Addam's wartime reflection is only in piece of this argument for the coherence of theoretical or political positions against war. More significantly, it is a lamentation of the way anti-militarists or pacifists have been received (or rather, ostracized and alienated) in their communities. The general sentiment that "those who are against war" must necessarily be against the good of the society to which they belong, is not unique to Addam's time. The pressure that "patriotism" exerts to be "for us, or against" is just as evident in 21st century war rhetoric.[^1]

This sentiment of identity with one or the other is a stumbling block in dialogue between the pro-militarist "patriot" and the pacifist. Namely, that the pacifist appears disinterested in the course of action that best benefits their own tribe or society. It is clear then, in this sense, why the patriot would would ostracize the pacifist—"if you are not interested in what is best for us, how then can you be one of us? Who then, do you identify with?" Furthermore, if the pacifist or antimilitarist has ever spoken words that may express that they wish good will for the enemy of the patriot, it would seem the next logical step to identify the pacifist, not only outside our camp, but in the camp of the enemy.[^2] What remains to be expressed cogently by the pacifist, is how one in fact sees it as the most beneficial option for their own community. The greatest struggle of the pacifist or anti-militarist, in this way, is to not only build a case for society that is anti-war, but rather, one that is strikingly pro-peace.[^3] Anti-militarism and pacifism must reclaim the title of "patriot" from pro-military parties. Anti-militarism is not anti-patriotism, it is a patriotism of a different kind.

It has long been the uphill battle of the pacifist (beginning with those like James) to not only decry war but to make a strong case for the power of peace. And yet, this is backwards; it is one of the frightening obfuscating powers of "patriotism" that it can provide an emotional or spiritual rationalization for support of or engagement in war without requiring diligent proofs for its necessity beyond some vague sense of its potential benefits for the people of the society.[^4] With the normalization of standing armies, hawkishness, foreign intervention and "nation-building" (this on the right and the left), what is particularly troubling, is when the burden of proof no longer lies on the warmonger but on the peace-maker.[^5] Addam's bewilderment at the place of anti-militarists and pacifists in her own time, is one example the dubious and yet intoxicating influence of the "patriotic public sentiment."

[^1]: Jane Addams, “Personal Reactions during War,” in *Peace and Bread in Time of War* (New York: Macmillan, 1922), 216. "Regarding this trait as the basis of self-preservation it becomes perfectly natural for the mass to call such an individual a traitor and to insist that *if he is not for the nation* *he is against it*;" George W. Bush, on 9/21/2001 obviously echoed this when he said "you are either with us or with the terrorists."

[^2]: This was the path along which a lot of response went against Noam Chomsky, for example, regarding his stance against the military action in the middle east, in part because of his long standing criticism not necessarily of war, but of American Imperialist efforts abroad.

[^3]: This is likely part of Addam's prerogative in *Newer Ideals of Peace*, as well as James' in *The* *Moral Equivalent of War*, although it is not necessarily emphasized by his opening line: "The war against war is going to be no holiday excursion."

[^4]: Addams, “Personal Reactions during War,” 220f: Addams quotes Cobden: "'I made up my mind during the Crimean War that if ever I lived in the time of another great war of a similar kind between England and another power, I would not as a public man open my mouth on the subject, so convinced am I that appeals to reason, conscience or interest have no force whatever on parties engaged in war, and that exhaustion on one or both sides can alone bring a contest of physical force to an end;'" or later "There was scant solace to be found in this type of statement: 'The worth of every conviction consists precisely in the steadfastness with which it is held," perhaps because we suffered from the fact that we were no longer living in a period of dogma and were therefore in no position to announce our sense of security!"

[^5]: Cf. Addams, “Personal Reactions during War,” 211: Why does Addam's say she has been "[...] pushed far toward the left on the subject of the war [...]?" It is not clear to me, (in her day as well as ours) how the relationship between left-wing or right-wing political ideologies and "the subject of war" has become clearly delineated. It seems, at least to me, that "left" and "right" are connotations particularly concerning domestic societal affairs and any number of militarist, anti-militarist, intventionist, or pacifist ideologies can span the spectrum without inconsistency.