User:Dfg02103/sandbox

MOVED TO SK6074/sandbox DO NOT EDIT

Seven Ways to Misunderstand Constitutional Patriotism

 * 1)  "Too Universalist" - Often critics believe that constitutional patriotism lacks specificity. It does not begin with a detached individual asking "Where do I belong?" Rather the theory asks citizens within existing political regimes to think about their political allegiances.
 * 2) Any trace of particularism invalidates universalist aspirations- Critics claim that constitutional patriotism is simply Liberal Nationalism. However this assumes that a pure universalism is available. Additionally, liberal nationalists gravitate toward assimilationist and exclusionary policies to reinforce a sense of national culture.
 * 3) Too Particular- Critics state that the theory is bounded in the context of post-war divided Germany where it was founded. However, all universal norms must have an origin.
 * 4) Reification- Critics state that a country that has more than one constitution will undeniably turn to liberal nationalism. However, constitutional patriotism is more focused on a culture rather than a document.
 * 5) Juridification of Politics- Critics state that this theory leads to the understanding that politics is ideally the deliberation of judges. However, often protest groups or civil society can pressure parliaments or governments rather than going straight to the courts.
 * 6) Constitutional patriotism as a civil religion- Critics argue that constitutional patriotism generates chauvinism and can lead to civilizing missions similar to McCarthyism. While these claims are valid, Charles Taylor admits it is "the least dangerous social-political cohesion."
 * 7) Dependence on a particular social theory- Critics argue that the theory is too attached to Jurgen Habermas's political thought. However, it is important to think of constitutional patriotism as a normatively dependent concept. It depends on a broad theory of justice in order to gain substantial normative content. Habermas does not own the sole view of constitutional patriotism.

Constitutional Patriotism in the United States
Constitutional Patriotism is primarily based off of two documents in the United States: The United States Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. These documents have stabilized expectations of political behavior and have encouraged civic empowerment. The genius of sophisticated political regimes such as the USA has been to demonstrate that people can find a source of political unity that overarches their other identities in a constitution. Americans believe that the principles of the Declaration of Independence are not merely the choices of a particular culture but are universal, enduring, and self-evident truths. These documents have both validated government action and citizen response.

Early History
Although The Enlightenment values expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence form the core of American self-understanding, this creed has over time become a grand narrative of mythological exceptionalism and Manifest destiny. In the country's inception, government officials broadly interpreted the Constitution in order to establish an archetypical model for foreign policy. Specifically, this justified the ruling to make land acquisition an implied federal power. This ideal was finalized in the 1823 court case, Johnson v. McIntosh when the US Government declared that it alone possessed the power to purchase lands from tribal nations. Presidents such as Thomas Jefferson and James K. Polk used the concept of constitutional patriotism to expand the United States westward through the Louisiana Purchase, Oregon Territory, California Territory, and The Republic of Texas.

Constitutional patriotism arises once again in the age of slavery. In the mid 1780's. hundreds of thousands of slaves served as the cornerstone of American production. The constitution's defense of slave owner's rights created a dichotomy of constitutional patriotism. This resulted in half of the country adhering to the Declaration of Independence's belief that 'all men are created equal' while the other half adhered to the constitution's ruling which allowed slavery at a federal level. The rhetoric of many anti-slavery protestors appealed to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in order to resolve this split in interpretation. Frederick Douglass stated that "the Constitution of the United States, standing alone, and construed only in the light of its letter, without reference to the opinions of the men who framed and adopted it, or to the uniform, universal and undeviating practice of the nation under it, from the time of its adoption until now, is not a pro-slavery instrument." Similar rhetoric led to the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution and a universal anti-slavery constitutional patriotic view.

20th Century
Any discussion of loyalty and the constitution is haunted by the possibility of political witch-hunts of those suspected of lacking political loyalty or civic reliability. In the 1950's, thousands of Americans including government officials, members of the armed forces, cultural stars, and ordinary citizens had to stand before a congressional board to prove they had no communist relations. Dubbed McCarthyism, the nation wide quest led by Senator Joseph McCarthy frightened American citizens claiming that communist spies were omnipresent. This strict adherence to the constitution's declarations and fear of communism led to the removal of civil liberties of many citizens and the suspension or inversion of the law. After numerous televised hearings and irrational accusations, Senator McCarthy was deemed no longer legitimate by the American people, and the communist concern regarding constitutional patriotism was relatively abandoned.

The Civil Rights Movement in the 20th century often referred to the constitution in order to gain popularity and legitimacy with the American people. In W. E. B. Du Bois's 1905 Niagara Movement Speech, he pleaded for equal voting rights and said, "We want the Constitution enforced." This style was repeated throughout the movement by leaders such as Malcolm X, Ralph Abernathy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.. Using the Constitution, Martin Luther King Jr. justified the movement's message in his address during his Montgomery Improvement Association address stating, "If we are wrong, then the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong then the Constitution of the United States is wrong." Later in 1968, King employed the Constitution once again to challenge the US government's civil rights legislature and stated "Be true to what you say on paper."

Modern Day
Recent US administrations have handled the idea of constitutional patriotism differently. The Clinton administration instituted a policy which allowed the US government to determine what the Constitution needed. Ultimately foreign policy required that sovereignty be safeguarded so that the Constitution itself can be secure. This resulted in rejections of the Land Mines Convention, the Rome Treaty, and the Kyoto Protocol. Constitutional patriotism's effects shifted during the Bush Administration. After the attacks on September 11th, the Bush Administration released the National Strategy for Homeland Security (NSHS) and the National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSSUSA) which defined the American people as a culture with shared liberal and democratic principles. The NSHS specifically defined the American way of life as a "democratic political system... anchored by the Constitution." This version of constitutional patriotism continues to be prevalent in US government and citizen action.

Modern US foreign policy is morally justified by the universalism of constitutional, liberal, and democratic principles. However, various scholars have stated their concerns regarding constitutional patriotism in the United States. Alexis de Tocqueville expressed his doubts when he stated, "I would like to contribute to the faith in human perfectibility, but until men have changed their nature and are completely transformed, I will refuse to believe in the longevity of a government whose task is to hold together forty diverse people." Alexander Hamilton also expressed doubts when he questioned "... whether societies of men are actually capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice or whether they are forever destined to depend on their political constitutions on accident and force."

Calhoun
Craig Calhoun sees constitutional patriotism as the solidifying of a more general Cosmopolitanism. He notices that democracy is composed of more than political culture and suggests that a democracy has many more externalities. Habermas somewhat acknowledges this and questions whether or not "there exists a functional equivalent for the fusion of the nation of citizens with the ethnic nation." However, Calhoun argues that Habermas falsely assumes that ethnic nationalism and nationalism are interchangeable, Calhoun argues that constitutional patriotism is a common project shared amongst all citizens which is molded by a state's public discourse and culture. Consequently, Calhoun proposes a revision to the constitutional patriotism theory and suggests that "The notion of constitution as legal framework needs to be complemented by the notion of constitution as the creation of concrete social relationships: of bonds of mutual commitment forged in shared action, of institutions, and of shared modalities of practical action."

Two Conceptions of Constitutional Patriotism
Constitutional patriotism inherently has two opposing ideas: particularism and universalism. The pull of these two ideas is referred to as thickness. Theorists such as Sternberger, Habermas, Müller, and Calhoun each have their own degree of thickness. In order to measure the thickness of a type of constitutional patriotism, exit, voice, and loyalty are examined. Exit is defined as the presence of diversity in the theory. Voice is defined as each citizens relation and conceptualization of the theory. Finally, loyalty is defined as the allegiance to the state's culture and constitution.