gets to define the term for themselves. For my own part, I'm not at all patriotic as the word is commonly understood, but if patriotism is taken to mean a commitment to the ideals of freedom and justice on which this country was supposedly founded, I'm as patriotic as they come. I also recall identifying with the sentiment expressed in "The Nation"'s 1991 special issue on "Patriotism" to the effect that "It's natural to have an abiding affection for the place of one's birth."

Apparently, however, not everyone gets the privilege of making definitions since some among us - without inquiring into their own notions of patriotism - are to be "rejected for reasons of honor and pragmatism" as the "'Hate America' left." Both those reasons raise issues.

Regarding "honor," later in the same column Alterman notes that Michael Kelly called pacifists "evil" and a variety of other unpleasant epithets but lacked "the space - or the courage - to name a single one." However, Alterman has done exactly the same: No names, no citations, no examples are attached to his "'Hate America' left" label. Before anyone is read out of the ranks of "principled dissent[ers]," Alterman should live by the standards he demands of others and tell us exactly who he means - and why.

On the other hand, a main purpose of a pragmatic rejection of such folks, it seems, is as protection against the "McCarthyite thuggishness" so amply on display in public discourse these days. But as Alterman himself notes, right-wing pundits are already reaching for "examples so tiny as to be virtually nonexistent" in order to tar "anyone with a wartime question." In light of that, does he really imagine that falling back into CYA mode, draining limited political and emotional capital in declaring "Oh no no no, they're not with us!" will make any difference? Will it stop the attacks, the accusations, the journalistic tarrings? Has it ever?

In any political dispute, it is a dreadful tactical mistake - one of which the left has been too often guilty - to let your opponents define the terms of debate. By decrying "the refusal to draw [a] line" between "principled dissent" and an ill-defined "'Hate America' left" Alterman effectively acknowledges that questions about our patriotism - however we individually define the word - are proper ones and thus repeats this same blunder. His proposed course of action does not defuse the right's attack, it legitimizes it.

If "patriotism requires no apologies," neither should it require conscious demonstration. Instead of trying to prove we are part of "responsible debate" by slicing others out of that range, we should simply assume that we are and act on that basis. I've long maintained that the left in this country has been at its strongest and most influential when we have spoken the truth as we understand it without giving a flying damn if anyone was offended or not. Our task must be to present ourselves and what we believe, clearly, strongly, unreservedly, and unashamedly. Time and energy wasted defensively declaring what we don't believe are just that - and we've little enough of either to start with.