Originally posted by sh76It sounds like you believe "patriotism" is a negative phenomenon. With what I have said and what you have said, I can't see how it could ever be positive, and even if it seemed to be positive, would it ever be sufficiently trustworthy?
I agree with you. It's not "really" patriotic. But, it sounds patriotic and appeals to patriotic emotion to say you're the best at something. Also, if you're a politician and you say how great the country is, people feel better about you than if you say our country's policies stink.[...] It only becomes a problem when people let that nonsense actually affect their planning and policies.
Originally posted by FMFWell, it's positive if it makes you want to improve your country. If I decide to not be apathetic and instead to advocate positive policies in my country, that's positive patriotism.
It sounds like you believe "patriotism" is a negative phenomenon. With what I have said and what you have said, I can't see how it could ever be positive, and even if it seemed to be positive, would it ever be sufficiently trustworthy?
If simply assume that everything that's already being done is the best possible strategy just because my country does it, that's negative.
Originally posted by FMFOne is generally not capable of determining that one's own wants are based on "emotion, delusion, deception, or even ignorance."
Even if the "want", and the perceived shortcomings of your country, and the nature of the "improvements" sought, are all based on emotion, delusion, deception, or even ignorance?
One can only strive to educate oneself to the extent one is able to do so. Then, one must act in accordance with the judgments that one makes in accordance with such education.
What am I talking about again? 😉
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76I think what you are trying to say is that it is high time that patriotism was de-emphasized and marginalized - to be replaced with participation, with educated proactivity, engaged citizenship, with a quest for truth, transparency, lucidity, a literate embrace of the possibility of genuine persuasion, informed and responsible self-interest, and above all - to be replaced with a way of reasoning, and feeling of attachment to one's formation, location and situation, that leaves plenty of room for the healthiest of human capacities: doubt.*
What am I talking about again? 😉
[this should all be delivered a la William Shatner]
Originally posted by FMFSomething like that 😕
I think what you are trying to say is that it is high time that patriotism was de-emphasized and marginalized - to be replaced with participation, with educated proactivity, engaged citizenship, with a quest for truth, transparency, lucidity, a literate embrace of the possibility of genuine persuasion, informed and responsible self-interest, and above all - to b ...[text shortened]... cation and situation, that leaves plenty of room for the healthiest of human capacities: doubt.
Originally posted by sh76A lot of politicians seem to - and that's primarily where I've heard it. Most, if not all, are from politicians who are arguing that we don't need reform in our health care system.
Who says we have the best healthcare system in the World? Well, I guess sometimes politicians and dogmatic talk show hosts say it to audiences because they love to say jingoistic things that appeal to patriotism and don't actually require any thought.
Originally posted by FMFWell, I don't see how being proud of your country could be negative.
It sounds like you believe "patriotism" is a negative phenomenon. With what I have said and what you have said, I can't see how it could ever be positive, and even if it seemed to be positive, would it ever be sufficiently trustworthy?
Patriotism is only negative when it is exploited in order to suit certain political goals.
Originally posted by generalissimoPatriotism can result in an essential blindness to the flaws that exist in a country.
Well, I don't see how being proud of your country could be negative.
Patriotism is only negative when it is exploited in order to suit certain political goals.
There are those that love their country so much that they can't stand anyone point out that there might be a problem or that another country might be doing things better.
The whole idiotic "love it or leave it" attitude is what I'd call a negative result of some people's patriotism.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnPatriotism can lead to fanaticism, and so can anything.
Patriotism can result in an essential blindness to the flaws that exist in a country.
There are those that love their country so much that they can't stand anyone point out that there might be a problem or that another country might be doing things better.
The whole idiotic "love it or leave it" attitude is what I'd call a negative result of some people's patriotism.
I think it is good that people are proud of their country, but that doesn't mean they have to be irrational, recognising that mybe others countries do something better doesn't make you less patriotic.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnwhat is the population of France?
I agree that the rest of the world can learn from us, but we definitely could learn some things from at least some parts of the world.
The one thing I have seen in US politics that I don't doubt happens elsewhere, but I just don't remember it being as pronounced in Canada for example, is that people label things as "socialism" or even "european" and h ...[text shortened]... ropean countries do rank higher in life expectance and lower in infant mortality.
You put your finger on a very important point, one that is a traditionally American political artifact:
"The one thing I have seen in US politics that I don't doubt happens elsewhere, but I just don't remember it being as pronounced in Canada for example, is that people label things as "socialism" or even "european" and hence that's somehow in itself a reason to just dismiss the idea. "
Socialism has always been undercut in America on the grounds it is a "foreign" or "European" idea -- and it is indeed dismissed just for that.
What I'd like to see is a down in the weeds discussion of where to draw the line between public and private interests; how is the public interest to be protected, or should it be? What about public health and defense?
Should private profit take precedence over any of these matters?
Don't you think it has, especially in light of the failure to regulate financial institutions and the resulting collapse?
Aren't we still floundering around trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again while failing to reach agreement on these questions?
How can we reform health care if we don't reach consensus of the need for it in the first place? And I don't mean the need for reform; I mean the need for health care. There are folks arguing that if you can't pay for health care, then hurry up and die and reduce the bottom half of the scale to make room for the fit, healthy and wealthy.
So we are apparently "hard-wired" to make poor risk management decisions.
Better that some experts make those decisions for us ...
At least that's what I think Cass Sunstein is advocating, and he's now the czar in charge of government regulation for the US of A in the Office of Management and Budget in the White House.
hmmmmm?
See http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/08/sunstein-to-bring-law-behavioral-economics-to-washington/
A brief article with links to longer sources says that “Law and behavioral economics,” a field Sunstein has called one of the most interesting intellectual movements of the last 30 years, is a field that seeks to shape law and policy around the way research shows people actually behave.
The theory, writes the Journal, builds on earlier approaches developed at the University of Chicago that sought to harmonize regulatory law with free-market economics.
"Sunstein said we all have a little Homer Simpson in us."
The blurb quotes him as saying:
"And that means that we are sometimes impulsive, we sometimes follow the short-term interest rather than the long-term interest. We sometimes get confused when we’re figuring out what mortgage to select or what credit card plan to get into. . . we don’t deal with risks very well. So, before 9/11, a lot of Americans and the American government were probably too complacent about the risks of a terrorist attack. After 9/11, we were probably too frightened. So this kind of careening between complacency and fear, which you sometimes observe in the domain of climate change as well as terrorism, the behavioral people think they can explain that. So the goal is to do economics with real people, rather than to do economics with caricatures of rational man."