Why Is Patriotism Thought To Be Blind Loyalty To The Government Rather Than To The Principles Of Liberty?

{Editor’s Note: This is the 21st installment of a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress. Check out the previous installment, "Why Is There Apathy Towards Executive Orders Allowing For Secret 'Kill Lists'?" }A common fallacy people make in political debate is the association of a collective “we” with all government action, whether good or bad.  “We” bailed out the banks, “we” invaded Vietnam, “we” killed Osama bin Laden, etc.  This phrasing is no accident; it is instilled in us from our earliest years as we recite pledges worshiping a Flag and stand up at baseball games to sing songs in worship of the State.  Everywhere we go we are reminded that we are the government, and the government is us. The result of this conditioning is that many people become very defensive when it comes to others criticizing the government, particularly foreign policy, as they have come to associate the government with themselves.  This is how Democracy is sold to the public – all State actions are considered legitimate since “the people” voted in those making the decisions.  For those that buy into this theory, a Patriotic American is one who stands up for their government no matter what, because gosh darn it, it’s their government!In his essential essay Anatomy of the State, Murray Rothbard points out how the State uses this concept to create the patriotic fervor in the populace need to support foreign wars:

Especially has the State been successful in recent centuries in instilling fear of other State rulers. Since the land area of the globe has been parceled out among particular States, one of the basic doctrines of the State was to identify itself with the territory it governed. Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State's advantage. If "Ruritania" was being attacked by "Walldavia," the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste. In this way, a war between rulers was converted into a war between peoples, with each people coming to the defense of its rulers in the erroneous belief that the rulers were defending them. This device of "nationalism" has only been successful, in Western civilization, in recent centuries; it was not too long ago that the mass of subjects regarded wars as irrelevant battles between various sets of nobles.

Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? As Rothbard points out, this devise of "nationalism" has only recently been utilized in Western Civilization.  Prior to the rise of Western Democracies, citizens often saw wars as merely between the Kings of their respective State, and not as much between themselves and the peoples of that State.  With the recent rise of democracies, the people have shifted their position on wars by now associating themselves with the battles at hand.  The elected leaders of the nation represent them, and by hook or by crook the enemy must be defeated! Anything short of full support for military endeavors is therefore considered unpatriotic. According to Ron Paul in his epic farewell speech,

Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.

Ron Paul’s definition of patriotism is much more in tune with the original use of the word in the early history of the United States. After all the term patriot during the American Revolution referred to those who spoke out and rebelled against the King of England, eventually resulting in the independence of the American colonies.  These men stood up to the excessive taxation and abuses of the British government, and went down in history as American heroes.  If Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and other patriots of their time were around today speaking out against indefinite detention and the Federal Reserve, they would be labeled “terrorists”. In order for people to be more accepting of criticism of the State, first they must learn to mentally delink the State from themselves.  We must teach people that the State is a separate body from us - "gang of thieves writ large", as Rothbard put it.  The pervasive idea that the State is an extension of ourselves is one of the greatest tricks the State ever pulled to justify its' existence.  This is why, as Hans Hermann-Hoppe states, Democracy is the God that failed.  Only when the false idol is completely smashed can society move forward and throw the shackles of the State off its' shoulders.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!