Defining Patriotism: On Jesse Helms’ Death

Especially on the Fourth of July, we ought to recognize that, as Barack Obama said, patriotism knows no party lines:

But, when a political movement comes into conflict with the most basic values of America, to the point that it is clearly perpendicular with our foundational ideals, we ought to draw the definition of “patriot” to exclude that group.  I think that this line, if it exists, ought to be fairly hard to cross, particularly because calling someone “unpatriotic” is a clear slap in the face to individuals or groups who legitimately seek to improve America with their ideas, crazy though they may be.  The democratic requirement of a vibrant marketplace of ideas demands that we not so devalue each other.  Where an ideology comprises a shade of gray instead of an unequivocal danger to democracy, it’s not fair to call its adherents categorically unpatriotic. Patriotism merely requires that one do what’s best for America, with its foundational ideas. There are many respectable means to that end.

But there are ideologies that come at a crossroads with patriotism, though they come only when one seeks to oppose a fundamental, highly abstracted democratic principle.  America will brook no tyrant, for example, and anyone who would supplant democracy with kingship or tyranny couldn’t fairly be called a patriot.  Democracy requires free speech: shooting ones’ political opponents is clearly obnoxious to the idea of America, and therefore unpatriotic.

Similarly, while Americans obviously clash on the definition of how much difference our commitment to equality requires us to tolerate, I think we are justified in withdrawing the label “patriot” from someone who undertakes affirmative opposition to the very principle of equality before the law. While a patriot may fairly decide to fail to empower a group of society, no true American should co-opt the machinery of the state to suppress the same group. By example, I do not doubt that one may oppose gay rights (marriage, nondiscrimination) and still call themselves a patriot, but one may not affirmatively seek to remove the fundamental rights of all Americans, such as suffrage, from a group while claiming to vindicate any of America’s foundational principles.

Given that definition – which I’m still not so sure about, so I welcome debate – I’m not sure on which side of the line the late Jesse Helms falls.  I’m thinking about this because the immediate impetus when a powerful and successful American politician dies is to valorize the individual, and hail them as a patriot.  But I’m not sure Senator Helms’ legacy deserves the inevitable praise.

There’s something basically wrong about someone who fails to recognize the equal rights of black Americans, even after decades and decades in power, and decades of experience with men and women of all races.  While some wiggle room ought be given when evaluating historical figures, who must always work within the mode of the day – it’s a common human failing to not question the evils of ones’ time, if they’re widespread enough – persisting in bigotry while the rest of the world moves on signifies, to me, a certain corruption unbefitting an American.  Patriotism requires us to work always towards a more perfect union.  People who works against that, when the rest of the nation has moved on… those types really make me scratch my head.