I think that I can now declare victory and, so to speak, go home. Professor Kateb now rests his case by making my argument. He says, as if I had said, patriotism’s “most important meaning is that unreserved loyalty to one’s country in a time of war — whatever one’s country is — is to be expected and praised.”
But this is not, and was not, my point. Instead, I said in my essay — and repeated in my first response — that patriotism deserves to be “praised or fostered only in the case of a country that deserves to be loved.” And I added that not all countries deserve to be loved. Thus, I faulted him for not making that distinction, which he now insists has to be made.
Unfortunately, in his closing statement, he reverts to his faulty ways. He suggests that the world would be better off “if no one were a patriot.” Really? No one in the northern states in 1861-65? And no one in the United States in 1941-45?