"America, Right or Wrong"

This book review is one of the best descriptors I've read of the "American attitude" or, as the reviewed book calls it, the "American Creed." This might be described as "a civil nationalism that promotes values like democracy, liberty, law, egalitarianism, and individualism." While generally perceived by Americans and non-Americans alike as a good thing (and as an "American thing"), these can also have their negative consequences, particularly in the area of foreign relations, when pride in these attributes morphs into a messianic or superiority complex which in turn leads to imperialism and/or nationalistic arrogance. But read the review and you'll see what I mean. Time permitting (har har) I may even try to read the book itself.

As something of an anti-nationalist, I don't particularly care for the phrase "America, right or wrong." The "...or wrong" part is just, well, wrong. Those who agree with this phrase are essentially putting blind faith in the American ideal ahead of recognizing any faults this country has and doing something about them. There is nothing wrong with having faith in the American ideal, just in having blind or unconditional faith. One should not turn a blind eye to America's faults, but should instead strive to correct them. "Germany, right or wrong" was a popular sentiment during the first half of the 20th century among Germans, and we can see how well that turned out.

Neocons nowadays similarly seem to live by the motto, "Bush, right or wrong." They are apologists for Bush, no matter what he does, even when his actions go against what more traditional, "old-style" conservatives believe in. (Bush is certainly no friend of minimal gov't or laissez-faire economics.) They feel a loyalty to him and his administration that seems to transcend (or transgress) rationality, consistency, or principles. They excuse and justify his actions rather than protesting when his actions go badly or go against core conservative beliefs. (Which is not to imply that the Democratic party is any better at sticking to their principles.)

No country, belief, or idea is ever made better by ignoring or covering up its faults. Indeed, one of the great strengths of free speech and democracy are that we can speak out against wrongs, and hopefully take action to correct them. The Soviet Union imploded because wrongs in its economy and in its actions and behaviors were excused and covered up until their cumulative effects caused the collapse of the country. China, on the other hand is experiencing rapid economic growth now that they've embraced capitalism and foreign investment (in practice, even if the Old Guard keeps spouting its communist slogans).

The bottom line is that wrongs should be and need to be corrected. To excuse, attempt to justify, or cover them up is not only a perpetuation of wrongness, but ultimately self-destructive.