Patriotism and Political Discourse

After watching a V-log on youtube about gay marriage yesterday, I came to identify one of the main reasons why I often find it so hard to see eye-to-eye with Yanks in political discourse.

Here's the gist of it:

In general, when a person from outside the US is talking about why gay marriage should be allowed/banned, they're talking about why gay marriage should be allowed/banned. Period.

In general, when a person from the US is talking about why gay marriage should be allowed/banned, they're talking about why gay marriage should be allowed/banned in the US. alternately

Of course, the same applies to any controversial social topic. Religious freedom, health care, race equality, you name it.

—

This is a symptom of the cultural differences between countries, largely having to do with the pervasiveness of nationalism in people's thinking in the US. It's shown up in various ways throughout the years, giving me a nagging feeling, but now I finally found a good enough example to raise a discussion with.

I see myself as a citizen of the world first, and a Finn waaay behind that (European comes before Finn too), so I find it alienating to see this patriacentric mentality. To me, something like gay marriage is a universal matter, and when I talk about it, I'm thinking about the rights of everyone everywhere, not just inside the political borders I happened to be born within.

In the US, political discussion is overall very strongly charged with patriotism, I feel. It makes sense, of course, but I've never heard anyone start to argue about what ideals the founders of the Finnish state held, and how that should be applied to decision-making today. In political decision-making, I would think the baseline should be "does this change make our country better or worse to live in, overall", rather than "what would some guys 250 years ago have thought about this change".

—

Now to quell some outrage, let me just say that I'm not condemning people from the US or saying this focus on thinking is bad, I'm just relaying an experience I had, and the understanding it gave me.

Comments? Thoughts relating to this? Your own experiences? Evidence to the contrary? Please share.

edited 28th Oct '12 10:48:19 AM by Kerrah

As a US citizen I can say that indeed I do have a pretty strong sense of patriotism. Sure I might belittle the country be annoyed with it or even say I'd like to leave for a time being when I'm capable.... but in the end I still love the country to death despite its many shortcomings. Honestly I think this spurs from a few things.

Firstly the US quite obviously, is pretty large, diverse (as in races/culture) and somewhat self contained. If you look at the US, it's pretty obvious the only borders we have are to the north (to Canada) and to the South (to Mexico). Mexico isn't exactly the safest outside of touristy areas, and Canada culturally isn't different enough from the US to really give a different impression passing through the area. In short, for many Americans the world pretty much is America, it's unlikely they'll ever leave the country, and even if they do for Canada there's nothing particularly jarring about that. Some haven't even left their state. Obviously if you're never going to even experience the world outside of the US, you're going to care a lot less about it. This contrasts extremely heavily from the EU for instance, where most of the EU shares currency, and hence it's economy, and the rest is subject to laws emanating from a central body. You can't just ignore the rest of the EU because it effects lives an incredibly high amount.

Another worthwhile thing to note is simply America's political cultural economic and militaristic clout. We are indeed the greatest power in modern worldwide politics, and this to an extent helps us develop a greater sense of them and us. It's easier to not worry about other countries when you quite effectively have them cornered somehow. You'll notice even in our so called foreign policy debates, the only countries we seem to worry about are ones we have troops or aid going to in war, or countries helping us (Afghanistan Iraq Israel etc.) and China (notably because we trade a ton with them and boohoo, they're better set up to do manufacturing). In the end it's not so much "How can we adeptly get things to work out for us" as "Steamroll over everything and impose our will". To be in such a position undoubtedly brings some pride for better or worse.

Historically too it makes sense. Most of our wars that have been conventional, to gain territory or fight off aggressors have been curb stomp battles, and if you ignore the civil war (which was the turning point in many ways from the US going from THESE united states to THE united states) it just seems we've been busy rolling over people. Less than half a century ago we still manufactured quite a few of our own goods. Isolationism and such.

But yeah uh. Pretty much tons of things have led to our current extremely nationalistic selves. And I'm terrible at being coherent.

edited 28th Oct '12 1:50:13 PM by Aqueos

When Obama was asked if he felt America was the best country, he said something like "Yes, just like I'm sure Britain's feel theirs is, as is Canada or Greece."

Romney attacked him for not believing in "American Exceptionalism"

Thats actually a thing on Wikipedia. Its sad.

As an American, the reason I have an US-centric approach to politics is twofold: One, we should get our own house in order before we start worrying about other countries. Two, most other first-world countries are ahead of us on most things I care about. I don't need to worry about Britain and gay rights. They have that mostly handled. Better than the US, at least, which brings us back to the first point.

I mostly agree with this sentiment.

Granted I consider myself something of a patriot despite some of my liberal/progressive views.

I'm not sure I agree that something like gay rights is a universal issue. Well, it is a universal issue, but I'm guessing that what Americans want to see happen is an American solution to the problem that takes into account our own cultural perspective. It's a lot easier to argue for something like civil partnerships when you don't have the strong religious baggage that American politics does. Much as I hate to admit it, there is a vocal section of the population that is, in fact, all about what foreigners believe us to be all about — God, Guns, and Gold, in that order.

I also think, no disrespect intended, that Kerrah's attitude towards citizenship is in the minority and that might be part of the issue. The term "citizen of the world" is still ahead of its time in spite of all the globalization going on these days. Heck, I've been shuffled all around the world by the UN as part of my parents' work and these days I still think of myself as American. An American with a global perspective perhaps, but still American.

Incidentally, I think civil partnerships are a great idea. In fact, make them the only valid form of union since marriage is a religious institution and violates the Establishment Clause. That way, both sides lose and I win.

edited 28th Oct '12 5:30:19 PM by HouraiRabbit

Well arguing gay marriage in a place where it's already legal is stupid. Arguing for gay marriage in a place where people get lynched for being gay is also stupid. The idea that someone shouldn't be lynched for x or y might be a much more universal sentiment then whether it should be legal to get married. The US is at the point where we can make the step towards gay marriage. I mean no matter how I feel about the actual issue I don't think I can in good faith say it's something that should be made universal right now.

US-centric views tend to be espoused by US regressionists (who like to call themselves conservatives), and the general idea of the "American Nationalistic Retard(TM) who can't even tell where any other country is on the map" is based on them.

US-centrism in liberal Americans is less common, but when they do have US-centric views, they're usually like Discar, i.e., "We ain't got time for you other (particularly first world) nations, our shit be totes fucked cause of a bunch of dumbasses being manipulated by rich assholes, while your tiny shit ain't got nothing on our shitacular diarrhea extravaganza. We check on you (particularly third world nations) later when we finally get our shit flushed down the toilet, yo."

edited 28th Oct '12 6:11:38 PM by Ekuran

Agreed that gay rights is currently not exactly universal. In most Muslim countries, for example, it's a complete non-starter - even being found being gay usually gets you thrown into prison or even executed. In America not even the most homophobic politicians go that far, making improving gay rights a more realistic prospect for Americans.

As an American citizen, I'm only allowed to vote in American elections. Therefore political decisions made in other countries are not my responsibility.

edited 28th Oct '12 11:34:40 PM by RavenWilder

Your also allowed to run for political offices.

edited 28th Oct '12 11:34:40 PM by DeviantBraeburn

I'd like to know what, exactly, it is that I'm supposed to do in about legalizing gay marriage in countries I don't live in and can't affect. In fact, I'm going to extend that to every issue. Almost everything I do is going to have an affect on other countries as a secondary effect at best. It might be different in the European union, where you've effectively tied yourselves together in a lot of ways.

I don't really think it's necessarily patriotism that causes us to think first of "doing such and such in America" as it's the fact that this is where we live and can legally vote, run for office, and such other things. It's the country you live in that you are most easily able to cause change in.

I'm an American, but I don't really buy into the whole Nationalism thing. I don't consider America the best country in the world, and, in fact, don't consider there to be a best country. I also find very little meaning to different nationalities, by which I mean, I don't consider anyone as different or treat anyone differently because of where their from, and I don't put much stock in where their from. To me, it's just where you happen to live. As a result, when I speak about controversial issues, I am speaking generally, and not about America in particular.

However, I do realize I'm probably the exception in that. This comes from my mother being a first generation immigrant, and having traveled to more countries than I have states. I visited Europe basically every year until I entered High School, and spent 6 months, and went to school for the majority of said months, in Sweden. Just two years ago, I visited Egypt mere months before the Arab Spring, met some of my parent's friends there, and taught their kids how to play Dungeons & Dragons. Never once have I met someone who's nationality I could tell you from how they acted. To me, we're all human beings first, and members of our nation second.

edited 29th Oct '12 12:34:17 AM by deathpigeon

I don't think that the OP was talking about US politics being US centric but more about how US politics is infused with nationalist rhetoric and imagery in a way that, to lots of us outsiders, is just plain weird. People over here don't wear Union Jack badges on their lapels 24/7, nor do they spend half their time trying to convince people that "I love Britain the mostest so vote for me!"

Nationalist concepts, from our point of view, are everywhere over there. To a degree that, for people like me, is verging on the insane and frequently crosses that line. It's like people over there subconsciously think of themselves as being George Washington.

...but US Politics is just plain US-Centric!

Outside events don't seem to (often) have a major effect on their Policies. In part, that's due to the US being so large, and the fact that nationalism holds the US together — without the nationalism, the US would soon become the Divided States of America, since there is little else in common for the people in the US to rally around.

The question that the OP starts with is: why do Americans seem to relate everything to their national politics more than people from other countries?. Now, you all know that I bring Finland into everything, but I'm an exception. Most people I know would talk about issues globally rather than assume that everyone's talking about Finland specifically. I think it's probably the same in most countries: when you discuss politics, you're by default not thinking about just your country, but the greater geographical region or the entire world. If you want people to focus on that question in your country, you have to mention it in the question.

So "What do you think should be done to improve gay rights?" is a question that asks for universal answers, even if it's two Finns asking it from each other. If you want to talk about what to do about it in Finland you have to ask it like that: "What do you think should be done to improve gay rights in Finland?"

At least on the Internet, Americans seem to generally assume that "What do you think should be done to improve gay rights?" means "What do you think should be done to improve gay rights in the US?". If you want a global answer from an American, generally you'll have to ask a global question: "What do you think should be done to improve gay rights globally?". I agree with the OP that people from most countries don't assume that everything is automatically about their country; only Americans are very likely to assume that.

If we're asking what should be done to improve gay rights globally, again, the issue would no longer be about marriage, it would be about stopping people from getting beaten or killed. If we're talking about health care, it'd be about making sure everyone gets potable water, decent nutrition, and vaccines and whatever.

However these things are not very controversial and the issue would rather be if we should get involved in doing this or not.

edited 29th Oct '12 8:44:42 AM by ohsointocats

I think it's also rooted in the idea of American Exceptionalism: we are the paragon of freedom and democracy, the light to the nations, the Grand Experiment. So there's an attitude that other countries don't matter, because sooner or later they will see how awesome we are and become like us, and all we have to do is exist.

That's been true to some extent historically: our influence certainly played a role in the rise of democracy in general as the default form of government, and some would argue that it is still going on, with our cultural influence being partly responsible for the Arab Spring and similar movements.

I think quite frequently the focus is regional. Europeans are likely to think of the European context.

On the other hand, anyone on this forum from a non-English-speaking country could probably be assumed to be more international in outlook than the norm in their country ...

@ OP

Well, the way that you consider yourself a European first, is kind of like how we see ourselves as Americans first, and then parts of the state we live in.

There isn't a lot of discourse going on between Mexico/Canada/US on these issues. Mexico has bigger problems than social issues of that nature, and Canada takes care of itself fairly well, so what with most of our continent and population being the USA, Americans tend to think of our issues first because we don't have proximity to other countries, and thus don't think of their issues as affecting us.

When I do discuss social issues and such with Europeans, there's sort of a 50 percent chance that the Europeans will get all smug, snide, and superior about their way of doing things. It often gets in the way of actually discussing anything. Americans do it too, and both are really obnoxious to me. I get self-conscious when Americans get all "Murricah, fuck yeah" on things, and Euro's really piss me off when they see a way that Americans do something different, and essentially look down on us for it. I always get into arguments on issues where Europeans gladly give up freedoms for promises of security, and are way more comfortable with the whole nanny state thing. Then on the issues where Americans have freedoms, but sometimes people die in accidents and what not as a result of freedoms, the Europeans get all fucking snobby about it and talk like Americans are some sort of lower form of life that should be living in caves wearing animal fur.

It's a natural thing though. That's just how it is, people get defensive when it stops being about the issue, and starts being a comparison of how your country does things compared to another persons country.

edited 29th Oct '12 9:34:55 AM by Barkey

In other words: "Guns, fuck yeah!"

It isn't just guns. I've had that discussion with Brits about things like Cameras, the Police, public transportation, et cetera.

Sometimes things are just different. Public transportation is a relevant issue if you live in a place like New York City, but for instance in Los Angeles, we build low and wide because we get earthquakes, and having a building up to code gets prohibitively expensive the taller you make it. Thus to really make it in southern california, you need to have a car unless you get really lucky and work within a few blocks of where you live.

Europeans often have a really efficient and structured public transit system that doesn't necessitate that, but they also don't seem to realize that it doesn't work like that everywhere.

There's also a prevalent attitude of "Sure, let the government take care of it!" The US was birthed from a revolution, and had a really bloody civil war. We tend to be wary and untrusting of our government, where as Europe is kind of the inverse most of the time.

edited 29th Oct '12 9:39:48 AM by Barkey

This is getting off-topic, but Tokyo gets at least as many earthquakes as Los Angeles and that doesn't seem to stop them from cramming everyone close together.

Back on-topic: Generally speaking, if an American thinks the United States government should do something, then it probably goes without saying they think other countries' governments should do so as well. However, unless they want America to take military action or impose economic sanctions against other countries, then talking about the laws in those countries is worrying about something you can't change.

edited 29th Oct '12 9:53:04 AM by RavenWilder

Eh, that kind of sort of happens in older cities that weren't originally built to acommadate cars. And Japan pretty much built itself on being a technologically forward country for the latter half of the last century. *shrug*

Anyway, I think it just really comes down to culture; America's situation is such that we can think of changing things in other states in our own country before other country. I don't think it's really that big a problem because if you clarify at the beginning that you mean a specific place (Finland, Earth in general, Mars) then people involved will basically talk, or try to, in that frame of reference.

And, of course, everyone has to keep in mind that different localities require different things on a practical level. Like Barkey pointed out about public transportation; some places have more need for cars than trains. Doesn't mean we shouldn't press for more trains to be built, but how many and where is going to vary. Same for things like gun laws and so on.

So honestly it might have to do with the sense of helplessness that pervades American thought right now .