I wrote something kitschy (using Mattthew's terms from the post below) about this a while ago:
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html#112689888308097712

Back during the Vietnam War, one of the oil companies gave away American flag decals at its gas stations. That's when I first remembered this kind of phony patriotism. It got so stupid that a person with one flag decal on his car was considered more patriotric that someone with no flag decal at all, but he was seen as less patriotic than somebody with two flag decals. Today's insanity is just another version of that.

But I'd be eager to hear an intellectually serious defense of symbolic patriotism.

I don't have one, but for what it's worth, recall that when children are taught the pledge of allegiance in school, it's purely symbolic patriotism: you've got the symbol, and you've got a long string of words that none of them understands. I'm not surprised at all that some people don't seem to distinguish reverence for the symbols from reverence for the actual underlying principles, much less making a connection to actions.

I like Obama, and I like his stance on this, but making it public has to be one of the most brain-dead moves by a politician that I can remember. What can he possibly think it will gain him? People who would admire him for it... admire him already, in large part. But now to all sorts of people who've never heard of him, or know little about him, he's that guy who refuses to wear the flag. What a waste.

Matt Yglesias had a great take on this, similar to yours Paul, but I think fleshed out a little better (maybe just because I'm a basketball fan):

There were two kinds of Knicks fans in New York when I was a kid. On the one hand, you had people who wanted the Knicks to win, who therefore found Michael Jordan's global fame somewhat annoying, who and who learned, watching Knicks game after Knicks game, to appreciate what there is to appreciate about grind-it-out defense-oriented physical basketball. On the other hand you had crazy people who would insist that Patrick Ewing was the best center in the game, that Michael Jordan only seemed good because he got superstar calls, and were, generally speaking, completely out of touch with reality. The attitude toward America that conservatives like to champion is like this latter batch of Knicks fans -- not people animated by a special concern for our fellow-citizens and a special appreciation for our country's virtues, but by a deep emotional investment in a certain kind of national hagiography and myth-making.

Read the whole post MY

i believe that patriotism is love of country (which is to say, it's nothing at all symbolic, but it's also not about wanting to make it better, which more grows out of love of country).

when we see rudy giuliani insist that his love for his wife is so great that it justifies taking her calls at any time, no matter how rude, we wonder whether it's really love that motivates him.

which is to say, although there are many ways to express love of country, just as there are many ways to express love of your parents or your partner or your children or whomever, but it's rare that the chest-pounding, hey look at how much i love you approach inspires admiration in anything but love of country.

it really is very strange, ultimately, and i think RSA made a very good point about the confusion at 4:45.

"...but making it public has to be one of the most brain-dead moves by a politician that I can remember."

Ryan,

He didn't "make this public" as you state; he was asked by a reporter. The question begs why does a reporter think it's relevant to ask a presidential candidate why he isn't sporting a flag pin as if it's now a pre-requisite for the office of the presidency. Most of the presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, have NOT worn a pin during the course of this campaign, so why was it necessary to ask Senator Obama? Sure, he could have lied and said he forgot it, but to what end? Curious how you would have responded if a prospective employer asked you why you weren't wearing one...Would you have maintained your integrity or just lied to get the job?

Dawn,

Yes, he was asked. Fair enough. I don't know whether other candidates are wearing them or have been asked; I agree it's a bad sign that any reporter would think it matters. But honestly, I think he'd have been smarter politically to be vague about his reasons and to keep them to himself. I'd rather see him picking fights over substantive, not symbolic, issues.

I don't wear pins, and I don't believe in patriotism that's all symbol and no substance. If asked by an interviewer I'd say so. But then I'm not running for President. The stakes are too high for Dems to be giving gifts to the right like this. It's not lethal, but it's a gaffe -- and it pisses me off mostly because it could have been so, so easily avoided.

This post reminds me of all the flag-displaying that went on after 9/11, even in my comparatively liberal home town. I have nothing against the flag, but it drove me nuts that these so-called patriots stuck the flag on a pole and left it there, day and night, rain or shine, because they were all about patriotism so long as it didn’t require them to exert any effort – y’ know, like taking the flag down in inclement weather as a sign of respect.

But the worst was one family that had this huge flag tacked to the outside of their house; and I mean the thing was huge – it literally took up one storey on the side of their house. And, like everyone else who flew the flag in those days, they just left it out for months on end, allowing it to get faded, tattered and dirty. Then one day, I happened to notice that it was a 48-star flag. You can tell, because the stars are arranged in even rows of eight, as opposed to the staggered rows of five and six stars on a 50-star flag. So, it dawned on me that this was a WWII era flag, likely a family heirloom, quite possibly from someone who, like my father, had served in the army during the war. At a minimum, it was a historically significant object and, if for no other reason than that, should have been treated with respect. But these folks thought it was more important to show their supposed “patriotism” – with, of course, the minimum of effort – than to protect an object that was symbolic of a time when the United States faced a real threat and really was engaged in a struggle to save the world from tyranny.

To me, that said it all about phony right-wing patriotism.

Speaking of "God Bless America" being superimposed onto the seventh-inning stretch at baseball games, the NYT had an article a few months ago explaining that in some ballparks (including, of course, Yankee Stadium, home of convicted election-violator and Nixon supporter George Steinbrenner), ushers actually prevent people from leaving their seats/moving around during the song.

Apparently, some teams justify such restraints as preventing disrespectful activity (I say, if you bring a jingoistic, platitudinous, holier-than-thou song to a public place/event known for its crotch-scratching, spitting, and cussing, it's your own goddamn fault), but I'm not sure if the central sin of daring to want to absent one's self for political, culinary, or urinary reasons involves disrespect for the "God" part, the "Bless[ing]" part, or the "America" part.

Hell, why not just go with the Borat version of the national anthem while we're at it?

On a related note, fuck Ronan Tynan and the Yankees.

"But I'd be eager to hear an intellectually serious defense of symbolic patriotism. This is worth discussing."

I'd like to see somone make an intellectually serious defense of how electing Obama would be substantive act of progressive patriotism and not merely a symbolic act of progressive patriotism. I think this worth discussing because I think the historical moment is fast arriving when people should start telling the identity politics wing of the Democratic Party (the only one you have, apparently) to go to hell with their elite pay masters and academic spin meisters.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think so.

And, of course, that goes double or triple for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Ryan,

Barack Obama's national career has been defined by his refusal to adopt a 'go along to get along' attitude. Quite frankly, it was that very kind of thinking that lead us into the war, the patriot act, eavesdropping on Americans, sanctioned torture, etc. I'm proud of him for saying that he will NOT follow the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and LOU Dobbs in wearing a pin as a substitute for real patriotism. If you want a conformist president, then he's not your candidate, but I think it's both undemocratic and unpatriotic, if you will, to adopt the status quo to avoid fights with idiotic conservatives. Moreover, your underselling the public. Maybe there are more people than not who too are tired of the pin wearing phony patriots.

Ryan,

I'm 'anonymous'.

I don't see how we can do anything but applaud what Waldman would term "symbolic patriotism" among Mexican migrants.

We should encourage all Mexicans, especially those living in the southwest U.S., to express even MORE "symbolic patriotism." When the day comes that more Mexican flags than U.S. flags are flying in California, Arizona, and yes, TEXAS...that will be a day that no amount of jingo-Bushism will be able to counter.

The "symbolic patriotism" will turn into very un-symbolic act - joint control of U.S. territory alongside a long-oppressed nation and peoples, Mexico.

Symbolic patriotism supports your fellows. Substantial patriotism is often to abstract or "unsexy" to serve as a rally cry. And rallying cries are important, even for lefties. To keep spirits up.

Yes, how is it that Mexicans in the US can be as chauvinistic in their macho flag-waving without being critically evaluated by progressives? For that matter, what about the "phony patriotism" of guys like myself who drape rainbow flags off our balconies?

Patriotism is the worship of hollow symbols over substance.

It is also the next-to-last refuge of scoundrels, right after the seminary.

And wouldn't it be nice if we could have that discussion without anyone actually charging that people whose patriotism takes a different form than theirs are not actually patriotic at all?

That's never going to happen, because a discussion implies there's some common logical or rational framework going on where a discussion can take place, and the people behind this pin controversy have none. None at all. What's their "argument" supposed to be? That Obama must at all times be wearing an "I Love America" sign in the form of jewelery - otherwise, we just won't know where he stands?! What "discussion" can be had with someone who, say, supports the Flag Burning Amendment? Someone who's willing to throw our most basic right away because burning a cloth with a red white and blue pattern upsets him so much?

But the biggest reason a discussion can't take place without the "symbolic patriots" accusing others of not being patriotic is: that's why they're being symbolically patriotic in the first place! They use the pins and car magnets and waving flags as cheap, easy gestures to show their patriotism as superior to yours. Heck, it's just a way to feel superior, period - the same impulse behind muttering "Affirmative Action" at a black doctor, or snarling "Merry CHRISTMAS" during the holiday season. Such a person can't be argued with, any more than arguing with a rich bully that he doesn't need more lunch money. Their interest in finding objective justification for their actions is zero.

"Barack Obama's national career has been defined by his refusal to adopt a 'go along to get along' attitude. Quite frankly, it was that very kind of thinking that lead us into the war"

I don't know. I'd like to give that to you, and him, but I can't. The other week he was out-hawking Hillary, going guns a-blazing into Pakistan, with or without their agreement (they *are* a sovereign nation). Of course that little hypocritical bitch took the opportunity to tut-tut over his little collection of faux pas.

What a bunch of phonies. You can vote Guiliani. Really, you can. On the plus side, you don't have to have women and black people "symbolically" taking the fall for this crap. All of a sudden the Republicans will discover they have morals. Or, I don't know, maybe that's the way to go.

Next time Obama appears anywhere, it should be in a jacket studded with flag pins. Like, 20 lbs. of lapel pins, front and back, like hunk of frickin chain mail.

America, F-Yeah!

The appropriate response would be a series of questions to the reporter:

1. Do you honestly spend your time checking whether politicians wear flag pins on their lapel/dress?

2. Do you honestly believe that one must wear a flag pin to qualify for public office?

3. Do you believe that one should really take a reporter as serious journalists if this seems to be his driving issue instead of the war, health care, growing disparity of income and the conduct of the War in Iraq?

He then should conclude with: I will entertain a serious question from a serious journalist.kmsnpj

This is the difference between thinking that patriotism means talking about how super-awesome America is, and that patriotism means doing things to make America great.

It's the fundamental clash between a belief in future perfectibility, a hope, and one that calls for actual work, versus present perfection, a delusion, and a lie, one that calls for nothing more strenuous than a hearty 'Hell, yeah!"

The Brits seem to be a bit more nuanced on this point. Sure, they close the Proms with "Rule, Britannia", but they also sing "Jerusalem" (Wm. Blake, Hubert Parry):

I will not cease from mental strife,
Nor will the sword sleep in my hand
Until we have builded here Jersualem
In England's green and pleasant land.

Or as Mr. Springsteen has said: "The country we have in our hearts is waiting."

Grumpy is on to something.

I suppose the only thing dumber than reducing the whole process to the Iowa caucuses would be a flair primary, and it seems we're on the way there.

John Prine:

"Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore/It's already overcrowded by your dirty little war..."

Good jumping off point for an intellectual discussion of the topic would be Habermas' influential concept of Verfassungspatriotismus, that is, "constitutional patriotism." Check it out sometime. By the way, Habermas has more genuine leftist credentials--as well as a lot more wisdom and human decency--than the entire Harvard faculty combined.

There is no possibility of an intellectual argument for "symbolic patriotism" because it is without intellectual underpinning - that's the problem with thinking each side has "fair and balanced" intellectual support. "Substantive patriotism" is true patriotism, while "symbolic patriotism" really is nothing but nationalism. It's the difference between the progressive foundation of the American experiment, or being Germany or Italy in the 1930s. There's no debate - one is constructive for a better country, the other the path to ruin.

What you call symbolic patriotism reminds me of Vaclav Havel's description of how the communist system functioned-- the shopkeeper put up a sign urging the workers of the world to unite not because he gave a damn about the unity of the world's workers-- but because it was pressured upon him by everyone else putting up these signs and signifiers of the regime's propaganda. The state didn't even have to get involved.

Why does it have to be all or nothing?
Granted that flags and other symbols do not indicate patriotism in and of themselves, but they do not necessarily imply "phony patriotism" either.
Symbols are, and probably always have been, ways for people to express/concretize expression of commitment to a particular idea or what have you. There is no need to deride those who do so as "fake".
Some people, of course, will use flags to flaunt or to cynically "uphold" values they violate in the day-to-day. But they are only part of the picture.
But it strikes me that many of you who deride the flag-bearers' view that only they are patriotic, are in this forum making similarly exclusive judgments.
Unfortunately, ignorance of complexity and judgmentality are among the only things conservatives and liberals seem able to share...

Why does it have to be either/or?
Granted that flags and other symbols do not indicate patriotism in and of themselves, but they do not necessarily imply "phony patriotism" either.
Symbols are, and probably always have been, ways for people to express/concretize expression of commitment to a particular idea or what have you. There is no need to deride those who do so as "fake".
Some people, of course, will use flags to flaunt or to cynically "uphold" values they violate in the day-to-day. But they are only part of the picture.
But it strikes me that many of you who deride the flag-bearers' view that only they are patriotic, are in this forum making similarly exclusive judgments.
Unfortunately, ignorance of complexity and judgmentality are among the only things conservatives and liberals seem able to share...

OK, so someone remind me -- why is patriotism, symbolic or substantive, supposed to be a good thing?

No such discussion is complete without a link to the brilliant Stick Magnetic Ribbons on your SUV (set to "Tie a Yellow Ribbon").

yes a guy can dream..

Dawn, I still disagree with you. Obama has shown himself to be a master of the fuzzy generality. Truth is, he shows a lot of what you'd call "conformist" instincts in the way he talks about issues. (The war is obviously the big exception, and that's to his great credit -- it's obviously a major substantive issue.) Oftentimes, blurring the sharp edges is the smart thing to do. I just wish he'd chosen to follow those instincts in this case.