My LTE re: Patriotism vs. Nationalism

[Obamarama]

My gag reflex was challenged by a letter to the editor in yesterday's edition of my hometown newspaper. It basically called any voice of dissent against Bush as dangerous and even went so far as to suggest that doing so is aiding and abetting terrorists.

What follows is my reply. Thoughts, ideas welcome. Do I make my case? Tried to steer away from Republican vs. Democratic arguments and focused on the true ideals embodied in patriotism.

Link to letter I am responding to follows my rebuttal.

Ever since George W. Bush made his foray into Iraq, it has become increasingly fashionable and acceptable to refer to those of us who oppose the Iraqi war as “unpatriotic.” For me, Linda Leonard’s May 30 letter to the editor was the last straw. I can remain silent no longer.

In her letter, Leonard admonished Minority House Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for criticizing the Bush administration for having embroiled us in the deplorable mess and national disgrace otherwise billed as “Operation Iraqi Freedom” by the administration’s spin machine.

Though she didn’t say so in as many words, Leonard likely believes Rep. Pelosi, and those of us who hold similar opinions, to be unpatriotic. Worse yet, she believes our words, thoughts and beliefs are actually dangerous. On the contrary, I believe it is Leonard’s views which are truly dangerous, if not downright frightening.

Before she goes around espousing blind support for the actions and policies of any president, regardless of party affiliation, I implore Ms. Leonard to closely examine the differences between patriotism and nationalism. On the surface they can appear similar to the casual observer, but deep down they are ideologically miles apart.

Patriotism requires of its adherents serious, analytical, rational thought. Nationalism on the other hand demands that the people throw off the cloak of thought and instead blindly wrap themselves in the flag and let someone else do their thinking for them.

Patriotism encourages thoughtful dissidence because its adherents understand the strength that can come from the free exchange of a range of ideas and opinions. Nationalism fears dissent, because its only goal is power and domination.

Patriotism doesn't play an all-or-nothing game but seeks answers to benefit all. Nationalism believes it can win only if others lose.

Patriotism isn’t threatened by the creative chaos that comes from the exchange of differing viewpoints; it understands that freedom and liberty sometimes are messy. Nationalism seeks order purely for the sake of order. That’s why it produces vapid, jingoistic slogans like "America - Love It or Leave It," "My Country, Right or Wrong," and “These Colors Don’t Run.”

In a nutshell, patriotism seeks to win the both the hearts and minds of the people. Nationalism seeks to win only hearts.

Ms. Leonard’s statements, undoubtedly fueled by her own sense of “patriotism,” would give the Bush administration permission and authority to act with impunity, without the need to answer to anyone but themselves. Anyone truly motivated by patriotism would never make such statements, much less write about them in their local newspaper.

Nationalism camouflaged as patriotism is a misleading ploy that has enabled leaders throughout history to rise to power and exert their narrow, self-serving agendas over millions, all in the name of the Fatherland, the Motherland, or as in our case, the Homeland. This faux-patriotic mindset dictates that it is our duty to blindly support our leaders, regardless of how baleful their objectives might be. It’s both dangerous and disturbing that those like Speaker Pelosi are reviled as enemies of the State by nationalists in patriots clothing.

To subscribe to the brand of patriotism upon which our great nation was founded, we must be free to think, speak and act as individual patriots. Until such time that our constitutional rights are sufficiently gutted by the oxymoronic “Patriot Act,” I am putting Ms. Leonard and those of her ilk on notice that we are still free as patriotic Americans to determine for ourselves the difference between a justifiable war of self-defense and a war of pillage void of principle or righteous cause.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/columns-1/1085912866144530.xml

[amjsjc]

1. I like it...

Fair warning though, it may be a bit long for a letter to the editor. You might consider cutting it down a bit.

[Obamarama]

2. Oour paper accepts "Viewpoints" up to 700 words.

n/t

[MasonJar]

3. A very persuasive and eloquent defense of individual rights. Put

an apostrophe after the s in patriots' clothing.

[adadem]

4. Excellent

Well written and to the point!
Especially poignant considering the mindset of so many of the nationalists who cloak themselves blindly to the GOP here in West Michigan.

[noiretextatique]

5. you did great

:toast:

[screembloodymurder]

6. With you until the last

paragraph. I'd take out the words "and those of her ilk". Otherwise, it's an excellent letter.

[noiretextatique]

7. if you haven't sent this yet...i also have one suggestion

and concur with this one.
when you talk about hearts and minds, you say nationalism only wins seeks to when hearts, i understand this is a reference to appealing to emotion. but i think you give these appeals more value than they deserve my using the word heart, since they really appeal to fear and hatred, not love.

[Mike Niendorff]

8. Three thoughts:

I think this is a really good piece, and your point is excellent. However, I would probably change a few minor things just from a readability and persuasion standpoint.

First, the first few paragraphs are a bit dense in their grammatical construction -- I'd simplify that lead-in a bit, just so you don't lose your readers before you really get into your main argument (which is great, and well-written). The real meat of your piece starts with the words "dangerous, if not downright frightening". All the stuff prior to that needs to be simplified and smoothed out just a bit. Once you get to those words, though, it's excellent from then on.

Second, I would avoid the use of words like "faux-patriotism". It isn't the kind of language most people use on a daily basis, and the wingnuts in your audience will write it off as either "too academic" or "too French" (despite the fact that you *really* want them to keep reading this piece, because it speaks directly to them). I'd simply come right out and call it what it is, but using everyday main-street terms: "fake patriotism", "phony patriotism", or something similarly straightforward.

Lastly, on a minor point, the phrase "nationalists in patriots clothing" is ok, but it just sounds a little too contrived to me. I'd rephrase that just slightly to make it more direct. "Nationalists trying to pass themselves off as patriots", or something similar.

Anyway, that's what jumped out at me. Hope this proves useful. :)


MDN

[calimary]

9. If, indeed, your paper has a 700-word allowance, this is GREAT!

Very thoughtfully written, nice phrases - like "creative chaos" - EXCELLENT! I hope they print it. It's CERTAINLY worthy. You make a SPLENDID argument for your/our side.

Perhaps even more important, not only to us, and all "like-mindeds," but also to your newspaper: You VERY MUCH did the correct thing by responding to that female knuckle-dragger's letter. It is CRUCIAL that opinions like hers are NOT left hanging in the air, unrebutted and unchallenged. If it remains undisputed, then one could reasonably infer that no one seriously objects to what she's said, and that most - if not all - readers agree. It is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT that crap like this NOT be permitted to stand. This kind of thinking MUST be challenged, debunked, and disowned. If it isn't, that blind loyalty you spoke against will be assumed to be the prevailing rule of the land. It's EXCELLENT that you spoke up about this. JUST EXCELLENT. Your paper's editors, as well as its readers, need to know there are other views out there - who oppose this view, and make terrific sense in doing so. Because, frankly, it's YOUR opinion that's the correct one. In MY opinion!

GREAT job! I hope it gets published. It needs to .

[kaitykaity]

10. My take on this.

You wrote a great column, but it's way too long
for a LTTE. Most papers have a 150-200 word limit
on LTTEs, so you may want to submit this as a
guest column.

Either that or condense it something like this:

Linda Leonard's letter of May 30 is truly frightening. In her nationalistic zeal to defend President Bush, she would silence Nancy Pelosi and other honorable voices of opposition to Bush's illegal war.

Nationalism camouflaged as patriotism is a misleading ploy that has enabled leaders throughout history to rise to power and exert their narrow, self-serving agendas over millions, all in the name of the Fatherland, the Motherland, or as in our case, the Homeland. This faux-patriotic mindset dictates that it is our duty to blindly support our leaders, regardless of how baleful their objectives might be. It’s both dangerous and disturbing that those like Speaker Pelosi are reviled as enemies of the State by nationalists in patriots clothing.

True patriotism, on the other hand, speaks truth to power. Our country is made stronger when we fight things out. I remind Ms. Leonard that our boys and girls have died for our right to speak out. I take that freedom seriously, and I will never shut up when I see our country being led down a path to ruin.

I put my country over my party. I wish people like Ms. Leonard would do the same.

>>>>>>>
It comes in at 195 words.

:shrug: I hope this is okay.

[L3on]

11. Great letter

Patriotism is love for your own kind. Nationalism is hate for others.

I forgot who said it, but whoever it was, the man/woman got it right.

[newyawker99]

14. Hi L3on!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[L3on]

16. Cheers!

Thanx for the warm welcome, I like it here, I think I'll stay :hippie:

[Obamarama]

12. Thanks for the feedback!

Very good points, suggestions offered. Hav taken some of them to heart and have made some edits.

Thanks!

[cheezus]

13. Well done, but perhaps too forceful to change minds

since there are a lot of basically good people with "America - Love It or Leave It," "My Country, Right or Wrong," and “These Colors Don’t Run.”
stickers on their cars. Yes, they're being nationalistic. But scolding them is just going to get them more upset.

That's just constructive critism. I think you made your point very well, and it's something that more people should consider!

[MAlibdem]

15. I hate that it is called "Homeland" Security

It should have been Domestic or Interior Security, not HOMELAND!

America is a nation of ideas that transcend a particular location. Though we love the geographic beauty that is prevalent in our territory, to argue that it is the source of our righteousness is absurd. But that is what the concept of a Homeland implies.