You're not going to forget the day of the year set apart for me, are you?
I publish this essay a few days before July 4th, 2026. It happns to be the 250th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence. I have a story to share as a segue into this topic: Almost exactly one year ago, on July 4th, 2025, I happened to be in Japan with two close friends staying in a guest-house of sorts. We were hanging out in the common room having a few drinks with the two other gaijin tourists who happened to be there at the time. One was an American like us. One was a guy from Finland. The Finnish guy happened to give an off-hand remark: "Hey, it's your country's Independence Day today, right? Let's drink to America!"
It was, by all accounts, a kind diplomatic gesture of sorts. But I could tell that my friends and especially the girl (a 20-something from California, probably with a clear liberal-left bent) all felt a little awkward about it. The mere act of celebrating one's home country's anniversary in a foreign country felt a little "direspectful" to some extent, I suppose. Although the weight of doing it as a simple toast before a few beers is clearly miniscule. But I suppose there was an unspoken elephant in the room: How could any of us toast to our country when we were six months into the most disgraceful, embarrassing presidency any of us had experienced in our lifetimes? How could we have the gall to give a toast to a president who had committed dozens of Watergate-tier scandals within barely half a year? And ones that had clear repercussions beyond our own borders, including no mean effect on Japan and Finland, for one.
So we gave a tepid toast, clearly thankful for this Finnish guy's tact and manners. But then we carefully skirted the subject and that was the end of it. But I now return to this question: I have for long despised the very concept of nationalism. I find it unjustifiable to be "proud" of one's country of origin but also to be "ashamed" of it. I believe very strongly in the preservation and guardianship of CULTURE, but have long said that the idea of nation-states is not only unneccessary for this end, but often gets in the way of it. Nationalist narratives usually flatten out all that is really diverse and interesting about the innumerable cultures that reside within any one "nation." So the question now appears: Can there ever be a defense of "celebrating" America's 250th anniversary on this basis?
It's hard to muster up one when we see how garish and vulgar the expression of it is today. To say nothing of the "white trash Heliogabalus" in the White House, it is hard to find any sense of reverence in the various shades of limited-edition red, white, and blue-dyed goyslop which are about all you can hope to find as an expression of patriotism or honor. But are we at risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Should Americans just fail to attach any special significance of July 4th off our calendards as a form of soft protest?
I don't think so. But I think the real meaning and importance of festivals and holidays like July 4th are lost if we think of them only under the rubric of "celebration." To explain my feeling on this more closely, I'll talk a bit about what I did in honor of America's 250th anniversary. I read Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow, which is a gigantic, 904-page biography of America's first president and major political figure. It was a fascinating exercise. And it proves above all that the greatest enemy of blind nationalism is thorough, honest history. Because what studying these figures does is reveal their peculiar human qualities. You see their flaws and virtues alike. It pokes holes in rosy pictures of the founding fathers as a bunch of flawless, immortal, godlike figures. Thomas Jefferson (the founding father I've always been the most sympathetic towards) especially appears like a real scumbag and snake in this biography.
While I'm here, I will also go to the trouble of pointing out some interesting quotes from Washington that are worth thinking about in terms of comparison points to modern heads of state in the US and elsewhere:
On the need of a president to have a becoming demeanor and high standards of personal virtue:
My political conduct [...] must be exceedingly circumspect and proof against just criticism, for the eyes of Argus are upon me and no slip will pass unnoticed.
On a resistance to a foreign policy that is aggressive, invasive, or extractive:
This country is not guided by such narrow and mistaken policy as will lead it to wish the destruction of any nation under an idea that our importance will be increased in proportion as that of others is lessened.
On the need of the United States to be a secular, religiously tolerant, pluralistic society (spoken before a Jewish congress in Rhode Island):
All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens... May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants.
On the corrupting nature of political associations (early political parties and special interest groups):
They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
On the corrosive effects of partisan media punditry, as was widespread in an era where new forms of media (newspapers and pamphlets) were gaining the ability to influence the electorate in a way never before dreamed of. Sometimes there really is nothing new under the sun. It should be mentioned that Washington bore all of this with profound toleration and never resorted to press censorship, as he was never of the opinion that a free press was anything but a blessing and necessity, despite any potential dangers:
These articles tend to produce a separation of the Union, the most dreadful of calamities; and whatever tends to produce anarchy, tends, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government.
So that is the first and most obvious point: A significant anniversary like July 4th can be an opportunity for many kinds of meaningful reflection besides blind obedience to the powers that be. But the point here I think is a deeper one about our experience of time itself. It is a corruption and denigration of the meaning of the "festival" (meaning any ritualistic date and time given particular importance, which all cultures have). It is very watered-down to merely view it as a "celebration." It is one reason I prefer to say that I will "observe" July 4th rather than "celebrate" it. And the reason is not that I want to virtue-signal and be a downer and use language that implies we should only see it negatively. I prefer it because of its religious associations. These are religious associations that are far older than any Abrahamic religion and bring us back to the most originary form of being.
Heidegger occasionally talks about "time-as-history" becoming increasingly difficult to experience in the era of Enframing. What I read this as is our ability to experience ourselves as partakers in the unfolding of being itself, an active and enterprising engagement with the appropriating of existence. And the festival (whatever festival it is) is our opportunity to be reminded of the source and fountainhead of being. For we should not forget that the etymology of "holiday" is "holy day," and this holiness goes back far before the establishment of saints' days and the like by the Catholic Church. It is a chance to become connected with something solemn and majesterial.
Some might say that July 4th is too modern and artificial to be so holy. But I see that as specious. For one thing, it's what I have in the country I currently live in. If I lived in Japan or Finland or some other country, I wouldn't feel the same need to have connection to it. But the point is that we will always invent holidays of our own even if we abandoned July 4th. It is up to us to decide what meaning we imbue these holidays with. To ask something as facile as "Is America in its current day something worth celebrating?" or "Is it even worth celebrating the anniversary of a country founded on slavery and imperialism?" is all wrong. It is the recognition of time-as-history via the observation of holidays and rituals like July 4th that give us the framework to ask such questions in the first place. Perhaps it is a time for mourning or lamentation rather than celebration. Perhaps in the future it will not be. We cannot know, but to be owned-over unto the historical unfolding of being must come first. I will use July 4th as a piece of architecture to do so.