Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes

by Steven B. Smith

A rediscovery of patriotism as a virtue in line with the core values of democracy in an extremist age
 
“Like you perhaps, I still regard myself as an extremely patriotic person. Which is why I so admired [this book]. . . .  It explained my emotion to me, as it might yours to you." —David Brooks, New York Times
 
“Smith superbly illuminates the distinctiveness of the American idea of patriotism and reminds us of how important patriotism is, and how essential to making America better.”—Leslie Lenkowsky, Wall Street Journal
 
The concept of patriotism has fallen on hard times. What was once a value that united Americans has become so politicized by both the left and the right that it threatens to rip apart the social fabric. On the right, patriotism has become synonymous with nationalism and an “us versus them” worldview, while on the left it is seen as an impediment to acknowledging important ethnic, religious, or racial identities and a threat to cosmopolitan globalism.
 
Steven B. Smith reclaims patriotism from these extremist positions and advocates for a patriotism that is broad enough to balance loyalty to country with other loyalties. Describing how it is a matter of both the head and the heart, Smith shows how patriotism can bring the country together around the highest ideals of equality and is a central and ennobling disposition that democratic societies cannot afford to do without.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction

256 pages, Paperback

Published October 18, 2022

Reviews

[Kathryn Bashaar · Rating 5 out of 5]

My heart broke on November 8, 2016. I have always been patriotic, but I have struggled since 11/8/2016 to maintain my faith and pride in my country. 1/6/2021 didn’t help.

This book was like an elixir. Smith is a professor of Philosophy and Political Science at Yale, and his writing reflects that. He doesn’t just expound his own opinions at the reader. He references sources from Aristotle to the Federalist papers, and relies especially on Lincoln’s speeches and writings, in his defense of patriotism.

He defines patriotism as loyalty to one’s home country in the first chapter. Then he contrasts patriotism with both nationalism and cosmopolitanism. And, finally, in the last two chapters he describes what enlightened patriotism looks like and discusses the values and character of the United States, the things that we can love and take pride in.

This book took me a couple of weeks to read. It was both intellectually and emotionally dense for me. I had to read a little, and then ponder what I’d read before reading more. But it was well worth it.

In a nutshell, Smith’s argument is that you can recognize that your nation is flawed and still love it. You can respect that other people love their own countries, too, and still love you own. You don’t even have to think, as many Americans do, that you live in the best country in the world. You can still love America because it is your own. Your home. I thought about how the people of America gave me an education. I thought about how my family would have lost our home after my dad died, if the American people hadn’t sent us Social Security survivor’s benefits every month. My country has given me so much. This is my home. I enjoy French culture and language, but I don’t love France. I didn’t grow up in Paris or on the wide plains of the French countryside. I grew up in the hills and valleys of Appalachia, and there lies my heart.

But those affinities – “habits of the heart” as Smith calls them – aren’t the only reasons to love America. Smith mounts a full-throated defense of all that is good about our country, all that is worth loving. First and foremost, our dedication to the notion of the “equal moral dignity” of every human being. Have we always fully lived that principle? Obviously not. But, to an extent that no other nation can match, it is our creed. Smith also calls out our Constitution, which has managed to maintain rule of law for almost 250 years. He also points to our cultural, artistic, economic and scientific achievements. And I would add that we have also defeated tyranny twice in the past century. That’s a record to be proud of.

You can weep for our country’s flaws and errors. I certainly do. But this book reminded me that nations are like human beings: tragically flawed and gloriously noble both at the same time. It reminded me that I am not free to give up on our country any more that I am free to give up on the people I love. It gave me back my hope and pride in our country.

Like my reviews? Check out my blog at http://www.kathrynbashaar.com/blog/
Author of The Saints Mistress https://camcatbooks.com/Books/T/The-S...

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thanks to Netgalley and Yale University Press for a copy in exchange for a fair and honest review.

I'm not a political scientist nor do I know a lot about political science. Still, I'm interested in it and in the concept of patriotism, especially after the events of Jan.6.

I didn't agree with everything in this book (not that not agreeing with a book's message means it can't be well-written). Even as a rookie, I found sweeping generalizations of both left and right. There's a thinly veiled complaint about diversity hiring that completely avoids discussing the reason behind diversity hiring or what the actual effects have been. Even when talking about how people view patriotism, the book seems to imply that no one thinks of it as anything but the two extremes.

The final presentation of patriotism as it should be is thoughtful and tries to reconcile the best of the left and the right. Some points needed additional debate to convince me of the details, but overall Smith built a solid skeleton for patriotism.

I appreciated the book's aim, but I don't know if a regular-sized book written by one author can really define American patriotism. It's a subject that sharpens by debate and varied experiences. Even so, Reclaiming Patriotism offers a solid background of patriotism.

I'd recommend Reclaiming Patriotism to those with political science interests or those with a desire for patriotism, but with a warning to watch for the slants and generalizations.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick read and a good refresher of the American philosophic tradition.

While Smith’s apparently unequivocal support of modern liberalism is a touch suspect, the overall thesis of America’s unique tradition of enlightened patriotism is sound.

[Serge · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the continuous balancing act that Smith performs calling out excess on the left and the right (in the forms of cosmopolitanism and nationalism). He argues for an inclusive Lincolnian patriotism that engenders faith and loyalty in its adherents without indulging the lesser angels of their nature. I am using this book in both my AP US History and AP US Government class to illustrate the best articulation of the American Creed that I have read in a while. Here are the notes that I am discussing with my students.
Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes by Steven B. Smith
In 182, aFrench immigrant named Hector Saint-Jean de Crevecoeur asked in His Letters from an American Farmer, “What is the American, this new man?”
One answer, standard for generations, is that an American is someone who subscribes to the principles set out in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. America is, on this account, a creedal nation, perhaps the first in history, with Americans defined by an adherence to certain beliefs about equality, liberty, individual rights, and limited government. This idea of America as a creedal nation goes back to Alexis de Tocqueville, who found the peculiarity of our national experience—at least in relation to Europe – to be the absence of a feudal past, that is, the lack of a tradition of hierarchy, hereditary aristocracy, and serfdom (which, of course, is not quite true). What impressed him the most about the American experience was what he called “the generative fact” of equality from which all else derived.
As Tocqueville outlined it, the American creed was by and large a liberal one. It grew out of the fortuitous combination of an extensive territory, a Protestant political culture, and an entrepreneurial middle class that was at liberty to pursue its economic purposes largely free of government supervision. … The American creed was understood as a product not of geography, tradition , or inheritance, but of reason. Its principles were not “ours” in any parochial sense, but the property of all who wanted to participate in the blessings of liberty. Anyone, on this account, could become an American. It requires only a willingness to express support for our founding creed and live by it.
Today this Tocquevillian conception of America is under assault from those who regard Americans as less a creedal people than an ethnic nation. The new nationalism, not only in America but throughout the world, is about identity rather than aspiration…It is a weapon for defining who is in and who is out. Nationalism is by its definition exclusionary.
On the right, patriotism has become indistinguishable from nationalism, a quite different sentiment. Nationalism, I will argue later, initially grew out of a legitimate desire for self-determination and independence, but over time it has morphed into an ideology of grievance and resentment.
On the left, patriotism is often contrasted unfavorably with cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism has roots in the Western tradition that go back to the Roman Stoics, who thought of themselves as “citizens of the world” with no particular allegiances to state or nation… Contemporary cosmopolitanism is a secularized idea of this Christian faith, which his in turn guided by an ideal of humanity or humanitarianism. Modern humanitarianism is based on the idea of human dignity…. This is in many ways a noble ideal…. At the extreme, cosmopolitanism cuts people off from their national traditions, leaving them alienated from the culture in which they are embodied.
Nussbaum treats patriotism and the whole range of local attachments and identities as a childish security blanket that we should get rid of once we reach full moral maturity. She recognizes that being a citizen of the world can seem a loveless disposition that puts reason before emotion and universalism before the symbols of national belonging… Patriotism, ultimately, is morality for children, and Nussbaum’s advice is simple: grow up.
Kateb associates patriotism with a need to create external enemies in order to prove one’s superiority. This confuses patriotism with nationalism—an understandable mistake—
Citizenship is a political conception, and politics presupposes laws, sovereigns, authority, duties and obligations, and peoples with bounded identities. We may find theses realities regrettable, but that’s what politics is. A citizen of the world is a citizen of nowhere.
Nussbaum’s conception of world citizenship makes it difficult to account for our moral duties to individual human beings.
One version of cosmopolitanism that makes sense, if any version does, as been suggested by Kwame Anthony Appiah in his book: Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. Appiah suggests that cosmopolitanism is composed of two contradictory strands. There is first the idea that we have obligations to others that stretch beyond the local world of kith and kin and even beyond the formal ties of shared citizenship; this might be called the universalist strand. Second is the idea that not just human life in general but also particular ways of life—cultures, peoples, nations—have meaning in and for themselves; this could be called the multiculturalist strand.
American history is being rewritten to make slavery and anti-black racism the core of the American experience from the very beginning… Such one-sided moralism diminishes our founding principles and views our founders as either hypocrites or knaves. It denies or diminishes the efforts of generations of Americans—black and white—in their struggle against slavery and oppression. Racism is, to be sure, an irreparable strain on American national character, but it is not the essence of America.
[Alasdair McIntyre “Is Patriotism a Virtue?]
MacIntyre goes on to treat patriotism as a form of loyalty and includes iy in a class of “loyalty-exhibiting virtues” such as love of family, friendship, and allegiance to clubs and teams. Central to these virtues is the importance of belonging. They cannot exist apart from the particular communities to which they are attached.
Yet MacIntyre also hears the demands of a very different conception of morality that he believes has taken root in the West from the renaissance onward. Tis is the view, often associated with Kant but equally at home with utilitarian consequentialists, that associates morality with the impartial spectator.
[bracketing/veil of ignorance]
We should ensure that our selection of moral principles is not swayed by self-interest, bias, and partiality. Only when we agree to set our own loyalties and attachments aside can our judgments rise above the local and parochial and aspire to some moral objectivity.
In opposition to the republican emphasis on unity, Walzer locates our distinctive national identity in the tradition of American pluralism. Walzer takes the postmodern view that our identities are pliable. Being an American may be to embrace or reject the past, but above all it means the ability to fashion our own identities. Pluralism is either the price we pay or the advantage we accrue from belonging to an immigrant society. The republican ideal he suggests is a fraud. “Republicanism is a mirage, and American nationalism or communitarianism is not a plausible option; it doesn’t reach to our complexity.” The unitary republic, modeled to some degree on the classical city-state, is simply false to American experience. Its attempt to make a one out of the man—the original meaning of e pluribus unum—ends up sacrificing the many to the one. To be an American means always to live in conflict with oneself—and this, for Walzer, is a good thing.
The founding generation vigorously debated whether the new republic should imitate the British model of balanced government, giving institutional voice to distinct classes and interests, or whether the nation should embrace a more democratic vision of popular control. The British model was favored by John Adams, who saw the American experience largely as a continuation, albeit in purified form , of the English constitutional tradition of a mixed government that represents society’s different socioeconomic orders. … What Adams and others failed to see (or chose to ignore) was that the mixed constitution was little more than an oligarchy in disguise. The nobles or “gentlemen” stood midway between the king and the commons, giving them the greater share of power and influence.
Not all patriots saw the revolution as restoring traditional English liberties under a balanced constitution. Modern republicanism, in contrast to the model of the mixed government, bases its assertion of the people’s sovereignty on the doctrine of human equality—that all are endowed with the same rights. For the more radical republicans, like Jefferson and Tom Paine, the American revolution was more than a restoration of a previous constitutional forms. It represented a first in human history… Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, embraced such Lockean ideas as the laws of nature, “unalienable rights,” government by consent, and the right of revolution. Locke, once celebrated as the champion of individual liberty, the right of property, and limited government, has recently been anathematized for founding a regime based on hedonism, materialism, and an ethic of heedless individualism. Yet for all of his contested legacy, Locke is still America’s philosopher king.
Jefferson and Paine simply adapted Locke’s philosophy of rights to American circumstances. The Declaration in Jefferson’s view did nothing more than “harmonize” the sentiments of the day as expressed in letters, pamphlets, and the “elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc…
Paine, by contrast, tended to view the revolution not as something specifically American but as a world-historical event in which government, for the first time, was based on the theory of human rights. The American revolution, in his view, was the first step in a series of world revolutions.
The Federalists’ novel proposal for a a large extended republic envisioned diverse factions and interests competing within representative institutions designed to create checks and balances in power. This was a new theory of statehood that referred to no previous model. They transformed the meaning of existing terms in order to address problems that their predecessors had failed to solve. This idea of a republic extensive enough to represent the interests of the diverse factions found in large states, but without the disadvantages of concentrating power in the hands of a distant ruler, was a first in the history of political theory.
The Federalists realized that a new kind of republic would require a new kind of patriotism….The specifically American form of patriotism required a unique combination of particularism—loyalty to the Constitution and the republic—and universalism that is, commitment to equality and rights.
At the core of American patriotism, then, is this idea of reflection and choice [Federalist I] American patriotism has a rational and deliberative component that cannot be reduced to a morality of custom and tradition
The purpose of reducing politics to the management of interests was not only to create a new form of governance, but also to instill a new model of human character, one that values flexibility over rigidity, prudence over dogma, and discussion over conflict. It is a distinctively liberal or “bourgeois” ethos in which people with heterogeneous and conflicting interests can be motivated to deal fairly and cooperate freely with one another through bargaining, persuasion, and compromise. Only by deflecting politics away from a warrior model of winner-take-all toward one emphasizing competition and fair dealing would it be possible to dampen the flames of fanaticism and moral zealotry that had bedeviled other regimes.
Rather than trying to control the opinions, passions, and interests of citizens, the statesman should focus on managing the background conditions that make them possible… Madison’s counterintuitive proposal was that the larger the number of factions, the less power each has to do any lasting damage.
The novelty of the American Constitution was that every branch of government would be representative. America would be a representative republic in which all the offices derived their authority from the principle of election.
…the Federalist authors had reason to resist Jefferson’s call for permanent revolution. Repeated constitutional innovation tends to weaken people’s attachments to their laws. Even the reform of a bad law, as Aristotle recognized may have the unintended consequence of making people lawless.
American patriotism—like it or not—is a form of civic faith, or what Abraham Lincoln, the best reader of our constitutional tradition, called the “political religion of the nation.” It combines elements of both reason and reverence, self-reflection and respect for tradition, or as I will argue later, both logos and ethos. For Lincoln, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were sacred texts, and Washington and Jefferson were like the Hebrew prophets who led their people out of the house of bondage and into the Promised Land. Lincoln combined the prophetic ideal of return that he had inherited from the Puritans with a faith in progress and the future that he had taken from the Enlightenment.
Nationalism is an excess of patriotism tat holds an absolute attachment to one’s way f life—one’s country , one’s cause , one’s state—as unconditionally good and superior to others. At the other end of the spectrum, cosmopolitanism exhibits a deficiency of patriotism . Contemporary cosmopolitanism is a feature of the age of globalization, which is turning us all into “citizens of the world” living in open societies with increasingly porous borders.
These are the two dispositions with which patriotism must contend. Nationalism and cosmopolitanism both tend to obscure the virtue of patriotism. Each contains at best a part of the truth. The nationalist is correct to see that politics involves the particular: particular states, particular nations, particular peoples and traditions. We enter the world as members of a family, in a neighborhood, in a state, in some part of the country. These attachments are not extraneous to our identities; we are composites of the particularities.
There is truth also on the cosmopolitan trade. Are we condemned by the accident of birth to live by the traditions of the nation in which we happen to be born. We experience our moral worth through our ability to choose how we will speak and act, how we will live, with whom, and under what conditions. The cosmopolitan ethic allows us to stand imaginatively outside our particular situation and see ourselves from the standpoint of a disinterested spectator. Only through such critical distance can we judge ourselves and our society. To gain any moral purchase, we must view our own self and culture as we would view anyone else—neutrally, objectively, disinterestedly. This is the morality of cosmopolitanism.
Cosmopolitanism and nationalism are in fact doppelgangers, mirror images of one another that tend to magnify each other’s worst aspects. Nationalism fosters a fierce insularity that denies universal values of any sort. Cosmopolitanism uproots people from the local arrangements that most find worthy of reverence, and that give life meaning and wholeness.
Enlightened Patriotism Lincolnian patriotism
Patriotism is a species of loyalty and loyalty is the first virtue of social institutions. Care and loyalty are of a piece : loyalty is an affirmation of what we care about, and our cares are not momentary whims or desires but a structure of loyalties. Our cares make our lives more than a series of disconnected events.
The promise of equality is the cornerstone of the American experience.
[limited government] By setting the limits to what government can do, we create a robust sphere of private freedoms—civil society—in which men and women may pursue activities, alone or together, without fear of surveillance by either the government or their neighbors. Limited government recognizes the need for a considerable degree of reasonable pluralism within the community. Politics is the business of balancing and adjudicating between competing interests so that none gets so powerful that it can oppress the others.

[John Pepper · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this an exceptionally thought-provoking book, as revealed by this lengthy summary:

Yale Professor Steven B. Smith’s book, Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes, was heavy going in the beginning for me. An abundance, perhaps too many, references to ancient and renowned philosophers and political thinkers. However, page by page, chapter by chapter, I became more entranced. In the end, I am filled with admiration for this book. I learned a lot as Smith pinpointed the differences between Patriotism, which Smith embraces as do I, nationalism, which too often becomes exclusionary of others, and cosmopolitanism, which can easily become utopian and unrealistic.

I have also gleaned how the feeling of patriotism which Professor Smith describes can attach in special circumstances not only to our nation but also to an institution or company where one spends their career, in my case, Procter & Gamble.

Smith, not entirely correctly in my opinion, argues that America was the first, and perhaps still is the only, nation founded on a creed. We are a creedal people, he asserts. We keep referring back to our Founding Fathers, to our Constitution and to our Bill of Rights to a degree the citizens of no other country do--even if we argue intensely as to what is the right interpretation of the Constitution. (I write "not entirely correctly" because while our frequent reference to our Constitution is unique, the leadership and peoples of other nations will say and to varying degrees believe they are pursuing a "creed" based vision).

I would argue that Procter & Gamble is a creedal institution. It did not have what would be described as a "Constitution" or "Bill of Rights". However, what P&G was committed to was deeply embedded in the actions of P&G leaders and in the stories these leaders told about these actions, generation after generation. Actions embedded in the dedication to Service (to the consumer, employees, shareholders, and the community), in the dedication to Excellence (winning), in the Commitment to doing better tomorrow than we did today, in the Commitments to individual merit and to the loyalty and responsibility we owe to one other and to the institution itself and to the values of integrity, courage, and persistence.

(In 1987, Procter & Gamble did formally adopt these commitments and values on paper in a document titled: "Purpose, Values and Principles". But they were there before).

If asked to identify what have been the binding attributes of the “Patriotism," which have underpinned and nourished the respect and admiration for our Nation-- and for Procter & Gamble, I would cite these:

Equality--by recognizing that every person has the right to be treated with dignity and be supported in his or her growth.

Freedom-- by providing the space and the right for every person to develop without constraint or bias.

Justice--by doing what is right and true as best we understand it, and by acting in accordance with laws and our highest principles and values.

Responsibility-- to ourselves, to each other, and to the institution.

Opportunity--propelled by the aspiration and commitment which drives us to persist, despite setbacks, to achieve the fullness of the creed or Purpose to which we are committed.

Competence--by demonstrating the capability of achieving the institution's Purpose.

There are perspectives which Steven Smith’s book illuminated for me that I believe are very important:

One is “the ethos of society.” Professor Smith writes that Patriotism requires "not only an understanding and appreciation of a set of abstract ideas, but also their embodiment in a particular history and tradition." He writes, , “The ethos of a society embodies those traits of character that are normative for the community.” They embrace the “kinds of persons and personality traits (who) are deemed desirable (and) or kinds of actions and policies that are worthy of respect.”

There won’t be universal agreement on what those policies and actions were in our nation’s history. However, I believe there will be broad agreement, for example, that Abraham Lincoln’s principles and determined and courageous leadership were what we needed; that Martin Luther King lived a correct and admirable commitment to non-violent protest to advance the right of minorities; that men and women sacrificing their lives in World War II to preserve the democracy of this country --these all were were irreplaceable, admirable deeds. There would also be broad agreement on things that have been carried out by our Nation that are not admirable: lynching, Jim Crow, the appropriation of Native American lands, the internment of the Japanese in WW II.

Another way I describe “ethos” is the “smell of the place.” I first learned that concept from the late Professor Sumatra Goschal. He described the “smell of the place” in vivid terms as a combination of “stretch,” “discipline,” “support” and, above all, “TRUST”. Taken together, wholly and seamlessly they constitute the climate in which we live.

The only way to preserve and build on our creed and our Purpose-- the only way to make the ethos, or the smell of the place real, is by: 1) Results-- demonstrating the ability to take actions needed to progress to achieving the Purpose; 2) Transparency--describing the bases for our actions explicitly in terms of the values they embody and 3) Sharing learning and history--telling memorable stories of how the Purpose has been fulfilled in ways we admire or in ways that fail to measure up to fulfilling our Purpose. achieve at our best. That's how one continues to learn, thereby sustaining the Purpose and continuing to improve in achieving it.


Every institution, whether it be our Nation, a company like P&G, a university like Yale or a cultural center like the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center which I have been part of for 25 years, needs to be clear on its Creed or its Purpose. It needs to understand the ethos it has and which it seeks to build and what are the actions and values and the storytelling that will make that not just a bunch of abstract thoughts but descriptive of an entity to which one wants to commit his or her very best effort and a good part of their lives. This is what produces Loyalty and Patriotism.

Loyalty and a spirit of Patriotism have to be earned by what the institution is setting out to do, by how well and consistently it is doing it, by living its values in practice, and by how successful it is it is in continuing to do better, despite inevitable setbacks, tomorrow than it is today.

Professor Smith provides a good service to the reader in defining the nature of the "Patriotism" we should seek. What he does not address--nor do I believe it was his intent--is to what degree our Nation today is earning the loyalty and the Patriotism he so well describes or, even more to the point, what can be done to strengthen it.

I worry greatly that the foundations of Patriotism have been dangerously weakened. Citizens trust in the government has plummeted. Pew reports that the percentage of Americans saying they trust the federal government's decisions most of the time plummeted from 73 percent in 1958 to just 19 percent in 2019. Trust in other major institutions, including religion and schools (only the military has been immune), has also declined precipitously.

Respect for "truth" and the commitment to a common, shared cause so necessary to support Patriotism have been been shattered by a lack of value based leadership, particularly revealed though not started by Trump. Now, following the first year of the Biden Administration, beset with the overhanging pall of Covid, the impact of climate change and the competitive threat of China and and other geo-political challenges, we are shaken by concerns about sheer governmental competence, i.e. is our government being led by capable people able to get done what they have promised and are expected and need to do?

I don't have a confident answer to what can be done to "Reclaim Patriotism", returning to the title of Professor Smith's book--other than to say it depends on leadership. There's nothing new about that. We have always depended on strong leadership at times of crisis. Leaders able and brave enough to face reality, frame a uniting vision and marshal a clear and compelling strategy and take actions which demonstrate, even if imperfectly, the ability to make substantive progress toward that vision.

I also know that I and all of us have a personal responsibility--to work to the best of our abilities to make the life and the lives of people we touch better because we are where we are.

[Ryan Irwin · Rating 2 out of 5]

“To love our country well, we must learn to love it moderately.”

That is the entire book. Academic speak to justify a policy of moderation. Love your country, but don’t go too far left or right, as both are fraught with problems.

Whenever I don’t like a book as much as others I often wonder what I got wrong. There are a good number of critics and reviewers here on this site that felt this book to be an excellent overview and thought provoking analysis of what currently plagues us as a nation. I found it to be a little late to the party we all knew was already raging. Stepping into the fold to simply announce that both sides are wrong while offering up a weak solution based on our founding principles (principles that are currently under threat) seems a little self aggrandizing. I understand the author is an excellent lecturer and wonderfully more academically decorated than I, but I couldn’t help but feeling as if I could have written this book without any real research or anecdotal digging. Perhaps I’m being too harsh, but I was really hoping for something else from this book.

[Douglas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Smith argues that “patriotism” in our contemporary American society has been distorted by political polarization and cultural extremism that has hollowed out an extremely important feature of our national identity, leaving it laden with ideological baggage. On the extreme right, it is often associated with an exclusionary nationalism that alienates those who don't fit a narrow definition of American identity. On the extreme left, it has become a cosmopolitan mindset that dismisses patriotism as outdated or even dangerous, in favor of global concerns that transcend national boundaries. Smith rejects both extremes, calling instead for a "principled patriotism" rooted in the nation’s founding ideals—freedom, equality, and democratic governance—while being open to self-critique and inclusive in its vision.

He traces the evolution of American patriotism, from the revolutionary spirit of the Founding Fathers to its various manifestations in the 20th century, including its role in the civil rights movement and other struggles for social justice. By situating patriotism in a historical context, he shows how it has been a dynamic, evolving concept, capable of both uniting and dividing Americans depending on how it is interpreted and practiced.

His philosophical engagement is also particularly insightful. Drawing on thinkers such as Aristotle, Rousseau, and Lincoln, he explores the moral foundations of patriotism, emphasizing that love of country does not require blind loyalty or chauvinism. Instead, true patriotism involves a critical love, where citizens are both proud of their nation’s achievements and honest about its failures. This balance between pride and self-criticism is key to Smith’s vision of a healthy patriotism, one that fosters civic responsibility and encourages citizens to work towards the common good.

At the heart of the book is Smith’s call for a renewed commitment to the principles of democracy. He argues that patriotism, at its best, is not about flag-waving or military might, but about participation in a democratic society where every individual has a voice. This form of patriotism requires citizens to engage with one another in meaningful dialogue, to listen and learn from different perspectives, and to work together towards shared goals. In a time when public discourse is often marked by hostility and division, his emphasis on civic engagement and mutual respect feels both timely and urgent.

Given that the political polarization is so extreme at the moment, it could seem like Smith’s call to occupy the middle ground between the extremes of nationalism and cosmopolitanism is a rather idealistic and unreachable goal. Nonetheless, his work here should be carefully considered because it does offer a reasoned and thoughtful alternative to the more extreme forms of patriotism that dominate the public sphere. More Americans should be challenged to think more deeply about what it means to love one’s country and how that love can be expressed in a way that is both inclusive and principled.

[Attasit Sittidumrong · Rating 5 out of 5]

หัวใจของหนังสือเล่มนี้คือการนำเสนอว่าเราสามารถรักชาติได้โดยไม่ต้องคลั่งชาติ หรือพูดอีกแบบหนึ่งก็คือความรักในบ้านเกิดเมืองนอนเป็นคนละเรื่องกับความคลั่งไคล้อย่างหัวปักหัวปำจนมองไม่เห็นด้านมืดหรือสิ่งที่เลวร้ายในชาติของตน

แกนกลางสำคัญของหนังสือคือข้อเสนอให้แยกลัทธิรักชาติบ้านเมืองหรือ patriotism อ้นเป็นแนวคิดที่มีมาตั้งแต่สมัยโบราณ จากลัทธิชาตินิยม หรือ nationalism ซึ่งเป็นแนวคิดสมัยใหม่ในศตวรรษที่ 19 พร้อมๆกับชี้ให้เห็นความต่างทางอารมณ์ที่พัวพันกับสองแนวคิดข้างต้น กล่าวคือ สำหรับลัทธิรักชาติบ้านเมือง อารมณ์ที่สำคัญก็คือความรัก ภักดีและห่วงใยในบ้านเกิดหรือถิ่นฐานที่ตนถือกำเนิดและใช้ชีวิต ด้วยถือว่าบ้านเกิด/ถิ่นฐานดังกล่าวคือส่วนหนึ่งที่คอยนิยามตัวตนและอัตลักษณ์ของปัจเจกแต่ละคน ในขณะที่ลัทธิชาตินิยามจะเป็นสิ่งที่ขับเคลื่อนด้วยแนวคิดอย่างการปกครองตนเอง (self-determination) ของคนในชาติ จึงเป็นสิ่งที่ดำรงอยู่คู่กับ desire หรือความปรารถนาที่คอยผลักให้ผู้คนต้องทำสงครามแย่งชิงเพื่อเข้าถึงอำนาจ (จะได้ปกครองตนเองได้) จนทำให้อารมณ์ที่พัวพันกับลัทธิชาตินิยมคืออารมณ์แบบ resentment อันเนื่องมาจากภาวะตั้งต้นที่ลัทธิดังกล่าวจะให้ความสำคัญกับการช่วงชิงหรือถือครองอำนาจเพื่อดำรงตนเหนือคนอื่น/กลุ่มอื่น/ชาติอื่น

ด้วยเหตุนี้ หนังสือจึงได้เสนอต่อมาว่าวิกฤติทางการเมืองในโลกตะวันตกปัจจุบัน คือวิกฤติที่ลัทธิชาตินิยมกำลังครอบงำความคิดของสังคมการเมือง โดยเฉพาะการแพร่หลายของวาทกรรมที่เน้นการแยกมิตร (พวกเรา)และศัตรู (พวกเขา) ซึ่งจะกลับมาส่งเสริมอารมณ์แบบ resentment แก่ผู้คน และดังนั้น ทางออกจากวิกฤติดังกล่าวจึงเป็นเรื่องของการทวงคืนความรักในชาติบ้านเมืองให้ขาดจากพวกชาตินิยมสุดขั้ว โดยหนังสือเสนอแนวคิดเรื่อง enlightened patriotism หรือการรักชาติบ้านเมืองแบบทรงปัญญา ซึ่งเสนอให้มองความรักต่อชาติบ้านเมืองว่าเป็นสิ่งที่ไม่ต่างไปจากการรักในครอบครัวของตน เพราะการรักในครอบครัวไม่จำเป็นที่จะต้องตามมาด้วยการเหยียดหรือทำร้ายครอบครัวของคนอื่นๆ ตรงกันข้าม ความรักในครอบครัวนั้นถึงที่สุดแล้วก็คือความรักที่พร้อมจะเผื่อแผ่ให้เพื่อนบ้านด้วยเสมอ เพราะยิ่งเพื่อนบ้านมีชีวิตที่ดีครอบครัวของตนเองก็จะยิ่งมีชีวิตที่ดีตามไปด้วย ในแง่นี้ ลัทธิรักชาติบ้านเมืองแบบทรงปัญญา จึงไม่ใช่แนวคิดที่ตัดสินให้เทิดทูนบ้านเกิดเมืองนอน อันมีลักษณะเฉพาะโดยแลกกับการละทิ้งคุณค่าสากลต่างๆ หากแต่คือแนวคิดที่ผสานให้ความรักในจารีตเฉพาะถิ่นไปกันได้กับความรักในมนุษย์ชาติที่เป็นสากล เพราะแม้มนุษย์ชาติที่เป็นสากลอาจดำรงอยู่ในฐานะคนอื่นหรือ "พวกเขา" แต่ก็เป็นคนอื่นที่ไม่ได้มีพิษเป็นภยันตรายต่อ "พวกเรา" หากแต่เป็นคนอื่นที่ก็เป็นมนุษย์ อยู่ภายใต้เส้นขอบฟ้าทางศีลธรรมเดียวกัน และสามารถเกี้อหนุนให้ "พวกเรา" มีชีวิตที่สงบสุข รุ่งเรืองได้

[E · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess I liked this book, if only it's nice to read someone from Yale pushing back against the modern transnational progressive left. Don't worry, Trumpy nationalists get critiqued as well. (Though, in general Smith is too hard on nationalism, even the quintessential nineteenth century European variety). Smith's love of our Constitutional order and our Founding also come through strongly, which is refreshing.

I'm not sure Smith understands the saying "My country, right or wrong." It comes in for some swipes now and then, though properly understood the expression is not a validation of wrongdoing on the part of one's country. Quite the opposite, in fact (how else could you label it "wrong"?).

Interesting discussion of ancient Greek democracy versus today's democratic republics. A bit far afield from the title topic, but enlightening nonetheless. In sum, this book might not turn over any new leaves, but it's healthy to remind oneself every so often that is good to love one's country (esp. the USA, which, let's face it, gets a lot of things right), and healthy to remind oneself of the reasons why.

[Mmetevelis · Rating 5 out of 5]

For a relatively short book this is an important apologia for an "enlightened patriotism" and an illuminating history of its subject. Smith makes effective arguments American nationalism and western "cosmopolitanism." In tracing the contours of the idea of patriotism Smith makes use of the canon of important political thinkers, more recent literature, and even popular culture. I enjoyed this throughout.

The argument is pretty concise but the details risk becoming weeds. The concluding chapters were not as strong as they could have been. What would an "enlightened patriotism" look like in many of our institutions and not just in our sentiments? Is it just a rigorous appropriation of our textual and constitutional faith? Is it the meliorist view of American liberty championed by Lincoln? How would our national life be stronger? How should we counter the appeal of both of the extremes beyond just refuting their arguments?

The weakness of this book is that it left many of these questions open. The strength of this book is that it got me to ask them.

I heartily recommend this book to frame or provoke anyone wanting a good discussion on this topic.

[Paul Womack · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very fine and challenging book. If events of the day have persuaded you to one extreme or the other, this thoughtful, suggestive book that there is wisdom and patriotism to be found when “centered” in the American creed and its often ambiguous historical narrative. The book offers suggestions for future reading and study, which makes it most helpful. It affirms the role of patriotism and grounds the universalism which appeals to many in the experience of the particular. For me, that insight was generated by several of the interrogations I conducted during the Vietnam War, when the prisoners helped me grasp both their humanity and their patriotism; this helped me grasp my own humanity and desire to be loyal to my nation and thus helped me realize balance, paradox, and tension, and sometimes a protest to the ways the nation had wandered from its aspirational path, was an aspect of patriotism.

[Steve Brown · Rating 1 out of 5]

When the author said, "As any reader of Sophocles' Antigone would immediately recognize...." I knew I was in trouble and this book was over my head. I kept reading, but quotes from the likes of Tolstoy telling me that, "Patriotism...is but a weapon for the attainment of aggression and mercenary aims." made reading this feel like a school paper. For academic types that may be exactly what they are hoping to get from this book and if so, you won't be disappointed. The author does a fine job of presenting contrasting opinions on patriotism while trying to justly represent both democratic and republican points of view. Likewise, he explains not only what patriotism is, but what it is not by comparing it to nationalism and cosmopolitanism.

In the end, I wasn't the right audience for this author.

Note: I've downloaded a bunch of free, (mostly) random, pre-releases of books with the idea of expanding my range and helping authors get reviews. #netgalley

[Charles Gonzalez · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lovely, wonderful and examined explanation of what it means to be an American patriot. Smith, whose online Yale course on Political Philosophy was one of my early introductions to its study, rewards the reader with a historical study of patriotism in the US and the various ways that it’s promoters and critics on the right and left get wrong about it. The book is published at just the right time - when we as Americans need a refresher course in what it means to be an American. To remind us of why we get the lump in our throat when we hear the Star Spangled Banner., when a young American athlete wins an Olympic gold medal and when we enter a voting booth to complete the most important act of citizenship in a republic. Thank you to Professor Smith for a necessary education and reminder of what a true American patriot is and should be and why we should be proud of being one.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a closely reasoned and well argued attempt to find an Aristotelian middle path between the weaponized and nationalistic patriotism of the American Right and the rootless cosmopolitanism of the global, technocratic Left. Drawing deeply on foundational American documents and thinkers as well as philosophical and artistic writings from ancient Greece through to Bruce Springsteen, Smith makes a convincing argument for an enlightened patriotism standing on the best of our past and continually questioning how well we live up to our ideals that can provide a foundation ono which we can build our better selves collectively and individually while still maintaining a sense of humility and openness to others. I wish everyone on both sides would read this book and perhaps talk to each other about it.

[Register28 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Smith uses all the resources he has (which are considerable, he being a distinguished political scientist) to find a place for the loyalty and gratitude that he identifies as patriotism and to exhort us to the generosity of American patriotism of which he finds Lincoln the exemplar. He provides philosophical justifications for patriotism which he distinguishes from blood and soil nationalism, on the one hand, and from supra-nationalism (which he calls cosmopolitanism), on the other, for both of which he also finds philosophical sources. It is a lot to think about, but I have my doubts that the partisans of the right and left will take the trouble to study it and learn its lessons of caring and generosity.

[Katerina Pritz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I, like Smith, consider myself an enlightened patriot. A patriot the like of Lincoln. This book brings together important points on how both sides of the political spectrum are working, arguably unintentionally, to erode what it means to be an American.
I’d venture to say that, depending to which side you lean, you may find it easier to describe the flaws on one side vs the other; necessarily due to a chauvinistic impulse - though perhaps that applies to you - but because, if you are anything like me, the flaws you spot on your side lead to you feeling politically homeless. However, as the book wisely states, it is a patriot’s job to acknowledge the flaws of one’s country and work to improve on them. I’d say the same about each of our respective parties.

[Pam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Any book that causes me to really reflect on and categorize my own beliefs causes me to rate a book higher than I usually do. The author calmly and scholarly differentiates between nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and patriotism. I found myself comparing Steven Smith to Stephan Hawkings. Both are able to take a complex subject and explain it in layman's terms without dumbing down the topic. I loved his primary source choices. I still need to chew on his message a little more and know that I will be reading/listening to it a few more times. That in itself is a reason for the higher rating. I love a book that makes me want to read it again.

[Donna · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am a constitutional conservative, many of Steven Smith’s ideas are in conflict with my political ideals, which is why I read his book. I was impressed that there were many of his ideas with which I agreed, a fact that gives me hope that we as a nation will seek to relearn the art of civil discourse allowing us to find our common ground instead of forever bludgeoning each other with our perceived slights and differences.
I would recommend this to people on both sides of the political aisle. He has some very good insights.

[AJ B · Rating 4 out of 5]

17:52 04/19/21
Kindle (while listening to audio at some points)
Middlebury, VT

I read this because Dry sent me a George Will article about it last night saying how pertinent it may be to my thesis. Not only was it relevant but helped me get a better idea of how to explain the weaponization of American exceptionalism by the right and a similar phenomenon on the left. All in all, it was interesting and very similar to my thesis.

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just what the title says but told in a somewhat unexpected manner. Lots of history, pre-history, current day poets and cautions on the right and left but a prayer for faith in the "creedal" nature of our society.

[Alec Rogers · Rating 4 out of 5]

More of a collection of essays than a unified book, but many interesting themes througout.

[Staci · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting and nuanced view of patriotism and all it can be, what it should not be, and how we can come to see the difference.

[Linda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Didn't finish because it was so dense and my brain was not up to the task, perhaps will try again soon

[Maryssa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Exceptionally heavy. Needs a lot of prior knowledge of philosophy and writings to follow. One book in a lengthy list that one should listen to in order to form a reasonable opinion on the topic

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good. Lost me a little with his digression on cosmopolitanism and the idea of "cool".
Overall a good, balanced, and thoughtful read.

[Jason Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

very good reflection on patriotism from a philosophical perspective

[Brandon Westlake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Steven B. Smith is a great writer (and lecturer- if you haven't seen his lectures from the MOOC, go watch them). I think he fairly criticizes the shortcomings of both the right and the left, showing where there can be an opening for a better way to think about patriotism. The best author that I can compare Smith to, and that he actually references, is Michael Sandel.

There is a lot to think about here, and it probably will make you uncomfortable and a little uneasy. So be it.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really appreciated Dr Smith's expanded essay of a book on patriotism. This may be all confirmation bias, because I love my country and can't understand why so many people, especially people well-off here, can be so disdainful of patriotism.

I was also drawn to the book because of my wariness and confusion with regard to the Thin Blue Line symbolism that cropped up in the non-southern red states. I remember thinking, "why are the people flying the rebel flag the only people flying the American flag from their trucks?!"

Perhaps someone who feels differently might take issue with Dr Smith, but he does a thorough job of framing patriotism as distinct from nationalism, especially the blind nationalism of the angry-flaming-eagle-T-shirts states. He discusses the ethos, logos, and pathos of patriotism, and describes patriotism as existing with the rooted, ordinary people, in the middle of a spectrum from nationalism to transnational cosmopolitanism.

It's easier to understand when he says it.

Anyway, Dr Smith is extremely well-read and I loved how he compared our national character now to that of the past, quoting other thinkers, and of course Toqueville, extensively to help describe not just patriotism in general terms, but American patriotism in particular, as it relates to our historical and current national character.

[Danny Jarvis · Rating 4 out of 5]

As succinctly stated in the introduction, this book details how and why “American patriotism is not only a statement of who we are, but also an aspiration to what we might become” and explains how “To be an American is to be continually engaged in asking what it means to be an American”.

Using historical examples and ties to modern (as of 2021) political events, themes, and points of interest, it explains how and why America is unique from other countries in its loyalty to ideals over nationality/ethnicity and the importance of constantly defining what those ideals mean in modern context.