Washington Square Park, New York City, 4 July 2024. Countless flags adorn the place. People are singing, chanting, loudly expressing their views, as is their inviolable right enshrined in the American constitution, on this 248th anniversary of the day America declared its independence.

Except… none of those flags are American. Correction: there is ONE American flag. It is torn, defaced, thrown on the ground, trampled and set on fire.

Read that again.

Other than as an object to be desecrated, there was NOT ONE American flag. Instead, hundreds of the banners of a hostile foreign entity were waved. Nor were any of the chants and songs patriotic. The slogans spoke of a faraway conflict and denounced America: not just America’s (controversial and waffling) involvement in it, but America itself. One of the recurring chants was “shut it down” –which has been a rallying cry for demonstrations all over the country, in which a highly organised protest group storms events on traditional days of public celebration, to effectively “shut them down.” They think nobody should be allowed to have events unless they drop all their own interests and take up the pet cause supported by these organisers.

This explicitly anti-American event, where people chanted “death to America” while defiling the American flag was happening on America’s day of founding, in a major American city, and it is perfectly legal.

I’m practically an absolutist about free speech. I make exceptions for child-protective measures, or prevention of imminent danger (like someone shouting “fire!” in a crowded hall), and certain very limited “time, place, and matter restrictions” as provided for by a landmark US Supreme court decision. There can be rules about noise levels, especially late at night or in sensitive areas like near hospitals. Also allowed is civil litigation by private citizens on the grounds of fraud, defamation, etc. But, when it comes to government restraint on political speech, I am definitely a free-speech absolutist.

And yet, I’m rattled by events like the one above. I’m something of a tortured liberal, but I’m not a “liberal” who buys into tortured logic, the way many progressive “liberals” seem to do these days. They are delighted by anti-Americanism. Some of them are true believers while others ostensibly appreciate it because it’s a reminder that we are free. That’s a very distorted worldview, if you ask me. Yes, I’m grateful we have this freedom, but I get no joy from seeing that freedom abused like this. This is not a protest against any particular policy. This is shameless opportunism that exploits the freedoms this country offers while demanding the destruction of the traditions and values that make those freedoms possible.

So, what am I advocating, since my avowed free-speech absolutism requires opposition to any kind of legal sanction against political expression? I am asking lovers of freedom everywhere in liberal societies to be vigilant in protecting liberal values and traditions. Draw a bright line between political demonstrations and calls for violence. Denounce and punish actual violence, property damage, intimidation of bystanders and counter-protesters, obstruction of people who are going about their business, and “shutting down” other people’s events. Don’t be cowered by those who parasitically benefit from the liberal values protected by a free society while working to tear it down by turning young people against it. Counter those efforts with full-throated defences of those values and traditions. Teach kids about history, including the good and the bad, and impress upon them the need to hold onto and build upon what is good.

The lesson is that freedom is not easy. It isn’t a happy haven in which we can just run around innocently in the charmed protection of a fairy godmother. In the best of times, it has a feeling of “charmed protection”, but good times don’t last forever. Challenging times somehow always return. Even if all material and social conditions someday become agreeable, people will probably find ways to instigate unrest. To quote the great Francis Fukuyama: “Experience suggests that if men cannot struggle on behalf of a just cause because that just cause was victorious in an earlier generation, then they will struggle against the just cause… for they cannot imagine living in a world without struggle.”

To counter this, peace and freedom must be CONTINUALLY nurtured. This requires us to master the difficult and counterintuitive practice of refuting those who speak against our freedoms even as we defend their freedom to speak such things. This is the patriot’s obligation to freedom.

Which reminds me: when I began writing this piece, it was going to be about patriotism. Somehow, it ended up being mainly about freedom. I suppose that’s fitting, since American patriotism is inextricably linked to the idea of freedom.

What is patriotism, anyway? As its etymology (derived from the Greek word for “father”) implies, it is an analogue of the familial. Like the conviction that “my Dad is the greatest” (or “my Mom” or “my kid”), patriots love their country simply because it’s theirs. But unlike actual familial affections, patriotism is not a naturally occurring sentiment, but a received and socially constructed one. That doesn’t make it false or valueless. It just makes it something that merits reflection.

Patriotism can be tribal and lead to a “my-country-right-or-wrong” type of jingoism that causes enormous conflict. It’s worth trying to transcend this brand of patriotism and reflect on WHAT we love about our countries and why. This should be easy for Americans. For all its flaws—and ALL countries have flaws—America has often been a beacon of hope in the world. It’s been accused of “oppression” and “imperialism” and yet, by staggering margins, it tops the list of countries that people wish to emigrate to. From dissidents fleeing persecution to ordinary people seeking a freer or more prosperous life. For two centuries, as nations have overthrown monarchies and empires to become democratic republics, they have often turned to the American constitution for inspiration and guidance.

It was the first country born of the idea that people should be free; that they should be considered equal in their natural state; that this would be a nation founded by and for its people. Not a king, not a church, not the memory of great empires or mythological gods, not the standard bearers of a racial or cultural heritage. Although the founders were Englishmen, clearly building on an English concept of “freeborn” citizenry, they didn’t form a union as legatees of a shared ancestry, but as participants in a shared vision of “securing the blessings of liberty.”

You might ask “but didn’t they fall short of the ideals of liberty and equality by retaining slavery and dispossessing native North American peoples”? Yes, they did. But I would like you to consider that no other country is ever asked to question the legitimacy of its very existence based on such stringent standards of purity related to long ago historical events. EVERY country has, at one time or another, taken land by conquest and displaced other, more ancient populations. It is a universal human legacy that we have begun to condemn only in recent times. And the United States has tried to make amends. Native Americans have had full U.S. citizenship—while retaining sovereign status on lands reserved for them—for over a century. As for slavery, it was a hotly debated topic at the nation’s founding, which almost didn’t happen because of it. In the end, there was a compromise, one that many of the founders recalled ruefully throughout their lives, expressing the hope that future Americans would rectify this original defect. And that’s exactly what a later generation of Americans did.

Speaking of rectifying defects, the aspiration of self-improvement is built into the American Constitution, with the assertion in the preamble that it was adopted “in order to form a more perfect union” and many mechanisms were put in place for updating its provisions while holding firm on the basic underlying principles, all animated by the fundamental value of human freedom.

This aspiration is the American inheritance.

The author is a lawyer, writer and editor based in Manhattan, New York