Anti-Climacus

FILE UNDER 'THINGS I DON'T GET:'

Insomuch as I take a side at all on these things, I'm closer to Jacob Levy than Patrick Deneen. The whole situation seems to be needless rabble-rousing, and, as Levy says, based on being "cute and clever" rather than "principled," not unlike the reverse-Affirmative Action bake sales the College Republicans used to have at Michigan. If you think, as I do, that the local political environment is an irrelevant factor for the siting of your major convention, then there is exactly as much point in fussing over Toronto as there is over New Orleans: none. If you want to raise the point that Canadian abuses of human rights talk in the name of political correctness are a serious issue, there are less annoying ways to do so (see, e.g., CliffOrwin); and frankly, even if it were justifiable to respond in this manner, prudence would seem to dictate a number of better options (e.g. let's get together a panel for APSA in 2009 talking about the use and abuse of rights-talk).

A brief word on Deneen's extension of the argument, taking his discussion of the meaning of "American" in "American Political Science Association" as a starting point. I don't get it, the fear of cosmopolitanism and assuming identities other than one's own nation. I carry a number of identities, some relating to me personally, some relating to social groups of which I have chosen to be a member, some belonging to political communities where my membership is something less than up to me. The presence of all of these presents no issues to me. From that point, the addition of real or metaphorical identifications with those outside my particular state borders causes me no mental anguish. When I lived in Michigan, it was not difficult for me to imagine that people in Ontario probably had similar interests, and at least some of what I did (and Michigan did) should take those into account. I'd like to think this is a typically American attitude (whether that counts as a good thing or a bad one I'll leave to someone else): certainly, the authors of the Federalist thought loyalty to state and loyalty to nation could co-exist; I have no particular reason to think that's false. Perhaps I'm missing the force of the argument, but I don't see how adding one more kind of identification changes anything.