I Want My Flag Back

James Boswell (1740 – 1795), the biographer of Samual Johnson (1709 – 1784), contemporaneously offered a fuller context of a statement Johnson said in conversation on April 7, 1775, one that continues to be quoted with regularity, writing:

Patriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.’ But let it be considered, that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak for self-interest.

Boswell also reminds us that a year earlier, Johnson had printed “The Patriot” in which he stated that “A patriot is he whose publick conduct is regulated by one single motive, the love of his country; who, as an agent in parliament, has, for himself, neither hope nor fear, neither kindness nor resentment, but refers every thing to the common interest.”

Johnson valued patriotism as an idea, but he was suspicious of those who use the word to describe themselves without following up such a label with any meaningful actions or who used their projected patriotism for self-interest.

Widespread in voicing his myriad opinions, the Englishman had particular distaste for Americans, once declaring, “I am willing to love all mankind, except an American … rascals—robbers—pirates.” I’m surprised he did not also label us “scoundrels.” It’s hard not to wonder what he would make of American patriotism were he alive today, or more notably, what he would think of two features of contemporary “patriotism” in America: how perceptions of what makes a patriot have been politically polarized along with every other aspect of life, and how crassly commercial patriotism has become.

On the first front, we have ample evidence at every turn that nearly everything in American life is currently divided by the broad categorization of left and right, which is all the more vexing given that both liberals and conservatives have extreme arms of their parties that represent minority factions. The rhetoric is so heated from both those extremes that it is difficult to recognize that the for the majority of us our beliefs probably fall far closer to the middle. The divide is so ubiquitous an infestation that this week the New York Times published a poll about the left vs. right popularity of Taylor Swift. But then given that we elected a television reality star as president in 2016, it is little wonder that a pop musician with outsized influence (and personal finances larger than many countries) becomes a political barometer? Americans love nothing more than celebrity and money. The brainwashing on both left and right extremes is so strong that, given a culture that has failed to keep pace with the development of needed critical thinking skills, too many people blindly dwell inside echo chambers of vitriol. Because we carry computers in our pockets and these devices accompany us everywhere while also linking us to invasive, pervasive social media, polarization may be inescapable.

Polarization, when combined with poor critical thinking ability, makes it impossible for most to hold nuanced positions. Given the complexity of meaningful issues, nuance matters immensely. However, nuance requires effort. It requires large servings of fact-based information. Easier to listen to the extremes that offer no grey area.

On the second front, America has nearly always commercialized everything, and the commercialization of patriotism has been a long mainstay. Politicians of every stripe wrap themselves in the American flag as an appeal to be seen as patriotic. Has corrupt usage of such patriotic appeal risen to new heights (or fallen to new depths would seem the more appropriate phrase) in the current era? Perhaps. In linking such appeals to polarization, then certainly so. For at least twenty years, rising in the wake of 9/11, conservatives have tried to suggest that liberals are unpatriotic. Over time, that enforced belief has created the perception that conservatives have a monopoly on patriotism. Direct rhetorical labeling of liberals as unpatriotic is common by the current slate of MAGA Republicans. Doing so is an echo of other regular labels: commie, hippie, woke. Conservatives have been expert at twisting liberal language and ideas on their heads. The very word “liberal” has been victim of linguistic gymnastics through a purposeful indictment. The actual meaning of liberal in reference to a person’s beliefs is defined as someone who is open-minded, tolerant, and believes in personal freedom. Conservatives now routinely paint liberalism as a bureaucracy-loving, freedom-depriving, taxation-and-entitlement ideology. “Patriot” and “patriotic” have undergone the same transformation, where rather than referencing “love of country,” the terms now suggest adherence to a specific brand of ideology. If you don’t share that ideology, not only are you not patriotic, you’re wrong.

This last notion came home in a stark way last week when a conservative friend posted what appeared to be a canned meme, and a cryptic one at that, on Instagram. While the specifics behind the argument the meme was making were obscured by a lack of precision involving what exactly was corrupting our children’s future, the gist of the statement was that “we cannot remain silent in this moment between right and wrong,” or we risk failing our children. The statement was, predictably, accompanied by a drawn image of a seated child draped in the American flag. While this is a friend I cherish and someone with whom I share a great deal of common ground regarding people and ideas that matter greatly to both of us, we differ in our view of politics and religion (and yes, I do believe the sum of a person is more than the latter two specifics). Two things about the post struck me immediately. One, the societally accepted belief that posting a meme on social media is an erasure of silence—hardly the sort of discourse that has any depth or value. And two, given that it was a meme copied from another source rather than a statement crafted by my friend, that the notion of “right” was far more than a generic values statement but one specific to those “believers” on the political right. This version of knowing right from wrong wasn’t the sort of moral development statement suitable for discussing a seven-year-old arriving at the age of reason, rather it was a condemnation that is all too familiar today: “We don’t hold differing opinions; we’re right and you’re wrong.” My friend is not the kind of person who condemns people who don’t agree with them, but the social media post demonstrates the danger inherent in our contemporary culture when we fail to participate in interactive, live civil discourse. It’s a world of copy and paste and checking two-dimensional hearts.

It isn’t hard to discern from this or most any of my posts that I believe in liberal values. My liberal beliefs are probably best captured by John F. Kennedy, who, while running for president, rather than shying from the liberal label as most have done since (why do you think the replacement label “progressive” is so pervasive today?), embraced the term, saying: “If by a ‘liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties—if that is what they mean by a ‘liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a liberal.”

My agreement with JFK’s definition of liberal does not by default make me a Democrat. I was both stupid and naïve as an eighteen-year-old, but one of the things that I got right was a very conscious decision to declare myself as an Independent when registering to vote. (And by the way, note yet another bit of verbal camouflage that has occurred over time where “independent”—a term I rather like—has been transformed to “unaffiliated,” as if all us who identify as Independents are merely looking for a tribe.) For years being Independent meant having to declare a party affiliation in order to vote during primaries then redeclaring myself as an Independent for the general election. I live in Montana, a state that for decades was known for producing split-party representation but that now has become increasingly conservative, including having a Republican governor, a super-majority in the state legislature, and that is predicted to shift to entirely conservative federal representation with the 2024 election. So being a liberal in my home state, let alone in my extremely right-facing home county, I am offered constant reminders of my minority status. Yet I take some heart that it remains a state that produces measures that allow a truer application of democracy, including in this election cycle a ballot initiative that provides voters a say in determining if abortion rights will remain protected in the state constitution and one that, if successful, would require single-ballot, multi-party primaries. [And by the by…here’s a podcast recommendation {thanks, Pam Leichliter} focused on actual SOLUTIONS to the duopoly quagmire, one I’ll write more about one day from Freakonomics Radio “Why Don’t We Have Better Candidates for President”]

Similar to my desire to return to a less-partisan definition of liberal (note the small “l” alongside a reminder that “liberal” shares the same root as “liberty”), I’d like a return to a more open-minded vision of patriotism. Like Johnson, I believe real patriotism resides in action, not in words or symbols. Anyone can wear a flag lapel pin or sing along with Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” or fly an American flag from their front porch. And while I do not believe the only patriots are those who have gone into combat for their country, certainly doing so is the most overt patriotic action one can take. (And an aside: Lee Greenwood was provided a 3A deferment from military services for family hardship due to having children at age seventeen.) Risking his life in combat was the case for my father, who landed at Normandy and fought all the way through the European campaign. One of the few objects that held meaning for him was a combat cord awarded to him by the Belgium government for his heroism at the Battle of the Bulge. Service to country was the case for my grandfather as well, who survived the trenches of France in WWI. My dad certainly loved his country, though like most of his generation, he was quiet about his service, and while he raised a flag on national holidays, he was also quiet about his patriotism, as he was about his politics. Remarkably, like most of those he served with, he seemed entirely capable of differentiating the Germans who represented the Nazi party that he fought from the Germans who came after, even hosting a German couple in a friendship exchange, visiting them in their home, and encouraging me to travel as a young exchange student to Berlin. He, to the best of my knowledge, voted a straight Republican ticket all of his life. He died in 2017 at ninety-three. Old school in nearly every sense—including the sort who would take offense at the American flag used as apparel—I often wonder what he would make of politics today and its total erosion of civility.

I was lucky and came of age between wars. I was never called to serve in combat. Like you, patriotism has easily been stirred in me since childhood at the sound of the “Star Spangled Banner” when an American athlete steps onto an Olympic podium (like I dreamed of doing as a child) or when accompanying a flyover of fighter jets, just as it stirred in me at the sound of the twenty-one-gun salute at the end of my father’s memorial service. I react physically whenever “Taps” is played in a solemn service. Active as a boy scout, I took duties as a member of the color guard seriously and held the flag and the commitment to liberty it represented seriously. These patriotic feelings are real, even though I realize they are easy versions of patriotism. To quote Lee Greenwood, I am indeed “pound to be an American,” even as I can recognize we, like all, are an imperfect country. Isn’t that the point? Shouldn’t we constantly strive to bring our country closer to the democratic ideals on which it was founded? And pride should not translate into a belief in superiority. For me, pride doesn’t fully capture my feelings about being an American citizen, for whenever I imagine the sheer size and variety and experience of others around the globe, I realize I won an invisible lottery by being born in the United States.

Trying to apply one of the few skillsets I possess, I attempt to focus patriotic action by writing about American culture with as much open-mindedness as I can muster. I try to live by liberal values as aligned with Kennedy’s definition and attempt to engage with conservative friends by seeking to understand their opinions and positions, asking only that they be carefully considered ones based on independent thought. I have no tolerance for those on either left or right extremes who blindly recite talking points that arrive fully formed via cable news, social media, or familial expectations.

It can prove difficult to engage with compassion and a genuine desire to understand with those who either fail to think independently or who have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they believe they are unquestionably “right.” Such was the case when I asked a conservative friend what he was reading and he, with a wry smile and a quip something to the effect of “Probably not a subject you would appreciate” revealed a copy of Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies that Have Obscured Our Nation’s Greatness by Daniel J. Flynn. My friend wasn’t wrong, of course, for although I wasn’t surprised at his reading a book touted by Fox News hosts, the intolerance, indeed the ridiculousness, of the title unnerved me. There it was again: “We’re right and you’re wrong.” Not an expression of “Here’s what I believe and why” but an absolute condemnation of anyone who thinks differently and a dismissal of their views as “hate.” The ultimate statement that disagreement with the harsh position of the far right is unpatriotic.

The book has been resurrected from 2002 when it was originally published amid the aftermath of 9/11, ironically at a time when President George W. Bush was actively calling for bipartisanship. The book’s description blatantly accuses liberals of believing that: "The American flag stands for hatred, warmongering, and imperialism." Flynn writes, “… this is a Left comprised of people who truly hate their country, and they will stop at nothing to tear her down—smashing our liberty in the process.” One can see immediately why such a book has found populist resurgence among MAGA Republicans who love brash confrontation, admire the belligerent style of former President Trump, and whose conspiracy theories are best fed when believing that liberals represent elitism that favors international interests over American ones.

Two years later Flynn published Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas. In his use of “morons” he, as should be obvious, was referring to liberals. While I typically shy away from absolute statements, I fervently believe that if the word “intellectual” was removed, this title is a fitting reference to the far-right wing of the Republican party today. We are talking those who support a presidential candidate who has told us to inject bleach to cure COVID, debated that some states abort babies after they are born, said John McCain was not a war hero because he was captured, asserted that Haitian immigrants are eating people’s pets, mistook Frederick Douglas for a living figure, celebrated how George Washington’s Colonial Army “took over airports,” and asked his advisors on three occasions “Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?” If these aren’t moronic statements—a word he has used to describe others with regularity, mind you, including while mocking a disabled reporter—I don’t know what are.

Both parties have their extremists, but only the extremists on the right purchase “Patriot Products” such as “freedom steaks” made from “unvaccinated” cows, a cellular service that bills itself as “America’s only Christian conservative wireless provider,” water named Freedom2o, and Yeti products inscribed with quips like “This drink ain’t woke.”? It’s hard not to laugh until you realize the degree to which those on the furthest right worship the former president, who, of course under his own banner sells merchandise like gold “Trump” shoes and gilded edge “Trump” bibles, not to mention millions of MAGA products—clear cut examples of the commercialization of false patriotism.

Intellectual conservatives likely don’t buy such products just as they don’t believe in the most moronic ideas put forward by MAGA candidates, but honestly, they unnerve me more, for they have instead ignored the extremism, ignored the immoralism and the blatant lies, ignored the incompetence, and have chosen to cast a vote on narrow self-interest. I’m sure there are intellectual conservatives driven by policy beliefs, but there is a large segment who, while embarrassed by the former president, support him because the see opportunities for personal financial gain or to increase their power. Patriotism asks us to put best interests of the country ahead of the desired interests of self.

Clearly, if judging his patriotism, Johnson would have applied the “scoundrel” charge on the former president, who is, after all, a convicted felon, who financially profited from his time in the White House, and who is the poster child for putting self-interest above all else. A patriot? Commitment to country over self? Hardly. Someone who continues to deny the results of a democratic election to the extent that he not only stoked the flames that resulted in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 but has sworn to commute the sentences of those found guilty in that insurrection is not qualified to be considered patriotic.

In what used to be simply a means of expressing pride or patriotism, flying the American flag, has taken on partisan symbology as well. While certainly there are many liberals who regularly display the flag, particularly on days of national significance, the default assumption has become that the flag is largely the property of the right and its display for many is not just a partisan statement but one in specific support of former President Trump. Rick Reilly, a writer for The Washington Post, described how as someone who flies a 2 x 3-foot American flag from the back of his bicycle he is frequently assailed by passersby from both ends of the left/right spectrum who assume that the presence of the flag denotes him as a Trump supporter. Undoubtedly there are just as many patriotic citizens—Republican, Democratic, and Independent—who celebrate their belief in the great American democratic experiment with absolutely no political statement intended by honoring the flag, but we live in an age where those in the minority are provided the largest megaphones.

In Western Montana, where I live, flags abound, not just on houses and businesses but mounted in pickup truck beds. Like many places, here the flag is frequently prostituted into service as garments and crass advertising. Disturbingly, it is common to see American flags flying on the same flagpole or side by side with Trump flags, disturbing not because people wish to highlight their support for a political candidate but because the two flags placed together suggests an equality between nation and person, something that is antithetical to democracy stands for and lends further credence for why so many of us who are students of history are quick to equate the former president with many of the defining characteristics of fascist ideology. Some of those who support the former president also convey that support by flying the American flag upside down, something that the Veterans of Foreign Wars reminds us is supposed to be reserved for maritime vessels as a signal they are in distress. Former president Trump regularly signs American flags like they are autograph books, another breach of flag etiquette. I realize how much I sound like a 1950s television character—the age in which former President Trump and many of his admirers seem forever cemented once one analyzes anything that comes close to “policy” positions or sociological perceptions—when I use a word like etiquette, for etiquette generally seems to no longer apply, let alone flag etiquette. Still, as someone who has had the honor to carry the US flag into public events, who was carefully trained on how to properly fold it, who has worked in positions that have required me to lower official flags to half-staff, who has stood beside his mother as she received the flag that draped her husband’s coffin, I’d not only like to request some proper etiquette but some honest patriotism. Call me prudish or old-fashioned, but as I turn into my neighborhood each day, rather than feeling comforted by the flags displayed by numerous neighbors, I am infuriated that nearly all are flown at night without illumination, are left out in inclement weather, and that several are tattered and in need of proper retirement, and I can’t help but wonder if they are meant to  demonstrate love of country and liberty that suggests unity or as statements of identification.

I am not so naïve as to believe that writing an essay will help some let others into their hearts despite political disagreement. Indeed, given the divisive nature of current American culture so many seem to accept as permanent (I’m confident it is not, as any historian will remind us), I worry my words will only incite more harm. Still, the naïve part of me does hope that something like love of country can be a uniting force rather than a dividing one. The realist in me realizes to have that be true will take work, a desire to heal, and a return to civil discourse. Perhaps we could start with something as simple as embracing the idea that our country’s flag belongs to us all. Maybe that could be a first step towards a ceasefire in the weaponization of patriotism.

---

Just as civil discourse used to exist even among those running against one another from opposite points of the political spectrum, there are once-accepted rules regarding display and handling of the American flag. Recognizing the symbolic power of service to country, they are rules those who have survived military combat have forged as ways to show proper respect. Whatever your personal beliefs about politics, please consider following the rules of flag etiquette provided by the Veterans of Foreign Wars:

Special Rules
Do not let the flag touch the ground. 
Do not fly flag upside down unless there is an emergency. 
Do not carry the flag flat, or carry things in it. 
Do not use the flag as clothing. 
Do not store the flag where it can get dirty. 
Do not use it as a cover. 
Do not fasten it or tie it back. Always allow it to fall free. 
Do not draw on, or otherwise mark the flag. 

Illumination Guidelines
Per Federal Flag Code, Section 2, paragraph (a), it is the universal custom to display the flag only from sunrise to sunset on buildings and on stationary flagstaffs in the open. However, when a patriotic effect is desired, the flag may be displayed twenty-four hours a day if properly illuminated during the hours of darkness.