“Breathes there a man with soul so dead who never to himself has said, ‘This is my own, my native land’”? With about 200 countries in the world, this is a sentiment that could be – or perhaps should be — the heartfelt feeling of every person, no matter where. The number is not definite since some regions, like Somaliland in the process of seceding from Somalia, have not gathered diplomatic recognition from enough other countries as distinct. But it is a deep seated sentiment familiar to all, rich or poor, who seek to stand with other nations, each with its own history and hopes.
The church encourages patriotism, wanting all people to feel a pride in their land. It distinguishes this from nationalism, which it sees as a corruption whereby, for instance, a Hitler might invoke an Aryan right to conquer and even exterminate non-Aryans. Some 19th century European nations felt empowered to colonize African and Asian regions, invoking a “white man’s burden” philosophy to justify invasion and conquest. And Bosnia had its sad experience of “ethnic cleansing” not 20 years ago. Islamic Sudan recently held a plebiscite to determine whether the Christian south in Darfur wanted to remain under Khartoum’s leadership. Most voted for partition. The world waits to see if the authorities will allow this since the oil deposits are in the south.
These instances show that economic, racial, ethnic and even — or especially — denominational motives underlie outbreaks of nationalism, which refuses to respect the borders and the sovereignty of nations. Some of the most creative alibis have been used to justify global theft, lauding the glories of the fatherland or motherland, even going as far as did Mussolini, with his resurrecting the grandeur of the Roman empire and its mighty conquests to rationalize the invasions of Ethiopia and Libya. But most objective third parties could see the larceny. We Americans remember our servitude to the British crown.
But sometimes we Americans feel that because we have done so much to liberate the world as in World War II, or because we use our undisputed superior wealth to give foreign aid, or simply because we are the mightiest military power spreading our protection like an umbrella over smaller allies, we are exempt from the rules we want the United Nations to enforce over other powers. This is called exceptionalism. We justify it with a couple centuries of Protestant conviction that we are the new Promised Land and the new People of God spoken of in the Scriptures. Catholics gladly follow. We know we are the biggest single denomination, at 24 percent of the population. But Protestants number over 60, with their many varieties.
We have put our military forces in countries like Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan — all after we finished with southeast Asia. We have troops stationed in 120 countries, and I don’t mean merely as honor guards at our embassies. Our nuclear armed fleets gird the world, as do our airbases. Then too the United States conducts covert operations around the world about which we ordinary taxpayers may never know. How would we feel if Russia or China did a quarter as much of this? We would vigorously condemn them. If asked why it is wrong for them but right for us, we would claim a higher right. Those international laws and sanctions, treaties and protocols are to bind lesser nations, not us. We are exceptional. We practice exceptionalism.
Speaking of taxpaying, the above only gives the tip of the iceberg about the unspeakably huge amounts we spend on “defense,” in quotes because of the stretched use of the word. People refuse to believe that we traditionally spend nearly two thirds of the annual discretionary federal budget on defense. They zero in on the non-discretionary budget when it comes time for trimming our national appetites. This means penalizing the elderly, ill, retired and others who need Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
If it is our choice to hurt the needy in order to make our defense even greater, we have to pay for it. Or at least our grandchildren must. If we prefer the ages-old practice of congressional votes buying weapons systems that even the admirals and generals decline in order to bring federal projects to every congressional district, let us stop the nationalistic hype that masquerades as patriotism. Why do we perennially empower politicians to outrank our military professionals when it comes to military needs?
Nationalism is no substitute for patriotism.
at the bottom and then tap “Add to Home Screen”