I Pledge Allegiance: Flag, Republic, Nation

We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; 

one country, one language, one flag! — 

Pledge as written by Capt. George T Balch

(used in various places 1887-1923)

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, 

one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. — 

Pledge as written by Francis Bellamy in 1892

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, 

and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation 

{under God}, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. —

Form recognized by the US Congress in 1942, 

with “under God” added Flag Day 1954

            The last time I was in the United Kingdom was shortly after Queen Elizabeth II’s Golden Jubilee, and there were still many flags flying; interestingly, and relevant here, only one of the flags I saw was the Union Jackof the UK — at a touristy location —  while the rest were the national flags of England (the cross of St. George), Scotland (the cross of St. Andrew), and Wales (the Welsh Red Dragon). The United Kingdom is one country with at least three nations, united (more or less) under the monarchy and the Parliament at Westminster. Kingdom and country are one thing; nation is another.

            The current US Pledge of Allegiance substitutes the Flag for the Monarch as a focus for allegiance, and conflates — in a colloquially correct and politically useful way — the American Republic and the United States as “one Nation under God.” 

            Especially with US President Donald J. Trump identifying himself (correctly) as a nationalist, and with nationalism on the rise in the US and elsewhere, the convenient conflation of Republic and Nation in the Pledge is not holding and perhaps should not.

            So, is, or are, The United States of America basically, even essentially, the American Republic or the American Nation (under God)?

            Citing a 1991 book by Anthony D. Smith, the Wikipedia entry has it that “A nationis a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. […] It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.”^[3]And when it possesses and can hold its own territory, and establishes its own government, we have a nation-state.Stricter definitions by nationalists have usually required also one origin, one history, one religion — and, at least since the great Eurasian migrations of ancient and medieval times, one land and one descent: nationhood rooted “in blood and soil.”

            “One Ruler, One Law; One Faith” for one old formula that could work for a multinational empire or country — and tossing in Racism and one form of Romanticism one could get «Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer»: “One People, One Realm, One Leader.” And those “People” — the Folk — would be a subgroup of a Race, the Nation in Adolf Hitler’s phrase “Nation and Race” (Mein Kampfvol. 1, ch. 11).

            That’s one extreme, and not the idea of Nation meant, say, in the name of the oldest US magazine, the Leftist, The Nation. 

            The Right-wing extreme is, though, what’s meant by Right-wing extremists who talk of the US as part of “the Aryan Nation,” and it is a strong possibility for those who speak of the US as “a White, Christian Nation,” with “White” and “Christian” excluding Jews and other swarthy Caucasians, and “Christian” kind of iffy for Catholics. 

            Is the United States, essentially— of its essence — an English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon, White Christian (Patriarchal) Nation, with a territory? In that case we — or they(I’d be excluded) — in that case Americans, realAmericans would want a strong state to protect the Nation and Motherland, but the nature of that state is negotiable, with the traditional upshot a Leader of some sort, perhaps elected, perhaps hereditary, perhaps just, “Let the strongest rule.” 

            So it is for a minority of Americans, but in part or parts this is also the case for a fair number: those for whom America is a Nation of some sort and under God, being, clearly, a substantial number. 

            Or is America a Nation, but one where the Republic part isn’t negotiable but essential to our culture?

            Or is America essentially a Republic, like the old Roman Republic, but one that hadn’t fallen under an Emperor and, eventually, Emperors who made a state religion of the Christian Church — but instead an alternative Rome that had continued as a multi-national, religiously diverse polity, based in law and (the modern contribution) developed a written Constitution? And evolved out of a good deal of the monstrousness that was even the Roman Republic at its best. Okay: let’s imagine an evolution to us, with the American flag as a symbol and focus for allegiance, maybe just a tiny Roman-ish/American eagle at the top. 

            It makes a difference how we define ourselves.

            If the United States are/is essentially a Nation with a territory, a central task would be preserving the purity of the Nation. Not just regulating immigration: the Roman experience warns against weakness, division, and incompetence allowing an influx of whole tribes. No, traditional nationalism has a traditional hang-up with by-God purity, and it doesn’t take much penetration of foreign elements to impurify the body of the Nation. 

            If we’re essentially a Nation under a Leader, there is much to be said for the primacy of the Leader’s protecting the purity of the Nation with a beautiful if largely symbolic wall, backed by the force necessary to keep out even small groups of what must be seen as invaders. If the Leader can fulfill that most basic duty and then go on to embody and channel and to a some extent fulfill the will of the Nation, then it doesn’t matter much if the Leader himself is flawed or performs acts that in ordinary people would be criminal. The Leader of the Nation is the perfect democrat, bypassing elitist bureaucracies and institutions to perform the will of the demos: the true People, the ultimate Sovereign, and the figurative King that can do no wrong.

            If we’re essentially a Republic, especially one with liberal democratic aspirations and dedication to the rule of law, then things are different. In that case, “No one is above the law”; the President is the commander-in-chief only of the military, not of the country s/he serves; a Leader of the Folk is a danger; if you’re born here, you’re a citizen of the Republic; and for all the usefulness of “civic/civil religion,” our literal allegiance is to the Constitution and Republic, not to the symbol of the flag. 

            My oath was to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and I swore my loyalty to the Republic. There are a lot of “republicans” like that out there. We need to talk with each other and with the Nationalists; and this force of “republicans” must prepare, if necessary, to resist takeover of our country by Nationalists.

Kol Nidre and the Constitution: 5779/2018

I don't often commit acts of poetry, and the last time I inflicted a poem on the public was 1987, with a relapse in 2016, republishing the poem in a blog. On these rare occasions, though, something in my head has something to say, some concern to work through, which the prose part of my thinking can't handle. 

The occasion of this occasion was my thinking about upcoming Kol Nidre (the start of Yom Kippur, 18 September 2018) and thinking of an oath I'd taken at least twice, and maybe several times: possibly for Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), definitely, and in writing, to teach in the U.S. States of Illinois and Ohio. The people administering the oath (or affirmation — this is America, after all, and one cannot be forced to swear an oath) — the people administering the oath weren't all that serious, but I take my word very seriously. And I wondered if in old age, I'd finally be challenged to keep my word. 

We would've kept it for the tune, 

Or that's what many think, or guess

And the memory — 

Remembering is big this time of year —

Memories of hidden Jews in places made less judenrein than

The early purifiers sought and thought.

The lyrics of Kol Nidre though, the words as meaning

With all the charm of a car-rental contract,

And in need of a note

That only vows to God, by God get voided

Yom Kippur or ever.

Those made I to you and we to us,

Those vows to humans hold.

All our oaths and affirmations,

Promises we make to one another … 

And to the Republic?

The one of the ideal, the Republic of the Promise, 

The Constitution of the Dream?

Are we still sworn to that?

Sworn to preserve, affirming we'll protect,

Still dedicated to defend,

A Republic ours if we can keep it,

Ours only if we can keep it?

Defending against all enemies — 

Did I swear that part?

ROTC — registration freshman year, 

Getting Army shoes, and that great greatcoat

We wore against regs on rainy days —

And at one station on the line did we swear

(Or affirm) defense

Against all enemies, foreign

And domestic.

Did we all (there or elsewhere, other whens) swear, affirm, and 

Vow kol nidre,all our vows —

All of us who talk of "rule of law" and decency and 

Putting all that is our selves against the latest enemies,

Foreign and domestic?

And is now the time of testing?

Pledging Allegiance (Flag Debates Again)

As long as we're re-cycling arguments on patriotism, treason, the National Anthem, and such, here's me briefly on The Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag from April of 2004. Hey, if we're going to keep recycling arguments on symbols, I think I should get to recycle my short contributions. Anyway,  I take very seriously my oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States (and will repeat that below) but have some qualms about the patriotic exercise of pledging allegiance to a flag.


* First off, allegiance is pledged to the flag, with "to the Republic" almost an afterthought: following an "and" and never mentioned as a variant title for the exercise (we don't talk about "Pledging Allegiance to the Republic").
* The Republic in The Pledge is defined as "one nation," as opposed to a confederation of states undoubtedly, but also as a conflation of nation and republic. The U.S. isn't a nation in the same sense that Japan is a nation, or in the sense of "nations" in the joke in the song from HMS Pinafore: "But, in spite of all temptations / To belong to other nations / He remains an Englishman."
In everyday usage "nation" is still often expanded to "Christian nation," and at one time that was "White, Christian nation" (and Catholics, in such usages, weren't Christians, and Jews weren't White). And the nominally-Christian racists had and have a point: traditional nations were supposed to be united by "blood" and faith or "blood and soil" (Blut und Boden). I am a citizen of and have sworn my loyalty to the American Republic established by the U.S. Constitution; I don't belong to some hypothetical American nation.

* As the U.S. prison population continues to rise, with many inmates incarcerated for minor drug crimes — and many of them young African-American males — the line on "liberty and justice for all" becomes increasingly problematic.  In the War on Drugs and the War on Crime, Americans may prefer security for themselves over liberty for other Americans, often justly, but often not.
* Between "liberty for all" on U.S. territory and a sense of security for "natural born" U.S. citizens, most Americans would probably go for security.

If we want a patriotic exercise, maybe reciting this: "I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Republic established thereby, and will strive to achieve domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for us today and for future generations."

It's Not Just the Nazi-ish Salute ...

      It's not Just the Nazi-ish, fascistic salute that should bother people about Donald Trump's asking for a pledge of allegiance; it's more important that Trump came close to requesting an oath of allegiance to himself, Donald Trump.

“Let’s do a pledge. Who likes me in this room?” Trump asked the crowd at a rally in Orlando, Florida, which was frequently interrupted by protesters. “I’ve never done this before. Can I have a pledge? A swearing? Raise your right hand.” The Republican presidential front-runner then proceeded to get the audience to repeat after him. “I do solemnly swear that I, no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions, if there are hurricanes or whatever, will vote on or before the 12^th for Donald J. Trump for president.”

This is "the cult of personality" in politics, and it does not turn out well. Taken further, it's not just asking for a promise to vote for a person one "likes" but an oath of loyalty to the individual. One famous one went "I swear eternal allegiance to Adolf Hitler and to those designated by him unbroken obedience." More significant were the oaths sworn by the Wehrmacht, German civil servants, and the SS, "swearing loyalty to the person of Adolf Hitler rather than the nation or the constitution."

     In the United States we pledge allegiance to the flag in a relatively recent and not particularly binding ritual of civic loyalty. When we "solemnly swear" or affirm in the United States it is to support and defend our Constitution. Donald Trump is casually, almost flippantly messing around with that tradition. Combined with Trump supporters' supporting the man and not his policies, that is a very bad sign.

Preserve, Protect, and Defend ... (3 Nov. 2012)

"Preserve, Protect, and Defend" America, Not Necessarily Americans  

   
               A fair number of Americans, including American Presidents, assert that the first duty of the President of the United States is to protect the American people, to protect Americans.

                  And then a smaller group of us pedantic sorts, especially small-r republicans, assert that no, the key duties of the President are to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States, and, as s/he swears or affirms — no American may be required to swear an oath — to "preserve, protect[,] and defend the Constitution of the United States."

                  Now does "Constitution" here mean every clause, phrase, and mark of punctuation in the document? The Constitution in its original form — e.g., with the assumption that slavery legally exists and that new slaves could be imported until 1808? Of course not. "Constitution" in the oath means the written document, as amended, plus something like "Constitution" in the British sense of the term.

                  I'd put it that the primary duty of the President is to defend the Republic, the American Republic as constituted in its essentials by the document, The Constitution of the United States. Let's put it, the primary duty of the President is to protect not Americans, but America.

                  This idea is in useful tension with the commonplace truth from Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan to John Stuart Mill in On Liberty to our own Declaration of Independence that the primary duty of any government is to protect its people.

                  Most Americans are either loud about their patriotism or keep their mouths shut; relatively few Americans get arrested any given year — so most Americans, most respectable, voting Americans, would be safer in a police state. Insofar as we have avoided a police state, we put at risk a fair number of decent, innocent Americans.

                  If the tree of liberty is fertilized from time to time with the blood of patriots, it is also fertilized with the blood of men, women, and children who die, or are wounded or maimed, because we make the State prove people guilty and grant bail and allow free speech to those who will insult God and the Prophet Mohammed. Well, and so forth through the Bill of Rights and traditional ideals of liberty.

                  At various times, however, and the years following 11 September 2001 have made up one of those times, there has been consistent over-emphasis on the part of US Presidents and the Congress and other leaders to protect Americans and consistent reluctance to tell the American people to toughen up and be willing to take casualties — civilian casualties — to preserve traditional rights.

                  There has been a failure to explain that even furthering US interests can have its costs, and a balancing favor to continue whether perceived interests are US interests and just what we mean be the interests of America.

                  We cannot have US ambassadors walled up in fortress embassies; we cannot have US Special Forces holed up in secure areas: to do their jobs they must get out among the people, including among people who want to kill them and sometimes succeed.

                  Ambassador Chris Stevens died doing his job, as did two of the CIA security officers who died responding to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in Libya, along with at least one other American.
                  To protect America, in some cases even to just achieve US policy goals, some Americans have to risk death or horrible injury, and sometimes they suffer.

                  The first duty of the President is to protect America and further its interests, and to do so s/he may have to get some Americans killed. Each President need to explain this nasty fact to each generation of the American public, and each generation has to debate where to strike a balance.

                  On 22 April 1971, speaking for Vietnam Veterans Against the War — against what we Americans call the Vietnam War — John Kerry asked rhetorically, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Or, arguably, worse than a mistake: we continue to debate the morality of the Vietnam War. What isn't debatable is that the President and government of the United States can err, horribly, and order Americans to kill and die in conflicts that are not necessary to preserve America, wars that hurt America.
                  This idea, too, needs to enter the debate.

                  A bumper sticker is not a philosophy, Charlie Brown, and one-liners on "the first duty of the President" aren't serious consideration of difficult issues.

                  We Americans need to toughen up and be willing to take risks necessary to preserve our freedoms (and our dignity). For example, making US airports less secure but freer puts lives at risk. So be it, I say: I sometimes take planes, and I'm for loosening up security. Let's debate that.

                  We Americans need to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and much of the rest of the world and shift money from "kinetic" military operations into the civilian economy. Such pulling back will save military lives and may put at risk civilians. So be that as well — and let us debate that also. 

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth

"But most of all, my brothers and sisters, never take an oath."

(James 5.12) 

                 According to the rules of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, and, probably more to the point, according to every court-room drama set in the US I've ever seen, "Unless an affirmation is used, an oath ubstantially in the following form must be administered: [***] To a Witness. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God."

            The rules in North Dakota and America generally allow you to sincerely affirm rather than solemnly swear, and you don't have to put your hand on a Bible or end with the God part; but I would probably get into at least temporary trouble on the rest of the oath.

            First off, I'd be really, really tempted to recycle the old joke, "Hey, if I knew 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth' I'd be God." A joke, even an insightful one, would probably be a bad idea: agents of the US criminal justice system routinely handcuff people just accused of crimes or make anyone they feel even slightly threatening get down on their knees or get "nose and toes" on the ground, so we're talking serious control freaks who probably aren't much into law jokes or any other kind of humor.

            I might try, "I promise to answer the questions put to me truthfully, as well as I can and as completely as I may." If the judge demanded an explanation for my not just responding to the oath question with "Yes" or "I do," I might try, "Well, the oath you want me to take made some sense back when witnesses were just ordered to tell their stories, but nowadays a witness is supposed to respond to questions, and even the best answers to bad questions might not help reveal the truth — and as far as the whole truth goes, that could require more time than a trial allows. I really do try to be honest, and I don't want to swear to do something I could go to jail for trying to do." As in responding to a question with something like, "Look, counselor, that question isn't going to get us anywhere; what happened was —" And then I'd probably be offered the choice of answering the question or contemplate the majesty of the law while locked in a cell. Ditto if I tried to answer at sufficient length to get to "the whole truth."

            For me, anyway, a student of language (well, and a curmudgeonly smart-ass), there's an irony here: People casual about words and about speaking truly can take the witness oath without qualms; those who take words, and their word, seriously might find themselves in trouble with the law.