“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
~George Washington
On Wednesday afternoon of June 19th, 1940, Roy Crabb and his brother were visiting a friend’s house in Ash Fork, Arizona. Six cars suddenly pulled up, lead by a Plymouth sedan driven by a sheriff’s deputy. After about ten minutes the sheriff’s deputy drove away and a dozen men emerged from the remaining cars. The men entered the house and dragged Roy Crabb and his brother into the front yard where they produced an American flag. “You fellows salute this,” one of the men said. When Roy Crabb and his brother–both Jehovah’s Witnesses–refused, the men proceeded to kick and beat them until they were unconscious.
This wasn’t an isolated incident. In Jasper, Texas in that same month a mob of American Legionnaires dragged Jehovah’s Witnesses from their cars in Courthouse Square in broad daylight and proceeded to beat them while local law enforcement officers simply looked on and laughed. A Witness was tarred in fathered by a mob of ‘patriots’ in Parco, Wyoming on June 2. And in Kennebunk, Maine that same summer a mob burned the local Kingdom Hall to the ground.
According to a pamphlet entitled The Persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses published in January 1941 by the American Civil Liberties Union, documents filed with the Department of Justice by defending attorneys enumerate over 335 instances of mob violence against Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1940–especially that spring and summer. The mob violence spanned 44 states, and targeted 1,488 men, women, and children.
Why all of this violence? The primary catalyst was the Supreme Court’s verdict in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, which was decided on June 3, 1940–a time when patriotic feelings were exceedingly high as America braced itself for its likely entry into World War II.
In the decades following World War I state and local legislatures had began requiring recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. This posed a problem for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Witnesses follow the Biblical injunction to worship God’s kingdom exclusively (see for example Exodus 20:4 and Luke 4:5-8). Swearing allegiance to an earthly kingdom, state, or nation is considered idolatry. For this reason, on October 22, 1935, Lillian Gobitis (a 7th grader) and her brother William (a 5th grader), both Jehovah’s Witnesses, refused to say the pledge at their public school in Minersville, PA. They were both expelled and a protracted legal battle ensued, eventually leading to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Witnesses follow the Biblical injunction to worship God’s kingdom exclusively (see for example Exodus 20:4 and Luke 4:5-8). Swearing allegiance to an earthly kingdom, state, or nation is considered idolatry.
In an 8 -1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Minersville, PA school district’s interest in creating national unity was sufficient to compel students to recite the pledge, religious objections on First Amendment grounds notwithstanding. Lillian Gobitis later characterized this verdict as tantamount to declaring “open season on Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
American Patriotism in Dark Times
The reason I’ve shared this shameful episode in American history is because in the course of this and several subsequent essays (see the seceond installment here) I want to explore the prickly topic of American Patriotism. Before I explain why I’ve selected the mistreatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses as my (seemingly unlikely) entry point into this topic, I want to say just a little bit about my broader motivations.
The United States in particular (but by no means exclusively) finds itself deeply divided on political and ideological grounds, and this division seems to have only intensified since the beginning of the new millennium. This division exists against the backdrop of all of the various pressures associated with what we loosely describe as ‘globalization’. Theses pressures include: the backlash (accelerated by the impact of the Great Recession) against global capitalism and neoliberal economic policy; the impact of global competition in labor markets; the global epidemic of terrorism; and the unprecedented mass movement of people–mostly from poorer economies to richer ones–due to immigration (both legal and illegal) and the massive displacement of refugee populations from war torn regions of the world. It also includes the rise of neo-nationalist and populist movements in reaction to these globalizing pressures, which has lead to, in the United States, the narrow election of a race-baiting, nativist President who flirts with white nationalism and demonstrates an unprecedented (for a US President) hostility towards the Constitution and America’s republican institutions. In short, we’re living in dark times.
What does it mean to be an American under such conditions? How does all of this affect the meaning of citizenship in general? How does it impact our understanding of what it means to be an American patriot, and how does it affect the moral and political commitments we value as Americans? These are the sorts of questions I’m interested in exploring.
The reason I’m exploring American patriotism in particular, rather than patriotism in general, is first and foremost because I am an American, not only by birth but by choice. While there is obviously a large body of literature on the phenomenon of patriotism as such, there is something appropriate, I think, about situating my treatment in a distinctly American context. After all, patriotism by its very nature manifests itself in particular contexts. No one is a patriot in general. Rather, a patriot is a patriot of a particular country. Different countries have different histories, traditions, cultural practices, and forms of government. These differences obviously have an effect on the way patriotic values and commitments get manifested.
American Patriotism and the Constitution
The reason I’ve selected the mistreatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses as my entry point into this exploration of American patriotism is because in this first essay I want to examine the relationship between American patriotism and the Constitution of the United States. Examining the treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses in America offers incredibly fertile ground for doing so for at least two important reasons. First, Jehovah’s Witnesses are anti-patriotic as a matter of religious conviction. Second, the role the Witnesses have played in shaping judicial interpretation of the Constitution is perhaps greater than that of any other group of Americans. They’ve played this role simply by ending up in the courts frequently for engaging in speech and action that is deemed offensive or inappropriate by the broader culture, but is nevertheless protected (frequently anyway) under the U.S. Constitution.
This matter of the Constitution is critical in an examination of American Patriotism. It has everything to do with the origin, history, and political make up (constitution!) of the American republic. The United States of America was founded before Europe had even divided itself up into modern nation-states. It is not the case that the United States was a nation first, and then decided at some later point to give republican government a try. Rather the United States of America was literally born from two documents: the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. It is and always has been a constitutionally limited republic. For this reason, most manifestations of American patriotism, regardless of political orientation, include a deep reverence for the Constitution.
References to this reverence for the Constitution in expressions of American patriotism are everywhere. One prominent recent example is the habit, on the part of members of the Tea Party movement, of carrying on one’s person at all times a tiny printed copy of the US Constitution that one can whip out at will and wave in the face of anyone who might challenge one’s patriotism. Similarly, Gold Star father Khizr Khan, whose son was killed in Iraq while serving in the US Army, waved his own pocket Constitution during his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2016. A number of US Senators and Congressional representatives from both parties also carry pocket Constitutions. You can get one of your own from the progressive leaning ACLU, the conservative leaning Heritage Foundation, and the libertarian leaning Cato Institute.
Because the American republic depends existentially on the Constitution, any American, patriotic or otherwise, who tramples upon the Constitution is open to the charge of being “unAmerican”. My scare quotes around this term unAmerican are very much intentional, as I recognize that this word is polarizing in a “patriotically charged” in group/out group sort of way. It’s also evocative of the House Un-American Activities Committee of the Red scare McCarthy era. Nevertheless, that the term unAmerican burns in the ears of any self-styled American patriot is telling. It’s a term that a certain kind of American patriot–the kind who beat religious minorities for practicing their faith, for instance–like to accuse other people of being.
American Patriotism and Liberalism
Is it possible to be an unAmerican American patriot? If we accept the notion I described above, that it’s “unAmerican” to fail to respect the US Constitution, then yes, I actually think it is possible. Patriotism is a notoriously slippery concept to define. However, if we accept the most broadly conceived and minimal definition–love of country–then we can easily see that it’s perfectly possible to be an American who loves her country but has utter contempt for the Constitution. In fact, it’s also quite clear that there are many such people in America today.
That said, thanks to the Constitution so long as you’re not infringing on the rights of others, being “unAmerican” is your right as an American. I mention it here mainly to illustrate an important point. Being patriotic, and defending the Constitution and the American republic should not be conflated. They can actually be two quite distinct things.
This will be controversial at first blush for American conservatives, but I am going to call these Constitution-supporting Americans liberals, because in supporting the US Constitution (which is a liberal constitution) that’s what they reveal themselves to be.
The tension that exists between patriotic feelings for America and respect for the US Constitution, therefore, is really only a problem for those Americans who actually support and defend the Constitution. I exclude, of course, those Americans who worship the Constitution as a fetish object without actually believing in or supporting the principles contained within it (there are such people). This will be controversial at first blush for American conservatives, but I am going to call these Constitution-supporting Americans liberals, because in supporting the US Constitution (which is a liberal constitution) that’s what they reveal themselves to be.
This definition of liberalism–which is borrowed from political philosophy–is obviously broader than the narrowly conceived definition used with disdain by conservative American radio and television personalities when complaining about “those damn liberals!” That’s because Americans have an exceedingly narrow definition of ‘liberal’ (i.e., something like “defenders of the democratic welfare state”). In the classical sense, however, liberalism is generally understood to include a commitment to pluralism (which includes protecting democratic minorities from what John Adams described as “the tyranny of the majority”); the sanctity, freedom, and inalienable rights of the individual; and limited government (including a separation of political powers and a system of checks and balances).
In the context of American politics political liberalism spans the spectrum from FDR’s New Deal on the Democratic Left to Ronald Reagan’s Shining City Upon a Hill on the Republican Right. What Americans describe as Libertarianism is, it is worth noting, also firmly within the American liberal spectrum. Juxtaposed to this liberal spectrum are various versions of anti-liberal political commitments (e.g., monarchists, Nazis, communists, fascists, theocrats, autocrats, anarchists).
Compulsory Patriotism and Ultranationalism
For any American patriot who respects the republic and it’s Constitution, the idea of compulsory patriotism is obviously deeply troubling. This brings us back to the mistreatment of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1940. Oppressing people for their beliefs and religious practices? Forcing citizens to express particular sentiments and opinions? This sounds like proverbial “goose-stepping Nazi” shit. Thankfully, given the alarming wave of violence against the Witnesses this parallel became painfully obvious even during that same summer of 1940.
The epidemic of violence following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Minersville case was concerning enough that on June 16, 1940, Attorney General of the United States Francis Biddle made a plea to the American people in a national radio broadcast to quell the mob violence. “We shall not defeat the Nazi evil by emulating its methods,” he pleaded.
Biddle’s reference to the methods of the Nazis was quite apt. In Hitler’s Germany Jehovah’s Witnesses were sent to concentration camps where they were compelled to wear the purple triangle which identified them as a Bibelforscher (“Bible Student”). Their ‘crime’, in addition to being pacifists, was their refusal to perform the “Heil Hitler” Nazi salute signifying allegiance to the Nazi state. In short, they were guilty of insufficient patriotism.
If you substitute the Nazi salute for the Pledge of Allegiance, it becomes quite clear that in the United States in the summer of 1940 Jehovah’s Witnesses were being persecuted for essentially the same reason. This disturbing parallel was not lost on the publishers of The New Republic, who published an essay in 1940 suggesting that compelling the pledge created the risk of “adopting Hitler’s philosophy” of ultranationalism.
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion”.
The shameful parallels between the compulsory Pledge and Nazi patriotism were not lost on the United States Congress or, eventually, the Supreme Court either. Regarding the former, Congress amended to Flag Code in December of 1942, replacing the Bellamy salute–the original salute used while reciting the Pledge which consisted of holding the right arm stiff in the air in “Heil Hitler” fashion–with the current practice of placing one’s right hand over heart.
Regarding the Supreme Court, Justice Frank Murphy regretted his vote in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, particularly given the subsequent mob violence it provoked. He asked his clerk to look for an opportunity to revisit the issue. Three years later, in 1943 in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the court did just that.
In a 6-3 vote the court ruled that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson forcefully wrote, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion”.
Lessons Learned
There are those who are willing to go through conceptual contortions to reconfigure patriotism in a way that demonstrates that the Americans who committed acts of violence against the Witnesses in the summer of 1940 are not “true patriots.” I purposefully did something similar to this tactic with my tongue and cheek by suggestion that these Americans were actually “unAmerican”. We want to believe that the virtues of patriotism are such that if we have strong feelings of love for our country we’ll behave like good citizens (and in an American context that means good republican citizens). However, I really see no reason to believe that this is true. The main take away from our Jehovah’s Witness story above is, at least for me, that you can have strong patriotic feelings for America but nevertheless still not be a very good republican citizen. I frankly do not doubt for a moment that the Americas who committed acts of violence against their fellow Americans in 1940 had strong patriotic feelings for America. I do, however, question their commitment to the liberal principles of pluralism and limited government–principles articulated in the US Constitution.
I’d also like to note, especially given our current political climate, that many of the acts of mob violence perpetrated against the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1940 were coordinated by the proto-fascist veterans’ organization the American Legion. And lest calling the American Legion (an organization that boasts a number of American Presidents among its alumni) a proto-fascist organization sounds like hyperbole, bear in mind that in the 1920s Legion Commander Colonel Alvin Owsley regularly invited Benito Mussolini to speak at the annual convention, insisting that “the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States.” If that’s not proto-fascist, I don’t know what is.
My point in noting this is simply that with the rise of neo-nationalism and right-wing populism in America today much of what passes as patriotism–intense, passionate patriotism in fact–is quite illiberal. Many of the people who squawk the loudest about their love of America are in fact hostile to our republican way of life and our Constitutional rights and freedoms. I include here white supremacists, neo-nazis, the KKK, the ‘alt-right’, and the whole menagerie of ethno-nationalists who’ve been emboldened since the election of Donald Trump to wrap themselves in the flag of our republic (see for instance my piece Hannah Arendt: America is Not a Nation). I opened this piece with a quote from George Washington expressing his hopes for America as “mankind becomes more liberal.” What hopes can we have for America, I wonder, as mankind becomes less liberal?
