Patriotism Today: Why Loving Your Country Is So Polarizing

In today’s polarized world, patriotism has become a lightning rod for heated debates. Why has something as fundamental as love for one’s country turned into a divisive issue? We explore the clash of worldviews shaping this debate, from utopian visions to hard truths about human nature. Discover how echo chambers, technology, and generational shifts have deepened divides, and why true dialogue is more critical than ever. Plus, we reflect on the values that still hold America together and what they mean for our future.

This episode takes a candid look at patriotism, tradition, and how to engage in genuine conversations that challenge and unite us.

Chapters

• 0:00 Echo Chambers and the End of Real Dialogue
• 2:01 Patriotism as a Divisive Symbol
• 4:43 Generational Perspectives on National Pride
• 8:02 Balancing Love of Country with Criticism
• 12:43 The Clash of Utopian and Realist Visions
• 15:02 How Technology Feeds Dogmatism
• 18:36 The American Trinity: Liberty, Unity, and Faith

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

I think the unfortunate reason we've become polarized is we stopped having conversations with with people who disagree with us and because of our technology, it's very easily easy to isolate ourselves in echo chambers with people who believe just like us. And I've been in or I've been in group discussions where people who don't agree with me in terms of ideology just assumed everybody in the room believed the same thing. There was no checking of, hey, where are you on this? We can still be friends. There's a real sense that if if you're not like us, you're the devil. And so we've stopped having conversations. I think patriotism is so polarizing because it is a it is one visible way to create a distinction between two different worldviews, a worldview that says there is a better way and this allegiance to nation stands in the way of my utopian worldview. And then there's the other worldview that says, yeah, we're never going to reach utopia. What we've got here is pretty good. So let's take it good and bad together. Beauty and ugliness together. And those those are two very different worlds. We can get utopia, or we'll just have to make the best with what we got.

Speaker 2: 1:37

Patriotism. Big subject. It was once an honorable virtue here in the United States. Something that people wanted to be. But lately, I would argue it's become kind of a polarizing topic. Many on the far left especially see patriotism and patriotic symbols like the American flag, as right wing for some reason, and sometimes even equate them with extreme ideologies. Why do you believe something as simple as love for your country has become so polarizing today?

Speaker 1: 2:09

I would say a couple different reasons. One is primarily a difference in worldview of of what a person's vision is for the way the world ought to be. And if you have a worldview that says that all of these different countries each contribute different things to the world, but they're distinct cultures, they're distinct, ways of, of of approaching the world. Are useful to the world as a whole, as individual countries. Then we view that is okay. Then patriotism, love of your own country is a good thing. If the vision is to do away with all borders and to do away with all, all differences in, in nation, ethnicity, religion, and that we all live under one world view then, yeah, patriotism is going to get in the way of that. So so I'm not saying that everyone has a master plan for world domination. Who who is hesitant about patriotism? I have a slightly different explanation for that, but I think there are people who have a worldview that says, yeah, all these individual countries, they're not such a good idea. There's been nothing but wars because of them. And if we could just get us all together, working together, we wouldn't need all these borders. We can push it all the way back to Woodrow Wilson in in his desire for, What has eventually become the United Nations. This this desire for one organizational structure to govern the whole world. And some of that, you know, in the last 100 years is kind of taken off that. It may not have that much. It has symbolic power in New York City. But, the real power is in Belgium, you know, in Brussels where, where the the regulations are being made and being enforced. I will say that there are people who have this idealized view that our country is not so good. And I would argue that those are people who have not ever traveled. And when I mean traveled, I don't mean go to the highlight areas of a place, you know, to, to to be a tourist, but to actually live overseas. And as a child I lived overseas. Later, as a college student, I went to school overseas. And so I saw those countries, and I appreciated those countries for what they were. I lived in India. I went to school in England, and I appreciated them for what they were. But when I returned, I returned with a greater love for my own country, because I saw that they were distinct in and, I, you know, as a child, I missed the United States and had a real, you know, when I lived in India, I had a real strong yearning for the United States. But I didn't expect my Indian friends to have that same yearning for, for the United States, be their country was India. They should love India. You know, there are lots of things I appreciate about that country. But my my love for that country is different than my love for my own country. So I, I think having lived overseas and to, to see the various different ways, cultures and nations, work in real life, not just the highlight reel. I have a greater appreciation for our nation. And that's not to denigrate those nations. That's because this is my home. The US has strengths. The US has weaknesses. But for all of the problems, this is this is this is my home.

Speaker 2: 6:15

In your mind, then how important is patriotism? And is it right? Is it the right thing to have an inherent love of country or loyalty to your country?

Speaker 1: 6:24

Oh, it's absolutely important. If if we look at people who have been displaced from their countries because of war, because of governmental changes, and have been forced to relocate to another country, and you can look at World War two and, and the immigration that happened because of the Nazis. These are people who love their home country, Germany. Austria. But or or Poland, but had to leave will they brought with them to their, their adoptive countries. Many of the cultures, many of the traditions of, you know, the old country. And if the governmental system in their old country had been more healthy, they would have stayed there. And so and we see this today, there's a there's a Chinese dance company that wants to present the traditional Chinese culture without the overarching, communist, ideals of the current government. And so we here in the United States, we can agree or disagree with the way that the government is running the country. But but that doesn't that doesn't eliminate our, our love for our own country. So and the beauty historically that we've had here in the United States is we can have love of country and disagree openly and vehemently with the government. That's been part of our culture. I mean, we're you know, if we look, if we look back to the revolution, that's kind of what we got founded on. We like this. And we're we're going to, we're going to let you know what we do and don't like, and then we're going to peace simply, once, once the revolution was over, we are going to peaceably debate with each other to make make this good. In a civil war, we saw a division occur over a very important issue. And at some point they decided, well, we, we have such different ideas about what this country means. That they had a civil war. Nobody wants that again. Right. Or any anybody with any sense doesn't want that again. So let's figure out how we can, address these divisions in what our culture is, what what our nation stands for without turning to a civil war. I think the unfortunate reason we've become polarized is we stopped having conversations with with people who disagree with us. And because of our technology, it's very easily easy to isolate ourselves in echo chambers with people who believe just like us. And I've been in or I've been in group discussions where people who don't agree with me in terms of ideology just assumed everybody in the room believed the same thing. There was no checking of, hey, where are you on this? We can still be friends. There's a real sense that if if you're not like us, you're the devil. And so we've stopped having conversations. I think patriotism is so polarizing because it is a it is one visible way to create a distinction between two different worldviews, a worldview that says there is a better way and this allegiance to nation stands in the way of my utopian worldview. And then there's the other worldview that that says, yeah, we're never going to reach Utopia. What we've got here is pretty good. So let's take it good and bad together. Beauty and ugliness together. And those those are two very different worldviews. We can get utopia, or we'll just have to make the best with what we got.

Speaker 2: 10:38

Here in the United States. We're seeing right now an increasing call for tolerance, for values that, I think we would argue are not traditional American values. And some might see those as destructive to traditional American values. And those who who call for this tolerance aren't asking. They're demanding that we not only accept it, but believe it and teach it to our kids. So my question to you is, what do you think our role is in in pushing back on some of this and standing up to it and saying, no, enough is enough, and protecting those values that America was built on versus the values that are now being pushed on it.

Speaker 1: 11:17

But I think fundamentally, this, this, this is a battle of ideas and a battle of worldviews and what what has historically been a value, a traditional American value is viewpoint diversity, which is you and I can disagree. We can have, we can have an argument about that. We can have a big debate about that. And then after work, we're going to go get some beers. And that we actually saw with, tip O'Neill, who was the speaker of the House, and Ronald Reagan, who was the president in the, in the 1980s. And they would, they would battle for ideas, and then afterwards they would go have a beer. And so you have these two, two people with, extreme viewpoint diversity who would battle for their ideas but could remain friends. It is because neither one thought that the other must believe, as they do in order to be a decent person. And there are people who do not appreciate viewpoint diversity. They want everyone to believe the same way, and since they believe they're right, they plug their ears and don't want to hear the other viewpoint. And sometimes that that escalates to violence.

Speaker 2: 12:44

Where do you think that mindset came from?

Speaker 1: 12:46

Well, that mindset always been around. And in the. In the 1960s, a researcher named Milton Roque each kind of coined the term dogmatism. And dogmatism is not just rigidity of one belief, but rigidity of all beliefs. And I think we have seen an increase in the rigidity of belief systems. And what Roque said is this is my summary of of one of his quotes, which is the mind is a balance between the need to know and the need to block out threatening information. And when the need to know is greater than the need to block out threatening information. You are in an open mindset. But when the need to block out threatening information increases then you shift into a closed or dogmatic mindset. Now my little corollary to his body of research and he's he's the big guy. And I'm just giving a little addendum, which is the amount of information that we are consuming actually becomes part of the threatened information. And the more information that gets thrown at us, the less time we have to digest it. And so at some point, we get so much information coming at us, it it's like, no, don't tell me anymore. That's too much information. And so we shift into a dogmatic state. My concern. And again, I'm not anti-technology, but I believe with the increased volume of information, the increased volume is actually setting people into a dogmatic state of mind that we consume so much information that we are not able to really digest at all. And that shifts us into dogmatism or close mindedness.

Speaker 2: 15:02

What really are these two mindsets and that we're talking about with this, this overarching question, the, tyranny of tolerance, I would say, and the pushback and the maybe more traditional ism that we see, coming against that. What are these two mindsets battling out for and what are their objectives?

Speaker 1: 15:25

You think there are outcomes based on two fundamentally different worldviews. And and the person who's outlined this the best is, Thomas Soul. And he said there is a utopian vision that, the world is perfected all and that we can with people are basically good. And with technology and really smart people, we can create a utopia. Gosh, I wish, I wish that was true. And I actually, until my early 30s, I believe that to be true. The other he calls the tragic vision, and the reason he calls it the tragic vision is because unfortunately, there's tragedy in life. And this is the belief that we can't reach utopia and that human beings are a mix of good and bad. Each of us, not just that's a good person, that's a bad person, but each of us has in us both good and bad. And we can't we can't come to any idealized solution. He's most famous for saying there are no solutions, only trade offs, because he's a he's of that tragic vision. And so you have these two different visions of the world and the people who are demanding that we agree with them, have utopian view that they can create heaven on earth. Those with the tragic vision think, yeah, we're just doing the best we can. We're going to keep trying to improve it. You know that human beings are in provable but not profitable. So we have to we have to deal with the basic problems of human nature. We can't get people to be perfect.

Speaker 2: 17:23

What, what are the best parts of American society or the way we were founded that still hold true today? That we should celebrate and recognize on the fourth?

Speaker 1: 17:36

You know, I'm going to I'm going to borrow from a person I really respect because I think, I, I think this is a his is a nice summary and it's a, it's a gentleman named Dennis Prager and he, he calls it the American Trinity. And he says it's on every coin, the three basic values. The first is liberty. We call it the Declaration of Independence for a reason. And, our founders were so freedom or liberty minded. I guess I guess maybe another way you could define liberty is leave me the hell alone. That I'm self-regulating enough. I'm a grown up enough. Leave me alone. Because, I can figure this out, and I don't. I don't need another mom. Okay, so that's the liberty piece. Is. Is that freedom? Independence? The second piece is E pluribus unum, which is out of many. One. Yeah. And what that means is we've got a lot of people from a lot of different places with a lot of different ideas, but fundamentally from our different places, we are Americans, and so so we well, we as Americans, unusually relative to other countries, unusually embrace legal immigration. I mean, if you want to immigrate to Japan, good luck. If you want to immigrate to Switzerland, good luck. Yeah. If you want to legally immigrate to the United States, unfortunately, right now it's standard line. But but once people have come here, they have identified as Americans and they have taken on the values of this country. So liberty out of many, one and the last is in God we trust. And that's also on our coinage. And. Yes, some of the founders were deists and not what we would today call Christians. But but there there was a fundamental view that there was some, some, higher power, some transcendent force, and that that was an important part of our founding. And if you look at some of the language from the founders, they said, this is a kind of nation that can only work among a religious people. Now, they didn't define the religion, but they said a religious people because those are the people who are self-regulating. So you can't have liberty unless you have self-regulation. That God concept results in self regulation.

Speaker 2: 20:33

Do you think that the decline of religion here in the United States will ultimately be a a detriment that will bring maybe our downfall, or maybe a fundamentally altered, version of the United States.

Speaker 1: 20:52

I would say a decline of healthy religion is a threat to our country. There are plenty of unhealthy versions of religion. I mean, you can't. You don't have to look very far to find abuses in the guise of religion. That's not what I'm talking about. But, thoughtful, thoughtful, healthy religious expression, and religious commitment. Not just expression, but commitment has been an important part of our nation. And, you know, the The Handmaid's Tale that, you know, I read the book back in the 80s, and I thought it was silly then, and I guess now it's a series. No, nobody's talking about the pathological, vision from The Handmaid's Tale. I mean, that's a that's that's it's dystopian as or even more dystopian than, The Hunger Games, you know? No, nobody. Nobody's looking for that. Nobody's saying, oh, let's let's get some of that going. Yeah. Any any dystopian tale is, is unpleasant, but I'm talking about, healthy faith, not pathological. Maybe.