Speaking for myself, it's the idolizing of America.

Why does a love of America need to translate to making America a sacrosanct idol?

Actually, there are strong historical reasons for this, I'm sure, among them the fact that America was established as a pluralistic society and as such, the creation ex nihilo of a common identity probably demanded some degree of idolatry.

Founding Fathers, scriptures, patriotic songs, etc., all needed to do the work previously done (to varying degrees of success) by Christianity to create a sense of community.

Anyway, by all means, love America, but if the love is genuine and deep, why would those who seem not to love it be so menacing?

That's a bit insecure, isn't it?

"Write articles about how open-minded you are all you like. It won't matter in the 2008 election. Barack Obama will never be president because he is viewed as weak and unpatriotic. Democrats have learned this lesson time and again but they keep making the same mistake.

I would only vote for Clinton or McCain because BO is weak and unpatriotic."

Point of clarification: do you view Obama as weak or unpatriotic?

The first paragraph seems to suggest that others view him such (passive voice), but then you claim you view him as such.

Why do you view him as weak and unpatriotic?

ACtually, I think the point of the essay is that our politics and society have themselves become religious.

The essay is about what might be called the cult of nationalism.

It's not organized religion per se that's the problem, but rather setting up idols where none need be set up.

The essay is about "religious" (more precisely, idolatrous) behavior in the secular sphere.

Does that make sense?

"I support Obama and I find it interesting that everyone has ignored the economic populism in his speech. He correctly pointed out that racial, class, gender divisions only serve the corporations who want to distract us while they continue to threaten our livelihoods, exploit our labor, and destroy the planet. This is the real issue. Patriotism is just one big distraction."

I know!

You nailed it, I've thought about this too. In fact, this was the part of the speech I thought the most miraculous: he managed to segue so seamlessly to this airtight diagnosis, one that is truly radical in so many ways.

He recognized white resentments, black resentments, and then showed a way beyond what he called the "stalemate" by attempting to rally us all behind what is perhaps the most leftist or populist articulation of his vision.

Deaf ears, I suppose.

Thank you for reminding us of this, it can't be stressed enough.

Someone here should write a piece on that aspect of the speech alone, actually, along with an appropriate investigation into how his platform might advance this agenda, whether his record suggests he might carry it out, etc.

Great stuff.

"What happens in 2008, one way or another, cannot stop the march of history. The expiration date for right wing propaganda is coming along soon enough."

I'm not so sure, but I admire your optimism.

"I'm awfully proud of American ideals, of the fact that the Great Experiment was the first government of laws--not individual rulers--in the history of the world."

I'm not sure this is true. Is it? Couldn't republican Rome arguably be called a government of laws?

And what about non-western or "tribal" governments?

I say this not to be pedantic, but just to point out that you're falling into the same trap, albeit in a benign way, as those who reflexively castigate those they deem unpatriotic.

Namely, the myth of American exceptionalism.

In fact, this was one of the few panders of Obama's speech: he said that only in America would his story (i.e., his multi-culturalism) be possible.

That's an absurd statement, but it's the lie we all require.

I understand that politicians can't dare to suggest that actually, we're not quite so special as we like to think, but special nonetheless.

Still, in the interests of globalization and peaceful coexistence, I think we should start moving in the direction of at least recognizing that the idea of American Exceptionalism is a myth, however noble, however necessary it may be.

"Organized religion is one of the biggest problems this country is saddled with now. Plus the fact that America has become an extention of an organized religion to many people is a huge problem."

That may be, but again, I think it's a non-sequitur.

Let me clarify, please.

"Organized religion is one of the biggest problems this country is saddled with now. Plus the fact that America has become an extention of an organized religion to many people is a huge problem."

America as an extension of organized religion is one proposition, which may or may not have merit. (I think it does.)

But the essay's point is that patriotism or if you like, false patriotism or nationalistic zealotry or whatever you want to call it, is itself a deep and abiding problem.

In other words, even if we were to expunge the influence of organized religion from our political process, the phenomenon the author criticizes would still exist.

So your point, while it may be valid, is not germane to Kamiya's point. Or at least, if it is, I can't see it.

Maybe I'm missing something?

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Thank you.

Hear, hear.

And might I say, fine handle you've got there.

:)