|
For almost as long as I can remember we have waged a war in the arena of public opinion over which side is the more patriotic – or more recently, over which side is patriotic period. This argument is very important politically because the side that is able to claim the “patriotism” label will almost always win the election (assuming of course that the election is fair – which is a very big IF these days, but that’s not the subject of this post). But there is a serious problem with this argument – namely, that each side has a very different definition of patriotism.
The definition of patriotism used by our political opposition
The implicit definition used by our political opposition is one that defines patriotism as unwavering loyalty to an abstraction that they call “The United States of America”. There are two related aspects to this abstract concept – the people and its leaders. According to this definition of patriotism, Americans (with some exceptions) are more worthy than citizens of other countries, and our leaders (if not Democrats or liberals) are nearly, or totally, infallible.
That means that whatever our leaders do is right and moral. There is no need for them to be bound by international law, because their first responsibility is to make sure that Americans (with some exceptions) have what they want and are protected. If our leaders espouse lies in order to lead us into war, that’s ok, because they’re only doing it for our own good and in accordance with the will of God. If they ignore international law by abusing the rights of prisoners, or even torturing them, that’s ok too, because they are only doing it to protect us. And if they ignore our own constitution by stripping the constitutional rights of some of the population – not the rights of real Americans, but only those Americans who demonstrate their lack of patriotism, for example, by criticizing our government – then that is also ok, because they are doing it to protect those Americans who are worthy of their protection.
By the same token, those who criticize our government are NOT patriots. By publicly criticizing our government we proclaim to the world that Americans are NOT necessarily more worthy than other people and our American leaders are NOT necessarily infallible, or even right. By doing this, we weaken our country, we strengthen our enemies, and we demonstrate how much we hate America. We therefore prove our lack of patriotism and show that we are not deserving of the rights that our constitution provides.
By this definition of patriotism, I must admit, they are the patriots, and we are not.
Our definition of patriotism
We totally reject our political opposition’s definition of patriotism. We do not at all agree that our leaders deserve our unwavering allegiance no matter what they do. In fact, if our leaders act immorally in our name, it is not only our right, but our obligation to criticize them, or even to resist them.
If they want to say that we “hate America” because we sometimes reject the actions of our elected (or selected, as the case may be) leaders, then let them say that. And let them try to explain why our leaders deserve our loyalty, other than the mere fact that they represent “America”.
We don’t routinely love everything that America does, as a knee jerk reaction. Rather than “love America” simply because it is “America”, what we love is the vision of what America could be and what it has been at times. So, when we see America falling short of its ideals, we strive for constructive change. We strive to improve America by making it a country that will care for all its citizens and will interact with the other nations of the world in a civil manner and according to the standards of international law (which also could stand a good deal of improvement), so as to create a world of peace. If that means criticizing our leaders, or even initiating impeachment hearings against them, then so be it. Sometimes it is necessary to cut out a cancer in order to save what is of value. We believe that trying to improve what is wrong with our country is of far more value to most Americans than passively sitting by and watching in silence, as a small group of power hungry men make it into a tool for their own enrichment and that of their friends. Our political opposition sees our criticisms as demonstrating our lack of patriotism, or even as treason. We see it as patriotism.
As an example, during the Viet Nam War, our last presidential candidate, John Kerry, showed his patriotism upon his return from the war by leading a political opposition to a war that he saw as immoral and destructive to our own interests. During that same war, their last presidential candidate, George W. Bush, showed his patriotism by … uh, well … well, they will have to explain that one.
Conclusion
We have a very different definition of patriotism than does our political opposition – in fact in many respects our respective definitions are the opposite of each other. No wonder we can’t agree on who is the more patriotic. If we are to argue about this with our political opposition we must first attempt to agree on the definition of patriotism. Then we can argue about the facts.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
