Do you consider yourself a “solid liberal”? Do you think of yourself as a “typical American”? Are you proud to be an American?
I’d answer a yes to each question, although reserving the right to explain and qualify each answer. But, my experience with reading comments on this and other progressive blogs has been a kind of visceral distaste for American pride. I think progressives are this country’s harshest and least forgiving critics. And I think this is related to what I always harp on, which is the tendency of progressives to bunker down in a kind of permanent countercultural anti-Establishment mentality that makes others mistrustful of our ability to lead.
Sorry, I said it.
Disagree. The difference is that many liberals believe in Americas promise, but simply believe it’s failed to live up to that promise and can be rectified.
Progressives, socialists, anarchists and radicals have just viewed it as having faulty established footing and foundation, and the entire experiment as bullshit from the get-go.
Iow: is America “exceptional” is the foundational question.
America is exceptional, seabe. It is still at the forefront of what I like to consider the future of humanity…the eventual mixing of all races, cultures and religions on equal footings. It is without any doubt the most “multicultural” nation that the world has ever seen. There have been other national constructs where a number of subcultures existed in stratified situations under one dominant culture that was not much affected by the cultures that it ruled, but the cross-cultural pollination that now exists in this nation of immigrants is light years ahead of any other similar situation. Over several hundred years, various waves of immigrants…including the black population, which was of course largely shanghied here against its will…have built this marvelous cultural apparatus. It’s been a slow, steady and ultimately very successful process of erosion against pre-established cultural norms and artifacts, but here we are…a nation that is multiculturally literate in a truly broad sense. And now…at least in the urban centers…that multicultural literacy is translating into multiracial families and multiracial societal constructs. NYC is a wonderful place to witness this change. Find some pictures of NYC streets taken in the ’40s, ’50s and early ’60s. Overwhelmingly of one dominant race, no matter in which neighborhood they were taken. No more. Now look at images from the present. Spanning the North Bronx to South Brooklyn, from the westernmost sides of Manhattan to the easternmost sides of Queens…there arevery few truly segregated neighborhoods and probably no really segregated commercial districts of any kind. This is progress, seabe. Real, human-to-human progress, not the fictional “post-racial society” that we see plastered all over the PermaGov media and not the “for show” progress that we see in our political system, either.
It’s the real deal, and that is exceptional, on a very foundational level. This change has now progressed to the point that I do not think any societal force can stop it.
That’s the true “American exceptionalism.”
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
P.S. Here’s where it really started to gather steam.
This picture is called “A Great Day In Harlem.”
From Wikipedia:
This assemblage of great musicians represents the Swing Era/Bebop Era fusion that started in the early ’20s. Black, white (and later Latino musicians) defied the racial norms of their day by playing together and learning from one another. The real “Jackie Robinson moment” in this country happened in 1938 at Carnegie Hall, where Benny Goodman appeared with an integrated group of musicians on a national stage.
May it continue until the whole world is integrated.
Sure, America’s exceptional. So is every other nation, in one way or another. Anyone who’s traveled with an open heart and open mind realizes that each country has its strengths and weaknesses, and whichever we think is best says more about us than the cultures we critique.
There are many things I love about this country. My country. There are many things I think they’re doing better elsewhere. It’s that simple. And, yes, definitely a liberal!
When someone proclaims himself “proud to be an American,” it means one thing: My country, right or wrong. You don’t get to have nuance, explanations or qualifications. Signing on as a proud American, you have to take the whole package, with all the baggage that entails. You can’t be a proud American and object to torture. You can’t be a proud American and decry our soldiers pissing on the bodies of their vanquished. You can’t be a proud American and hate the way our country tilts society ever more heavily in favor of the wealthy. You can’t be a proud American that produces the fabulous personal wealth of the Walton family, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates while noticing the number of hungry, homeless and incarcerated.
Each end of those poles is part of the Establishment, and you don’t get to say that one end is good while the other is bad if you also want to wear the mantle of a proud American.
I’m a solid liberal, but I don’t live in a country where liberal ideals and principles are honored.
Really you should get a prize for denying others’ right to explain and qualify while claiming to be liberal.
Thanks. It helps if you pay attention to things. For example, I’ve been branded a bad American for thinking the Fourth Amendment means what it says. If one accepts the fabulous security offered by the most heavily-armed country the world has ever seen, one is forbidden in many public arenas from criticizing the excesses of that security state when it comes to invading the privacy of its citizens.
For example.
Thanks for your comment. What, in your view, is “a country where liberal ideals and principles are honored”?
(shrug) some of this is real, and some is deliberately trading on an ambiguity.
there is the literal meaning of “proud to be an american” – call this A
and there is also the very real, common conservative usage of the phrase over recent-ish history (just ask the dixie chicks how real it is) – call this B
the person who pretends that one or the other of the uses doesn’t exist is just being deceitful.
deceit example: “gosh i totally subscribe to A – how do those idiots at dkos NOT?”. answer: you’re lying – what they don’t subscribe to is B – and the speaker knows it damn well. the faux-wondering speaker is merely pretending that the other usage doesn’t exist, shoe-horns the B usage into A, and then pretends to wonder why they’re so stupid.
very simple deceit.
note that the reverse-version of that deceit is commonly practiced at dkos-ish places.
You’d be hard-pressed to get a consensus here on whether there should be nation-states in the first place.
I’ve never stopped calling myself a Liberal.
I am a fairly typical American, in that I am first-generation – also, a Baby Boomer, and a college graduate.
Am I proud to be an American?
I’m proud of our ideals.
I’m proud of our past efforts at living-up to our ideals – we all fail, the idea is to strive.
Since Nixon and Reagan, I’m less and less proud of our country.
And I was never less proud than during W’s mis-administration.
Obama gave me hope.
The Republicans since then, have dashed a lot of it.
But I still love this country, and I’m proud to be an American – MOST of the time.
Call me an optimist.
I really don’t think I’m a typical American. I have pretty serious doubts about whether “typical American” is a meaningful phrase at all.
As for being a “solid liberal”, sure. I would say I’m moderately proud of being an American, but I’m not sure reluctance to claim that is simply or even significantly a matter of a “permanent anti-Establishment mentality” on the part of progressives.
As for progressives being the country’s harshest and least forgiving critics, no, I don’t believe it for a second. Indeed, I’ve noticed that the people who are most committed to saying how proud they are of being Americans seem to be much more harshly negative about America than most progressives. They talk about how much they love the country while constantly running it down as a weak, godless, socialist hellhole. Really, they sound like abusive husbands when they talk about the USA.
Okay first I am a Veteran thus I do love my country. But that does not mean I always agree with what my country or it’s elected officials always do or say.
As far as being a solid Liberal. I guess that depends on the definition of what a “Solid Liberal” is. Over the years I have watched this country change over the years and not for the better of the country or it’s people. I tend to vote for those that push policies that are for the benefit of the average American and that benefit the country as a whole. Thus I support those that want to push for social economical advancements for the average American. I support a fast infrastructure rebuild, increase in food stamps, Social Security increases, medicare improvement via closing the gap from 80% to 100% coverage.
I strongly believe this country cannot be strong when you pass legislation that suppresses the people in their every day life’s. Our true strength is in the people and this country suffers for some choose to lie and misinform others constantly. This some use to gain power but the cost of gaining that power has damaged this country vastly.
I am pleased to be an American, try to participate as a citizen, but am often ashamed of things done in my name.
I do not believe in the glory of war, and would rather avoid the jingoism that people seem to think is a necessity. Likely, there are many members of my generation who share my feelings, and that makes me believe that I am typical of many.
The culture war is so over for me.
Perhaps progressives tend to feel more pride in accomplishments than in identities?
Perhaps with conservatives, the opposite is true?
You’ve nailed it. Another way to say it is that Conservatives care more about where they came from, while liberals care more about where they are going. I think, in the end, this explains everything about how we think and act.
I think this is actually explained in each of their labels – one wants to conserve everything that encompasses what they perceive to be where they came from while the other wants to make progress towards the place that they perceive to be where they want to go.
Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of people who define themselves as “progressives” in part because of who opposes them and because they’d rather maintain their “identity” and lose on a particular issue than win 80% of what they want and have to compromise their “identity”. (Same is true for some “conservatives”.)
I expect that the vast majority of your ‘people’ take pride in ‘accomplishing’ progressivism in a way that they do not take pride in ‘accomplishing’ American-ness.
Um, pride is still a sin. I’m no more proud to be an American than I am slothful or wrathful or greedy to be an American. Do I love America? Most of it, most of the time. Would I sacrifice for America? I think so.
But pride is mostly bullshit, which is why it’s the terminology of people who are nothing but bullshit.
I am a middle aged professional white dude. Not typical… I have no kids so I don’t have the same priorities as parents. I used to care what happened to America and thought we could help people around the world too. That feeling was at its height during the first gulf war to liberate Kuwait (I was still in my 20’s). But… then came the attacks on Clinton, impeachment, the internet bubble collapse, the 2000 election, the post-9/11 hysteria and wars, torture, the economic collapse and all the racist attacks on Obama for trying to do some good. I am NOT proud of anything in America. My liberalism now seems misguided and america unworthy of my compassion. I feel taken advantage of. I’m deeply disillusioned by the political and economic decline of the last 20 years. When America turned on Obama during the 2010 elections, I completely lost faith in this country… its government, its political leadership, and its people.
I suspect america must hit bottom to change… and liberals seem hell bent on preventing that from happening. I don’t see how maintaining the status quo with small incremental changes will ever slow this decline into hyper-partisanship and government by and for the super-rich.
Sorry.
Some of us that lived through the assassinations of the 1960s and the Vietnam War, observed the ugliness of Jim Crow and the efforts to retain it, appreciated the crimes of the Nixon cabal (many of whom to this day still infect our body politic), had our eyes opened further with the Pike and Church committees, watched in horror as Reagan attacked and beat a union, went on a military hardware spending spree while cutting taxes for the wealthy, praised Central American thugs and funded in defiance of a ban by secretly selling weapons to our alleged enemy, and not once in eight years supported an increase in the minimum wage were plenty disillusioned before GHW Bush’s “splendid little wars.” Then depressed to discover that our numbers were only slightly higher than those that believe Elvis lives.
This country has an excellent facility for sweeping all the uncomfortable and ugly stuff under the rug and then down the memory hole. Or revise the historical record to be the opposite of what it was. Look forward and not back does not serve us well.
Admit to moments of pride in American accomplishments. Some small like that time thirty years ago when I drove to the curb to allow a firetruck to pass and observed that on that firetruck there was a woman, a black, and a Latino. I wept for the beauty of that sight.
Some large. The election of a black man as President would be one.
However, “proud to be American” is not a sentiment that I carry within myself. Born in the USA does confer many privileges on everyone compared to born in most, but not all, other countries. Privileges that few of us have earned in our own right. How many wouldn’t and/or do scoff at those who claim “proud to be a” Bush, Rockefeller, etc. Economic privileges that generally come from the exploitation of the “have nots.” How many have we Americans killed for the cheap oil we demand to haul our asses around in 5,000 pound metal junks with wheels. And we feel no shame in that.
I earned my visceral distrust of our ability to lead in the Mekong Delta. As soon as American leadership starts meaning something other than bombing the hell out of people I’ll dust off my American pride.
No.
No.
Mostly.
You’re defined in the Pew study as Faith and Family Left.
Their test actually typed me out as a Solid Liberal, which is relatively accurate for the questions that they asked. I probably got booted from that group by saying No to “It IS NOT necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values” – it’s not necessary from a practical standpoint, but the philosophical basis of morality gets rather interesting without that premise.
I don’t really think so. I think the opposite, actually.
Take for example, some of the sayings of Jesus.
On the one hand, he talks about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and he praises people who serve others, especially the weak and needy. I accept all these teachings as morally correct.
But then Jesus talks about doing these things so that you can get rewarded by God. When a guy comes to him and lists all his good deeds and asks if they are cumulatively sufficient to earn eternal life, Jesus says that they aren’t and that he should give away all his possessions.
To me, that’s the philosophical problem.
Why do I need to be rewarded with heavenly delights in order for me to act morally?
He who does good things because he has ulterior selfish reasons for doing them is not as reliably moral as he who does them because doing good things is moral.
Religion takes basic morality and then adds a selfish element to it that cheapens basic morality.
The Koran is especially obnoxious in this respect. It just won’t shut up about rewards and punishments.
I’m much more attracted to the opposite tack taken by Buddhism, where the idea is that desire is the root of suffering, and to alleviate suffering, you must learn not to seek a reward. It’s more generous about people’s ability to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing.
And that’s consistent with what secularists believe about morality. Most people, provided they aren’t too badly mistreated, are capable of good moral behavior most of the time, and they don’t need to be enticed with godly rewards or threatened with celestial punishments in order to be good citizens.
The idea that without such rewards, being a moral person is philosophically complicated seems to me to be completely backwards.
That’s not the philosophical conundrum that I see – it’s not a question of rewards for good deeds from a Christian POV anyway (Catholic theology notwithstanding). The point where I see the conundrum is the basis of morality – upon what basis is morality anything other than personal preference? That’s where I say things can get interesting.
Now, about this:
Relevant text here.
The crux of the problem (literally) is the idea of “earning” eternal life – nobody can earn eternal life through their good deeds. That’s putting the cart before the horse – good deeds should be a natural result of one’s relationship with God but good deeds cannot establish a relationship with God. As the old cliche goes, the heart of the matter is a matter of the heart and that is what Jesus identified in this passage – the rich young ruler thought he had earned eternal life. Dude was pretty full of himself, and ultimately that was revealed when Jesus told him to give away his wealth. Brought forward to today, the rich young ruler may have said, “I’m all for helping the poor and what not, but don’t raise my taxes!” That’s the problem, best illustrated relatively recently by Al Franken’s Supply Side Jesus.
Put simply, we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, not by works (good deeds) lest any man, woman, or child may boast.
Yes, I understand the theological basis, as well as the dispute about faith vs. works, Calvin’s position, Luther’s position, etc.
But that’s all how people have interpreted what Jesus had to say.
Consider the plain meaning of some of his sayings.
Let’s look at the prelude to the Lord’s Prayer:
This is very straightforward. It’s isn’t about predestination or faith vs. works. It’s about hypocrisy and ostentatious piety, on the one hand, and about getting rewarded for moral behavior on the other. It’s true that he saying that you shouldn’t give charity or act pious to please others or improve your social standing, which is nice advice. But he just assumes that a reward should be expected for good behavior. Or, rather, he assume people need the expectation of a reward in order to act correctly.
This is my problem. Morality, properly taught, should be based on communal ideals, not personal advantage. This is the insight of Buddhism I was referring to. Seeking a reward is basically the opposite of moral, pious behavior.
There are consequences for behaviors – good and bad – whether you see that as a natural result or divinely delivered. Acknowledging that certain behaviors lead to good results and other behaviors lead to bad results makes sense to me. Personal advantage – self improvement or self preservation if you like – is the starting point for everyone, eventually moving to high ideals. You have to crawl before you walk before you run, and you will find within Jesus’ teachings instruction at every level: rules –> guidelines –> principles.
These kinds of discussions bring back what I learned in my Sociology of Religion class decades ago. Theoretically, Religion is a necessary component of a society, along with 4 others: education, politics, economic, and family. Of course, all 5 components interact with each other. I’ve always thought most humans had some kind of “innate morality” or an internal sense of ethics. Organized religion capitalizes on this predisposition and “runs with it.” When other components go awry, such as the political system, religion starts to run off the tracks, too. I try not to take for granted a well-functioning society. It’s more fragile, like the environment, than we realize.
Yes, I’m a solid liberal. No, I don’t think I’m a typical American. I don’t think any of us here are. If you are aware of what is happening in this nation, and willing to take a step, however small, to improve it, you are exceptional. And no, I am not proud to be an American, though I am grateful, beyond belief. Pride, in my opinion, requires action. I did nothing to deserve being American, it was an accident of birth, and I have no reason to feel pride for that. I am, however, proud of the steps, however small, that I have taken to try to make this country better, and proud to be part of a community that cares that we live up to our ideals.
It’s funny how conservatives never have their ability to lead the country questioned. Even after conservatives vehemently and sometimes even violently oppose advances in the welfare state, civil rights, hell, human rights that get implemented anyway. Why is it that an ideology that as recently as 30 years ago cheered on apartheid not viewed as a fifth column? Why is it that an ideology that tripled the national debt and caused our income inequality to shoot up while unapologetically extolling the virtues of the rich never subject to skepticism about its ability to serve the country? Why is it than an ideology that was asleep at the switch during one of the greatest terrorist attacks in history which then proceeded to bungle us into two unnecessary wars not viewed as a dangerous counterculture who wants to tear down the foundations of the country? Why is it that an ideology whose best-performing candidate shamelessly and sincerely called almost half of the United States leeches and takers not viewed as delusional, ungrateful brats completely blind to the needs and values of America at large?
How much more do conservatives have to display their incompetence, willful ignorance, and even downright hatred at what the country is and what it becomes before people are finally convinced that a stoned, sick-covered hippie waving an ‘America Sucks’ flag can and has done nowhere near as much damage as an average conservative?
And while we’re at it, why is the intelligentsia still using hippies as a straw man/cautionary tale for the horrors of unrestrained leftism? I’m 29 years old and I’ve been in both the military and earned my college degree; I’ve NEVER seen an unironic hippie in person or on any news program. For God’s sake, people, stop talking about them. You might as well be talking about Hare Krishna or hard hats or neo-Keynesians or brown berets or whatever. Find a new cultural boogieman, I beg of you.
The patriotism in this country as it actually plays out and is outright “foisted” on all of us is what leads so-called Progressives to assume the over-critical stance you mention. It is this hyperbolic patriotism which drowns out all real adult-like discourse on the true nature of our society that goads Progressives such as myself to necessarily take a somewhat more jaundiced view of things.
I want to make a better society, not a better world power or exceptional country. American exceptionalism is hubris on steroids!
Rescuing patriotism from the right wing is an important project. Liberals and progressives are patriots. We have a reservation about the flag pins. We are also in most cases not enthused about military adventurism.
The history of nationalism makes it categorically unavailable.
Sorry, I said it.
That aside (and I do not expect everyone to follow it), I really think that what you are seeing is not so much anti-Establishment as anti-this-Establishment — a distinction that the incumbent Establishment is of course never going to be able to make, if only because if it once did make that distinction, it would lose its identity.
But this Establishment really does deserve to be anti’d, right down to the ground, and the reason is both simple (solitary, unique) and simple (straightforward, easy):
We got where we are by letting people get away with shit.
We got where we are by allowing the total eclipse of accountability.
The next winning campaign will deserve to have won if its war-room slogan was “It’s the Unaccountability, Stupid!”
I purposely defer the question of whether accountability can be incrementally restored or requires a clean break of institutional continuity. I suspect that the clean break is necessary, but I do not feel like I can back that up with sufficient evidence. To my mind, the historical parallels are ambiguous.
Yes, I’m proud to be an American. We have a lot to be proud of.
However, IMO pride is the worst of all sins, and it is the particular sin I suffer from. So it is important to see your pride for what it is, and not to let it blind you to your faults.
That is America in a nutshell……. blinded by pride. It’s what allows us to be manipulated by appeals to our baser instincts. What was the Iraq war, but a clarion to our National Pride?
To combat a sin, you must be able to see it. Too many do not in this country.
‘Typical’ is irrelevant. There is no ‘typical’ when it comes to human nature.
As far as ‘solid liberal’……. the question should be……. ‘Do you believe society as a whole owes something to the worst off of us?’ The answer to that question defines every person. Labels are unimportant. Please notice that that question ties into ‘pride’, in that a ‘yes’ answer is a sign of being humble, that just because you ‘have’, you are not superior to a ‘have not’.
This is why I cut Obama quite a bit of slack. And why some of the comments here, on this site, can bother me. Here is a man that has a LOT to be proud of, more than most any body in the country. But he strikes me as a man that sees his pride, and struggles with it. He ‘gets it’. He tries to control his temper, and temper is where we allow our pride to fly free, for everyone to see.
.
A lot of progressives are older and jaded at the “progressives” who were ready to lead who turned out to not have been ready to lead in a progressive direction or not to have been effective in articulating progressive positions to the public.
Younger progressives of my acquaintance are shocked by how old and fundamentally ineffectual the folks from the 1960s and 1970s that they know have been. Reminds oldsters at the shock of how progressives from the New Deal let McCarthism and Nixon happen.
As I look around I don’t see a lot of promise of those ready to lead. Too many exhausted. Too many marginalized. Too many cynical. Too many ready to retreat to their private gardens. Too many Pippins.
Yep, I’m a pretty solid liberal who believes in the Bill of Rights and the necessity of government to invest in significant infrastructure. And the need for the US to back away from needless military spending.
Yes, I’m a typical American trying to make ends meet, having turned out three daughters who are making contributions to American society in their own neighborhoods.
In general, I’m as proud to be an American as most citizens of other other countries are proud of the accomplishments of their countries. But I have watched the US become less worthy of that pride over the last 35 years.
When the culture needs changing and the Establishment is both corrupt and incompetent, there is no other role for progressives than being countercultural anti-Establishment. In the 1960s and 1970s, there were members of the Establishment that functions as go-betweens for the emerging leadership of the anti-establishment. The Establishment no longer allow those types in the door. They are ruthlessly screened out or soon get shown the door like Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod.
35 years ago, we were getting stomped politically by a B-list actor. 35 years ago, AIDS was erupting and the government didn’t care.
35 years ago, violent crime in our cities was much much higher than it is now.
35 years ago, we never could have won the presidency with a mixed-race candidate from Hawaii and Indonesia.
You look at everything as if the glass is half empty.
Half-full or half-empty, the height of the water in the glass is what it is. Saying it’s half-full or half-empty doesn’t change it.
Fifty years ago there was incredible optimism and hope even as the foundations of the current crises were being laid.
Thirty-five years ago the sins of Dean Acheson’s “Creation” were standing in judgement and Congress in hindsight punted.
Fifty years ago, white people were fleeing large cities North and South for incorporated suburban towns not to escape crime but to escape the possibility of black people as neighbors, black students going to the same school as their kids (and possibly dating and or marrying them), and black workers competing against them for good jobs. Crime even in black ghetto communities did not spike until Martin Luther King was assassinated and it did not approach the scorched earth situation in those communities we saw in the 1990s.
Thirty-five years ago crime in our cities was overstated; thirty years ago there was a cocaine epidemic fueling crime and coincidentally being hauled by CIA aircraft.
Locally all over the country, more people are working to resolve issues and more diversity and community integration are occurring even has state legislatures are taking away local authority to deal with problems and the federal government is drastically undercutting public schools, labor, and a growing economy.
I’m sorry that at my age I tend not to cheerlead. I am not sanguine about the Democratic Party’s situation leading up to the November election.
But I am encouraged that the Roberts court rediscovered that there is a Fourth Amendment. When the cops on the beat actually act as if that decision happened, I might celebrate a little.
I’m not real clear about what could have or would have happened in the past. I’m clear that the opportunities were there and we missed them at to our peril over the past decade or so. I know what opportunities exist now and am very curious what is going on in the Democratic Party that makes it continue to miss those opportunities and disclose more and more corruption. Latest is Heather Michal. Biggest is Rahm Emanuel–the ethnic cleansing of Detroit with a gilded and smiling economic success face.
And the complete and absolute failure of sound economic policy continues. At least some plutocrats are beginning to sense the political danger we are in.
In fact, Obama will turn out to be a minor player in the history of this period. Unless there is a lot of archived documentation showing otherwise, he will be seen as reactive and too narrowly pragmatic for his times. But I will not count him completely out two years before the end of his term. Whether rope-a-dope or other strategy, Obama seems his best in crisis and kinda lost when things are going well. Not to mention handicapped by bad advisers, whose sole credential is that they came up through the establishment.
I share some of your concerns here. I am concerned about the oligarchs and their servants who have successfully infiltrated and influenced the Democratic Party. I quarrel with this, however:
“In fact, Obama will turn out to be a minor player in the history of this period. Unless there is a lot of archived documentation showing otherwise, he will be seen as reactive and too narrowly pragmatic for his times.”
History is written by the dominant forces in successive generations. If the conservative movement becomes successful in reviving feudalism, then the historical view of the Obama Presidency will be less kind.
Regardless, those of us who were here and observed the factual record of what was going on before and during Obama’s Presidency know that the President and his first Congress achieved titanic legislative achievements, and in whole Obama’s Executive agencies and foreign policies were revolutionary in their reversals of the bad policies of previous Administrations.
Prevention of a second Great Depression.
Comprehensive health care reform.
Major new protections for consumers of financial assistance.
Ending multiple major military wars, and rejecting the demand to get into other diplomatic throwdowns which would lead to more wars.
Recognition of the equal rights of homosexuals and women.
Much, much more.
These are BIG things. Each of these were reacted to in Legislative and Executive actions which were imperfect. There is still so much to be done, and Obama and his Administration are not right on everything. This disappoints and angers me sometimes. But….
The water was WAY below half-full by the end of the W. Bush administration. Obama’s leadership has placed more water in our glass. He deserves recognition for that.
Isn’t there an element in the response to the questions that is a gut reaction to the words, ‘patriotic’ likewise ‘liberty’ which have been so overused by the Tparty?
These days I hear those words coming out of a moran’s mouth and I just cringe, I no longer can disassociate those words from the actions of Palin’s party.
So am I TParty patriotic, no.
Am I a patriotic progressive? Yes. The difference for me is that it takes a whole lot more work to be progressively patriotic than it does to read conspiracy theories all day and wave your tattered American flag.
One way to fix that is to move to another country. Then you’ll find yourself in the “proud American” camp pretty quickly. You’ll also be in the “cringes to be American” camp. You can do both. And, conversely, it makes me even prouder to proclaim my Americanness when people want to paint all of us with the same brush they use to paint George Bush, who is perhaps the best known example of American un-exceptionalism.
America is a huge, very diverse country. Most other citizens of the world forget that, but we should not.
This I agree with. Most Americans forget that as well, thinking that their little spot of America is typical.
John Prine’s opinion is still a pretty good one.
I watched “The March” and “Freedom Summer” on PBS the other night with tears rolling down my face. The 60s was a time when I considered America exceptional. We were progressing although not necessarily smoothly. The violence the volunteers in Mississippi faced the summer of ’64 was appalling. I am bitterly disappointed that we haven’t come farther along as evidenced by the way republicans have used the president’s race and by their restrictions on voters access to the polls. So, I can’t say I’m proud of our country at the moment.
BTW, I tested “solid liberal” although I think of myself as a moderate. Some of the pew poll question were extreme and you had to test either far right or far left if you answered them even though you might not agree with either position.
I’m proud of my country. I’m not proud of its governance in my lifetime, but even at nearly 50 years my lifetime represents a fairly short amount of time. Until we decouple capitalism from the notion of American identity, though, we’re going to have big problems with the plutarchy. There’s a ton of work to do.