Women and Voting

This following section of a review (and critique) of GK Chesterton included a section on politics, where he discusses my favorite author's approach to women in that field.
Now this is certainly not a position you will find is represented in today's politics (even the reviewer goes on to note that the these sexual differences are environmentally produced and are not genetically determined). But I suppose it is often helpful to review and stretch ourselves with old questions.

G. K. Chesterton, a Criticism By Cecil Chesterton

In another text, I recall that he also finds the prospect of women fighting in battle to be quite disagreeable. However, he found it disagreeable because of their strength, not because of their weakness (a modern excuse). He thought that the attachment of women to an object of desire was so strong and so obsessive that women in battle would be fanatics and absolutely uncontrollable (this tells us something about his expectations of war as well).

I confess...

Recently, there has been a 'confessions' meme circulating the internet that looks to be really interesting. Though I'm still somewhat unsure as to its broader purpose, it does seem to do a good job clarifying the various influences, speculations, and approaches that impinge upon our Christian thinking (and upon the thinking Christian).

I confess that I believe orthopraxy trumps orthodoxy (right living > right thinking), even though I spend much more time on the latter.

I confess that I really don't understand or practice discipline...[yet].

I confess that most of my theological influences have been from high church, paedobaptist, Real Presence, reformed and Roman Catholic thinkers.

I confess that much of my theology is probably more Wright than right, and possibly more Chestertonian than Chalecedonian.

I confess that I want to be filled with joy and hope much more than my face or my heart normally shows.

I confess that academic rigor often seems more trustworthy than common sense (which is often both uncommon and nonsensical).

I confess that I probably read more blogs and electronic essays than I do real books.

I confess that, in my view, denominations tend to be tendentious. For the most part, they seem to distract us from God's purposes in the world so we can focus our energies on clarifying the differences between us and them. It has turned many well-meaning, thoughtful Christians into heresy-hunters who care more about being right than spreading the gospel.

I confess that I make up most of my arguments on the spot...and then promptly forget them.

I confess that I know virtually nothing of anabaptist thought.

I confess that I'm fed more from Bible studies, random discussions, and radio programs than from going to church on the Lord's day.

I confess that my attempts to defend, empower, and extol church fellowship are more of an effort to convince myself than to convince others.

I confess that most of my deeply rooted friendships (aside from family relationships) are not rooted in the church.

I confess that, in my life, the workings of the Spirit are shrouded mysteries, and I tend to mistrust those who think the Spirit is simple and clear.

I confess that I don't know if pacifism is a proper part of the Christian life.

on "On Earth as in Heaven"

from NT Wright

Here is the paradox of Christian political theology, a paradox which the western church has all but ignored for many years, assuming that the main object of the game was to forget earth and concentrate on heaven instead. Precisely because we believe that Jesus Christ has been exalted to heaven, into God’s space, so that he can be present to the whole earth simultaneously (not so that he can be absent from it – heaven forbid!), and so that he can be its rightful Lord, we believe that the church has a responsibility, not to usurp the proper and God-given functions of governments and authorities, of magistrates and officers, but to support them in prayer and to remind them of what they are there for – and to point out when they’re getting it wrong. God has established authorities in the world, as part of the goodness of creation, because without them the bullies and the malevolent would always get away with it. But the problem of evil includes the problem that the people who are supposed to be keeping evil in check may themselves become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

That’s why, in early Christianity and Judaism, those who believe in God’s kingdom coming on earth as in heaven are not particularly concerned with how rulers get to be rulers. They are not going around campaigning for an early form of parliamentary democracy. They are extremely concerned with what rulers do once they become rulers, knowing that a bad ruler is worse than an ordinary bad person, because their evil is becoming part of the system. And so the church, at its most characteristic from that day to this, in hailing Jesus as the ascended Lord, doesn’t declare a plague on all other lords in the sense of advocating a kind of holy anarchy, or a straightforward theocracy. But the church claims the right, in invoking Jesus as Lord, to challenge the systems of corruption that dehumanize people and enslave them, and to remind the powers that be of what their duty actually is.

Only the Holy Spirit is allowed to "immanentize the eschaton".

The aim of human polity

GK Chesterton weighs in at http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/Sanity.txt:

The aim of human polity is human happiness. For those holding certain beliefs it is conditioned by the hope of a larger happiness, which it must not imperil. But happiness, the making glad of the heart of man, is the secular test and the only realistic test. So far from this test, by the talisman of the heart, being merely sentimental, it is the only test that is in the least practical. There is no law of logic or nature or anything else forcing us to prefer anything else. There is no obligation on us to be richer, or busier, or more efficient, or more productive, or more progressive, or in any way worldlier or wealthier, if it does not make us happier.

This article (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0003/opinion/fagerberg.html) at First Things clarifies 'happiness' for GKC a bit more:

The happiness that pervades every word Chesterton writes is occasioned both by things and by people. In his hands, as in the hands of an artist, something is done to the ordinary world that enables the viewer to see its landscape and its citizens anew. "At the back of our brains, so to speak, there was a forgotten blaze or burst of astonishment at our own existence. The object of the artistic and spiritual life was to dig for this submerged sunrise or wonder; so that a man sitting in a chair might suddenly understand that he was actually alive, and be happy." To Chesterton, all things appear as wonderful parts of a thrilling fairyland. He retains an innocent, original delight in things instead of succumbing to the monotony that assails most of us as we grow older. It is adults who become bored with life; children find the world as exotic as a fairy tale. "

The Catholic Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) notes (1877 is in a section on 'participation on social life', by the way) happiness as

1718 The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for happiness. This desire is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it: 1719 The Beatitudes reveal the goal of human existence, the ultimate end of human acts: God calls us to his own beatitude. This vocation is addressed to each individual personally, but also to the Church as a whole, the new people made up of those who have accepted the promise and live from it in faith.

and

1877 The vocation of humanity is to show forth the image of God and to be transformed into the image of the Father's only Son. This vocation takes a personal form since each of us is called to enter into the divine beatitude; it also concerns the human community as a whole.

Though this last quotation might not be as obvious, its reference to the 'divine beatitude' clearly is commentary and extension of the former passages into the human community.

So, what do ya think? Is happiness the 'secular' goal we should be striving for in politics? Should there even be something like a 'secular' goal in politics vs a 'religious' goal? Does this (ie Chesterton's quotation) yield too much to Sen Obama's point in the previous article that social plurality demands a separation between faith and the arguments used in the public square?

Obama on Church and State

In a speech sponsored by Sojourner's, Barack Obama discussed the interaction of religion and politics.

Transcript:http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote/index.html
MP3:http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628_Sen.Barack_Obama_Podcast_Call_to_Renewal_Keynote_34.mp3

I was particularly impressed with his speaking ability. He comes across as an intelligent and thoughtful man (though I know little of his political career outside of this speech).

This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause. Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough. They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.

This shows a very intuitive sense of the emptiness that arose out of modernity's fall and he goes on to elucidate his own experience.

And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope. And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today. Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.

He seems to make it clear that religious beliefs should not be 'checked at the door' when entering the public sphere and that a failure to address religious beliefs is both a rhetorical and legal failure.

The real problems with the speech lay at the end, where he discusses a few points that religious people should understand when entering the world of politics. He lays out 3 points.

1. church and state
2. church and pluralism
3. church and proportion

The first point, though sticky and confused, is fine. I'm not sure that I agree, but the basic idea that the institutional structures should not be bound is well taken.

The other two points, though, I'm throwing to the floor for critique. Here's no 2 (I'll leave #3 to anyone interested):

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example. We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded. Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion. But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

TV really is bad for you

FP Passport:

"Does TV rot your brain? Psychologists have been wrestling with that old parental refrain pretty much since the televison was invented. Most of the research so far has been inconclusive.

One economist has found, however, that TV definitely rots 'social capital' - one of the latest buzzwords in politics and economics that's supposed to describe the social interaction, trust, and cohesiveness that functioning societies like the US have and war-torn societies like Sudan desperately need.

In a study of 600 remote Indonesian villages, the report finds that those villages that got better TV reception (and watched more TV) had considerably lower participation in group events, less community trust, and lower attendance in community meetings:"

Moral Economics?

One of the bigger questions meandering around my odd little head is that of Christian governance and what such a system would look like in practice.

We all recognize (I hope) that it is good to give to the poor. Distributists would suggest that this doesn't just make moral sense but makes good economic and social sense as well. Though I'm thoroughly sceptical as to the veracity of the last point, I'll let it stand for now in hopes that it'll make more sense later ('cause I really want it to be correct).

By creating a governmental system where the social good of giving to the poor is reaped without the moral choice thereof, we find social alienation once again, only this time it is a moral alienation. We don't know who we're giving to, why we're giving, or how we're giving. This can lead nowhere but straight down the gullet of apathy. This just further divorces our lives from the true reality, true relationships, and true justice that we are called to (and yearn for so deeply) in the name of Jesus Christ.

This acts to break bonds of community while trying (and little more than trying) to create a new sense of relationship with the government. This leads us to the situation we have today, where very well-meaning and moral people hope to enact social change through the government because they have faith in other well-meaning and moral people out there just like them. How else are we supposed to change the world but through our ballot boxes (and blogs, if you can afford the time)? In other words, today's government is yesterday's religion.

In the end, just to try it in perspective.
It's good to help the poor (in many ways).
The rich have the money to help the poor.
In order to aim for the good, we should take from the rich and give to the poor.
This assumes:
The rich would not give if asked to.
The involuntary redistribution of wealth has no other detrimental effects.

We're back to a rather complex psychosocial question...but that's what we've got.

What are the effects of involuntary redistribution of wealth on
1. the giver
2. the givee
3. society as a whole

How do those effects differ from a voluntary redistribution of wealth? Why does it make a difference?

Here's my suggested answer
Inovoluntary redistribution leads to
1. disconnected apathy for giver
2. temporary relief from givee (note that without the relationship the possibility of 'welfare-state' type expectations are more likely)
3. further deadening of local communities and strengthening of a perceived national identity as trumping all else (eg we often feel more comfortable donating money to a group that are far away in some distant land known only to us from a flier or campaign card or dramatic photograph than to our local needy...also the very fact that money tends to be the basis of our support instead of time, sweat, and family says something as well).

However, the question is if this trumps the needs that could go unmet if the 'rich' decide not to give. Somewhere between those two poles lies the area for a morally balanced discussion of economics (and a Christian discussion too, I think).

Iraq War Coalition Fatalities

Fatalities (keep the sound on).
(HT: Foreign Policy)

Choice

Touchstone Archives: The Lovely Dragon of Choice: "If you choose martyrdom, you are not a martyr but a suicide. The truly brave man is not the man who chooses to stay in the battle, but the one who sees that he has been chosen to fight and who has given up any choice to run away. The faithful husband is precisely he for whom infidelity has ceased to be a choice. The vagabond monks of Benedict’s day were caught in the trap of their ceaseless choosing; only with that wise vow of stability, which is a wise and brave tossing of choice to the winds, could a monk begin to climb the mountain of God.

If a group of people get together and choose to form a village, they have formed not a village but a club, a clique. The true village embraces all the romance and adventure of a pirate raid: people next door who insist on keeping chickens; a troop up the street who yell like Huns on furlough; the near genius who drinks too much, who can take your car apart and rebuild it better than it was, but who cannot keep a job; Irish and Italian boys who get into brawls now and who marry each other’s sisters later.

There they are, the crazy lot of them, from the smug churchgoer to the even smugger atheist, thrust into one cranny of a continental crust, forced by the accident of birth not only to put up with each other but also tokeep their streets clean, rebuke each other’s children, spike the punch on holidays, and bury each other at the last. When Christ asks us if we loved our neighbors, how many of us modern choosers will be hoping he means those nice people with the good grace to live far away in India, people whom we chose to help, rather than those strange and terrible beings who just happened to live on our block?

The whole of modern life, says Chesterton, is an attempt to flee from real dealings with other men and to retreat to the haven of a clique. So have we fled the family:

The modern writers who have suggested, in a more or less open manner, that the family is a bad institution, have generally confined themselves to suggesting, with much sharpness, bitterness, or pathos, that perhaps the family is not always very congenial. Of course the family is a good institution because it is uncongenial. It is wholesome precisely because it contains so many divergencies and varieties. It is, as the sentimentalists say, like a little kingdom, and, like most other little kingdoms, is generally in a state of something resembling anarchy.

(HT:On the Silent Planet)

State of Public Education?

This story contains one of the most depressing things I've ever heard someone in education say (it's near the end). Basically, a valedictorian,

in a detailed speech that referenced philosphers and ethics principles, referred to his education as “entirely hollow.”

The principal of this 'school', who stopped the speech early on later opined:

"My hope was they did not hear or understand what he was saying."

It blows my mind. Then again, this is coming from a guy [me] who doesn't much appreciate any censoring. If the school wanted to hear how great of a job they're doing, they should simply write the speeches themselves (and maybe the principal should speek instead). Here's part of the speech.

Daniel Pipes on Questions for Muslims

[Finding Moderate Muslims:]
"Useful questions might include:

• Violence: Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Armée, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and al-Qaida?
• Modernity: Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Do Muslims have anything to learn from the West?
• Secularism: Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? May Muslims convert to other religions? May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men? Do you accept the laws of a majority non-Muslim government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government? Should the state impose religious observance, such as banning food service during Ramadan? When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for drivers' license pictures), which should give way?
• Islamic pluralism: Are Sufis and Shi'ites fully legitimate Muslims? Do you see Muslims who disagree with you as having fallen into unbelief? Is takfir (condemning fellow Muslims with whom one has disagreements as unbelievers) an acceptable practice?
• Self-criticism: Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was responsible for the 9/11 suicide hijackings?
• Defense against militant Islam: Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Islam, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)? Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism should be shut down, or do you see this a symptom of bias?
• Goals in the West: Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian and secular or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law?

I wonder what a similar test would look like if geared towards Christians (by Muslims).

Practicing the Discipline of Place

Here's one small quote (from one small section) arising from a rhapsodic essay (one that deserves to be read and reread) from tNP's interminable traditionalist, Fr Jape.

It is the idea that to suffer one’s place and one’s people in the particularity of its and their needs is the only true basis for finding love, friendship, and an authentic, meaningful life. This is nothing less than the key to the pursuit of Christian holiness, which is the whole of the Christian adventure: live in love with the frailty and limits of one’s existence, suffering the places, customs, rites, joys, and sorrows of the people who are in close relation to you by family, friendship, and community–all in service of the truth, goodness, and beauty that is best experienced directly. The discipline of place teaches that it is more than enough to care skillfully and lovingly for one’s own little circle, and this is the model for the good life, not the limitless jurisdiction of the ego, granted by a doctrine of choice, that is ever seeking its own fulfillment, pleasure, and satiation. The Puritan heritage of America has long chafed against this discipline as it necessarily limits one to a small field of action in a world with seemingly little hope for eschatological fulfillment. Thus have American Evangelicals historically pined after their great mission of “giftedness” and “calling,” forsaking that foolishness of the Gospel of our Lord which has ever lain at their doorstep, in need of nurturing care.

Money, Power, Sex ... and Abstraction

Blog and Mablog:

Now this is why intellectuals (high rpm) and pseudo-intellectuals (pseudo-high rpm) can sit up until two in the morning talking about how a particular French filmmaker was deconstructing the suburban instantiations of gnosticism with his gritty authenticity, while down the street another man puts them all to shame by getting up three hours later to go duck hunting with his son. Contemporary intellectuals tell us all to overcome abstractions, but whenever Joe Somebody in a red state says "Okay!" and heads off to a NASCAR race to eat corn dogs, the intellectual goes white in the face. "When we told you to walk away from the realm of abstractions, we didn't mean . . . to just walk away."

HT: Mark Horne

Christians and Sex

Christians and Sex:

"Making abstinence the main principle of sex education is a pretty bad idea, whether you are in public school or at home or at church. Abstinence until marriage is one conclusion (of many) of a Biblically-based view of sex. So when you try to take this conclusion, strip it of all the Biblical principles it was based on and make it the guiding principle of a sex education program in a public school (in a culture that teaches the exact opposite principles that this conclusion was based on in the first place), of course it isn't going to be effective. "

WSJ.com - American Generosity

WSJ.com - American Generosity:

"The assaults on U.S. generosity derive from a view that government assistance is the only aid that matters. Even on that count, the U.S. is far from miserly. In 2004 Washington provided official development aid of $19.7 billion, more than runners-up Japan and France put together. Add the benefits of American innovation and military sacrifice and other First World nations are even further behind.

Then there is the charity from the U.S. private sector. In 2004, the latest year for which many numbers are available, Americans -- through schools, religious institutions, companies, foundations and families -- gave at least $71 billion to the developing world, more than three times what the government gave. The index authors say it is impossible to capture all giving, so if they've erred it's on the low side."

Ex-Muslims - 6 Million Muslims LEAVE Islam every year!!!: "Ahmad Al Katani:
The reality is that these words say a lot less than they should. As we said in the beginning, everyone has the right to invite others to his religion; this is what is known as evangelism (or proselytizing). As for Christianization, no one has the right to take Muslims out of their religion, and you asked for references and the references are too numerous.

Islam used to represent, as you previously mentioned, Africa’s main religion and there were 30 African languages that used to be written in Arabic script. The number of Muslims in Africa has diminished to 316 million, half of whom are Arabs in North Africa. So in the section of Africa that we are talking about, the non Arab section, the number of Muslims does not exceed 150 million people. When we realize that the entire population of Africa is one billion people, we see that the number of Muslims has diminished greatly from what it was in the beginning of the last century. On the other hand, the number of Catholics has increased from one million in 1902 to 329 million 882 thousand (329,882,000). Let us round off that number to 330 million in the year 2000.

As to how that happened, well there are now 1.5 million churches whose congregations account for 46 million people. In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity. These numbers are very large indeed ….. "

"Science" vs ID

Fascinating.

However, I believe that Peter Ward (anti-ID) missed a key assumption in this debate. He assumes that human intelligence can be made distinct from nature. If he thinks we all came from nature alone, then it would not be suprising that intelligence is reflected in nature, because it would be reflected in us.

As such, I do think the real debate is more philosophical and that the 'motive mongering' (as Stephen Meyer so aptly stated) as well as the theory-skeptics (as Mr Ward so poorly defended) and religious implications (as perhaps one of the only substantive points Mr Ward contributed) have caused this particular theory to become political. It's like arguments within small nuclear families - they're often about something else.

Here, people really want to argue about religion or politics, and as such have no problem finding those angles productive (even though the lead nowhere). Scientists have recreated these arguments by bandying about whether ID is a "theory" or not. Religious believers recreate it by pushing the claims of ID (and evolution) further than they belong. Politicians recreate it by separating into camps, vilifying the other side, and coming up with catchy slogans.

So what's it all about? Opposing worldviews and the inability to express them properly.

Michael Ruse (a philosopher of biology and opponent of ID) seems to understand this well (as well as another blogger I know), as an article in the Boston Globe May 2005 points out:

All told, Ruse claims, loading values onto the platform of evolutionary science constitutes ''evolutionism,'' an outlook that goes far beyond the scientific acceptance of evolution as a means of explaining the origins and development of species. Provocatively, Ruse argues that evolutionism has often constituted a ''religion'' itself by offering ''a world picture, a story of origins, and a special place for humans,'' while its proponents have been ''trying deliberately to do better than Christianity.''

Interestingly enough, the hope that the scientists who claim to be impartial will come to grips with the larger implications of the work they do (and that of the larger worldview) is mirrored in their own hope that ID proponents will realize the importance of the religious 'affiliations' that may indirectly control the theory's interests. However, to this point I would argue that the religious are more easily able to realize these consequences than the areligious, who it seems would prefer a certain amount of naivete in a the false grasp for impartiality.

What do you know? Naturalism vs Religion. Who could've guessed?

Growing Up British by Theodore Dalrymple:
The sordid is all too typical.

Glenn Hubbard (sorta) on the Fed Chair

If anything could make me want to attend graduate school in economics, this would have to be it (even if it is an impersonation).

Hat tip to Alex Tabarrok.

The myth of the American Hero

Though I disagree with his conception of comic books (or graphic novels or whatever you want to call them) and I'm sure many other things as well, Joseph Bottum's description of the Romantic localized heroification of American geography above and beyond actual heroes is quite interesting.

FIRST THINGS: On the Square:

"But you can see both the Emersonian demand in Whitman and the beginning of its answer—which is: the development of place, of locale, as the primary system of rhetorical figures for American character and behavior. From Mark Twain to Stephen Vincent Benet, from Bret Harte to the Greenwich Village Bohemians—whether they were romantics or realists, they were all engaged in the same project: the substitution of geography for heroes in our moral vocabulary. We don’t have many heroic types in American literature. What we have instead is heroic geography. The Virginian, the Down Easterner, the Texas Ranger, the cowboy, the Hoosier, the hillbilly, the Okie. These are tropes that serve the moral function filled in other cultures and other literatures primarily by heroes."

American patriotism is about fighting for the land, fighting for the country, and fighting for freedom (that we envision via the land and country). However, I wonder if other countries' forms of patriotism (Britain pops to mind) have more to do people, families, communities.