Contesting Patriotism

Abstract

In the days following the tragic events of September 11, U.S. peace movement organizations (PMOs) found themselves operating in a difficult political climate. For the government, the mainstream media and the general public, “citizen,” “patriot” and “retaliation” merged into a single “American” identity so that many felt that the nation and its way of life were at risk and that war was an appropriate response to the “new threat.” Since then the mistaken hyperbole of an “everything has changed” approach to understanding September 11 has permeated most discussions of the event. While the extent of change is exaggerated, it is nonetheless true that significant shifts occurred in the political landscape in both domestic and foreign policy. In addition, relatively simplistic understandings of patriotism gained even more credence than usual in the U.S., and policy dissent was denigrated and more easily branded as unpatriotic.A long-range and comparative approach to history shows that many of thesepolitical developments are predictable and relatively common when a statecomes under attack on its home soil. But owing partly to the United States’ placement as the world’s lone military superpower and its imperial policies in a globalized economy, the attacks of September 11, 2001 also deeply influenced how Americans understand themselves and perceive their relationships to the rest of the world. For example, the false insularity that most Americans had long taken for granted was suddenly threatened. The Bush administration easily exploited this, rallying support for a policy of a permanent war economy, aggressive military retaliation, pre-emptive attacks abroad and civil liberty suppression at home. At the core was a call to intensely nationalistic patriotism.