America is Too Big to Love or to Hate

Fresno Bee, July 4, 2021

What does it mean to love one’s country? This question is too big to permit a simple answer. In a free country we will disagree about patriotism.

A Black athlete, Gwen Berry, refused to salute the flag during the national anthem at the U.S. Olympic Trials last week. Some viewed her as a hero. Others did not. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas asked in a tweet, “why does the left hate America?”

Of course, America includes a long list of protesting Black athletes, from from Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James. Maybe those who hate these protests are the ones who hate America.

The truth is, we disagree about everything, including who counts as a patriotic, real American. We always have.

The generation of 1776 had to decide whether to pledge their lives, fortunes, and honor to a new nation conceived in liberty. A war broke out. This happened again in the 1860s. Abraham Lincoln invoked the “mystic chords” of national identity. Southern states disagreed. The patriotic vision excluded people like Frederick Douglass, who said (in 1847), “The institutions of this country do not know me, do not recognize me as a man … In such a country as this, I cannot have patriotism.”

Douglass is now recognized as an American icon. But we continue to disagree.

Congress recently honored the police who defended the Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection. The congressional commendation celebrated the patriotism of those cops. But some Republicans balked, unhappy with the word “insurrection.”

President Biden has said, “the insurrection was an existential crisis.” But Andrew Clyde (R-Georgia) said it was a lie to call it an insurrection. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) said that the Justice Department’s response to Jan. 6 harassed “peaceful patriots.” Each voted against honoring the Capitol police.

We disagree about recent history — and about the deeper past. We disagree about who we are, what our country represents, what unites us — and what divides us.

America is a big, messy place. It includes Gwen Berry. It also includes Ashli Babbitt, who was killed by a cop on Jan. 6 as she tried to enter the House chamber, and George Floyd, who was killed by a cop in Minnesota. It also includes those cops. This is a country of Proud Boys and Antifa. It is a country of Trump-lovers and Ted Cruz voters, Biden-supporters and fans of Kamala Harris.

Which America are we supposed to love? Should we love the American history of colonialism, slavery, and war? Should we love those who claim the 2020 election was stolen? Should we love a country that elected a woman of color as vice president?

There is too much here to love. America is a 300-year-long, continent-spanning process. Something this big cannot simply be loved. Nor can such a thing simply be hated.

This country contains a multitude, as Walt Whitman might say. It includes farmers and fishermen, poets and priests. This is a land of scientific achievement and quack medicine. It is a land of many faiths, including atheism. It is a country of diverse people united by the fact that we are free to be different.

Human beings are more complicated than simple patriotism permits. When freedom is unleashed, we grow and expand and become unruly. As long as we generally leave each other alone, this can work. But it is too much to ask us to come together and sing “Kumbaya.”

Indeed, when one group joins hands and starts singing, another faction will be standing on the sidelines mocking the song. This is the tragic truth of human freedom. It unites us and divides us. It brings us together and drives us apart.

So let’s not be surprised at our divisions. We have always been divided. Division is a sign of the health of a democracy. Conformity indicates the presence of oppression and the death of the human spirit. Liberty vitalizes and invigorates. It invites us to be different and to disagree.

Democracy is messy, ugly, and often unpleasant. Tyrannies are cleaner, perhaps, creating conformity through coercion. But democracies unleash freedom. And liberty promotes diversity. We are not ants or bees. Nor are we cogs in a social machine. We are human beings: unruly, disruptive, creative, and free.

September 17, 2016October 16, 2016

The National Anthem, The Pledge of Allegiance, and Democracy

How about a civil dialogue on civic pride?

Fresno Bee, September 17, 2016

Flag protests have broken out all over. Following Colin Kaepernick’s lead, NFL players have taken a knee or raised a fist during the playing of the national anthem. High school athletes have joined in. A Missouri state senator, Jamilah Nasheed, recently sat out the Pledge of Allegiance, as did a New York City councilman, Jumaane D. Williams.

Responses to these protests have been interesting. The band Kiss led their audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Singer Paul Stanley said, “Patriotism is always cool.” Singer Kid Rock was less subtle. He referred to Kaepernick with an expletive while singing in front of a massive American flag. Less subtle still was an Alabama high school football announcer who suggested that anthem protesters should be shot.

As this unfolded, I’ve been helping to organize a Constitution Day event at Fresno State. One of my colleagues, civic education expert John Minkler, proposed starting the event with the pledge. Minkler sees the pledge as an affirmation of the social contract that helps stimulate reflection on patriotism and the constitutional system.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Student organizers were less enthusiastic about including the pledge. Some wondered whether the pledge was constitutional. They worried that the phrase “under God” seems to violate the First Amendment. They were concerned that the pledge seems to exclude non-Christians.

But the courts have allowed expressions of “ceremonial deism” such as the pledge – as well as “In God we trust” and other phrases. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against a Sacramento atheist, Michael Newdow, who claimed that the pledge was unconstitutional.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained in her opinion in that case that ceremonial references to God serve only to “solemnize an occasion” without endorsing any particular religion. She hinted that students who object to religious words can simply not say them, while participating in the rest of the pledge.

Students also are allowed to opt out of the pledge entirely. Recently in Chicago, a teacher tried to force a student to stand for the pledge. The teacher was reprimanded and the student was vindicated.

The pledge was invented in 1892. In the early days, people saluted with an open palm raised toward the flag. This looked like the Nazi salute. So in the 1940s people began covering their hearts instead of raising their hands. The words “under God” were added to the pledge in 1954 during the anti-Communist era.

Since the beginning there have been protests. Jehovah’s Witnesses have refused to say the pledge, saying that flag salutes are a form of idolatry. In a 1940 case concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Supreme Court defended compulsory pledging of allegiance saying, “National unity is the basis of national security.” But in 1943 the court reversed itself saying, “Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws.”

At around this time, the American philosopher John Dewey suggested that the pledge had become a pale substitute for the reality of justice and liberty for all. He identified mistreatment of “Negroes,” anti-Semitism, and opposition to “alien immigrants” as significant problems.

WHETHER WE RECITE THE PLEDGE OR STAY SILENT, WHETHER WE KNEEL OR COVER OUR HEARTS, WE SHOULD ALWAYS THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT OUR WORDS, OUR DEEDS AND OUR COMMON HUMANITY.

Seventy years later, we are confronting similar issues. Those who protest the pledge and the national anthem likely believe that we need liberty and justice for all. But they believe we are failing to live up to that ideal.

If there is hope and common ground here, it lies in those underlying values. Justice, equality, liberty and respect for persons are essential values of a common human morality. Those values transcend any flag or religion.

Some criticize the pledge as a kind of nationalistic indoctrination. But the ethical ideals expressed in the pledge point beyond jingoistic patriotism and religious exclusivism toward cosmopolitan concern for liberty and justice for all.

Liberty and justice are fragile and complicated. They cannot be defended by shouted expletives or silent gestures. Rather, they require civil dialogue that seeks common ground and mutual understanding.

Liberty and justice are destroyed by violence and incivility. This is true whether you protest the flag or protest the protesters. Whether we recite the pledge or stay silent, whether we kneel or cover our hearts, we should always think carefully about our words, our deeds and our common humanity.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article102243777.html#storylink=cpy

September 3, 2016October 16, 2016

Kaepernick, Racism, and Football

Can we look past Kaepernick and actually talk about race?

Fresno Bee, September 3, 2016

The Kaepernick kerfuffle is an example of how moral discourse works in the Twitter era. San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand during the national anthem.He explained, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

The response was typical. Donald Trump suggested Kaepernick should find another country. Fans burned Kaepernick’s jersey. Supporters spoke of Kaepernick’s right to free speech. A group of veterans for Kaepernick defended his “right to sit down.”

Instead of talking about the race problem in America, the conversation shifted to Kaepernick’s refusal and his right to free speech. Soon enough people were criticizing Kap’s socks. He wore seemingly anti-police socks during practice.

How bizarre. Racial injustice continues to be a problem without a solution. Poverty and prison plague the black community. Unarmed black men are shot by police. Riots break out. And here we are talking about a quarterback’s socks.

Rather than talk about race and justice, we prefer to change the subject. It’s easier to cast stones at a celebrity than to think about complex questions of social justice.

Kaepernick has the right to sit out the anthem or wear socks of his own choice. But defending that right does not confront the tough question of racial injustice and inequality. We skim the surface and avoid the depths.

Of flag salutes and other rituals

And so it goes with flag salutes and other rituals. They are nice. But they are only skin deep. We can mouth the words without meaning them.

At least Kaepernick appeared to be thinking about the meaning of the flag he chose not to salute. Of course, we cannot dig into the secret recesses of his mind. Nor can we plumb the souls of the athletes and fans who stand and salute.

The conscience is a deep well where we ruminate on meaning. Songs, salutes and socks rest on the surface. The commitments of the heart are independent of the motions of the body. To get to the heart of the matter we need to talk, listen and think.

Standing for the flag is fine. But flag salutes are symbolic, not substantial. Some claimed Kaepernick was disrespecting the troops. But we support the troops most directly by paying our taxes.

Which brings us back to football, which has a strong commitment to supporting the troops. Until last year, the league itself didn’t pay taxes, since it was listed as a tax-exempt nonprofit. To be fair, local franchises pay taxes. But the NFL itself did not, even though the commissioner earned $30 million to $40 million a year.

At any rate, it is strange that the football industry has become a public good, wrapped in the flag, when it is a profitable private enterprise. This is no stranger, I suppose, than the fact that Budweiser renamed its beer “America” this summer and covered the label with patriotic slogans. Budweiser is owned, in case you are wondering, by a foreign beverage corporation named InBev.

Many layers of patriotism

This is a reminder of the complexity of flags and patriotism. Patriotism can be heartfelt and sincere. Or it can be thoughtless jingoism. Patriotism may also be conscientious loyalty to a nation’s highest moral principles. And in some cases patriotism is a useful marketing strategy.

The Roman author Juvenal worried that the Romans were too focused on “bread and circuses.” Today it is football and beer. Trivial distractions undermine thoughtful and sincere citizenship. They keep us too preoccupied to have meaningful conversations about morality, justice and the common good.

And so we mock easy targets and ignore the hard questions. Kaepernick is a millionaire with weird socks sitting alone on the bench. It’s easy to malign the man. But the difficult question of race in America remains on the table.

That question is connected to complex social, psychological, economic and political questions. Like every other important question, the racial problem needs long and careful deliberation. But we ignore that complexity when we blast away on Twitter.

Marketing and propaganda make us think that the truth is obvious and easy to understand. In reality, important ideas take a lifetime to figure out. And flags, socks and songs only touch the surface of things.

Andrew Fiala is a professor of philosophy and director of The Ethics Center at Fresno State:fiala.andrew@gmail.com

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article99549522.html#storylink=cpy