Eidelberg on diversity, tolerance, and patriotism

In A Discourse on Statesmanship Eidelberg describes how the American Founding Father James Madison (whom Eidelberg rates very highly) favoured the establishment of a political orthodoxy centered around a standardized curriculum at institutions of higher learning, as a means of uniting the new, somewhat "multicultural" American republic.

Returning to Madison . . . it may be thought inconsistent of him to want to cultivate a political orthodoxy on the one hand, and "liberal sentiments" on the other. But Madison believed he understood the true principles of republican government and that these were embodied in the text he proposed for the University of Virginia's School of Politics. To imbue students with those principles would be to inculcate genuine patriotism, not national chauvinism. Properly understood, patriotism means a concern for the common good, a love of one's own people, their traditions, their institutions, their great men, their noble purposes. True patriotism is rooted in gratitude for the blessings which the past has bestowed upon the present. But the highst form of gratitude is displayed by the great-souled man, the man who incorporates the past into a more perfect union for the future. In Madison, therefore, patriotism is not a facade for the intellectual and moral complacency typical of some "conservatives." Just as the true lover seeks the perfection of his beloved, so the true patriot seeks the perfection of his country. In 1787, however, America was very much a new country composed of diverse people. Patriotism therefore requires liberal sentiments—the capacity of men to be friends despite their differences. But this in turn requires that what men have in common be more important than their differences. Hence the need for a political orthodoxy which includes something more fundamental than an "agreement to disagree" or a toleration of diversity. For if there exists no recognized body of political truths concerning how men should live, tolerance and intolerance become equally justifiable. On the other hand, if there are such truths, then there are certain kinds of behavior which men of liberal sentiments need not and will not tolerate. Here it might be noted that decent "liberals" who reject all public orthodoxies are nevertheless shocked and dismayed by the intolerance of certain youth who reject all "establishments," meaning regimes[,] or all public orthodoxies. They do not see that their own intellectual and moral skepticism sanctions this intolerance, indeed, is a cause of it. May not their skepticism also be a facade for intellectual and moral complacency? Whatever the case, this skepticism is at war with patriotism. It cannot but undermine reverence for all "establishments." But if a society be lacking such reverence, what will govern most men will not be liberal sentiments so much as fear, distrust, and a concern for personal safety and advantage. The alternative to Madison's patriotism is ingratitude, self-righteousness, and self-indulgence. [pp 230–231.]