and (b) the alleged necessity of these emotional attachmentsto motivate participation and commitment to public institutions. I have amore modest purpose to put this tension in its proper context in light of thefindings of this study. Once the problem is set in its rightful empiricalcontext, I think it becomes slightly clearer that patriotic allegiance bothsustains and subverts liberal constitutionalism. In the next section, I briefly review the questions, answers, and evidenceregarding the way in which war and nationalism affected the character ofcivic life. Then, in the last section, I attempt to clarify what is moregenerally at stake for our understanding of the vitality and functioning ofcivic life in a modern republic. While I do not reject nationalism orpatriotism as important values, I will offer a tentative conclusion that themarginal benefits of deep emotional connection to the nation are outweighedby its tendency to eat away at the substance of liberal democracy. Thisassumes, however, that the substance of liberal constitutionalismthe equalprotection of individual rights under the lawis the primary value to berealized. I. War and the nationalization of civic lifeThe principal question driving this study involved the degree to which warchanged the character of civil society and the relationship between civilsociety and the state. Stated more explicitly: (1) why did civic interactionduring wartime universally appear to be more participatory and symbolic yet,at the same time, more repressive and intolerant? And (2) why in some casesdid the major thrust of civic activity support and mobilize around thestate's war policy, such as in the United States, while in cases such asIreland, civic associations organized against the war and against the state? The answer to both of these questions was ultimately traced tothe heightened feelings of nationalism to which wartime mobilization givesrise. (1a) On the one hand, war...
