Left2Right

Comments

Posted by: hr

Well, let me first say that I don't think any reasonable person could question Ms. Anderson's patriotism.

Indeed, I find the whole "who's patriotic" thing to be an unfortunate diversion from real issues. And (I admit this is only an impression) I often find it arises more from a reflexive defensivness on the left about the issue rather that actual accusals of lack of patriotism from the right. And I don't think questioning the Democratic Party's foreign policy toughness credentials amounts to a charge against one's patriotism. Indeed, the only people I can remember using words like "unpatriotic" or "unamerican" recently were on the Democrat presidential ticket.

That aside, I thought your essay was wonderful (and almost inspiring) until about here: "New York City shows how much excellence and opportunity need Big Government to flourish"

First, I think we could reasonably posit NYC as something of an atypical case. Second, I find it hard to believe that NYC would be a second-rate city if not for big government. I would be willing to accept that bigger govenment might help out, even significantly, in a place like NYC, but that NYC could not flourish without it? I find that hard to believe and far from obvious.

Then, you really lost me here: "how else does this patriotic American express her love and support for her country? By gladly paying her taxes, and not resenting a single penny I pay. I want to keep America great, and that requires great public expenditure. I love my fellow Americans, and that love demands that I do my part to ensure that none of us is deprived of the considerable goods we need to function as equal citizens in a rich democracy...I call on all my fellow patriots, at least at my household income or above, to share this love for our country and repeat: no resentment of taxes. not. one. penny."

I take it this was meant to be somewhat facetious, but you've just turned the patriotism thing around on conservatives in the context of domestic policy. Patriotism has anything to do with not resenting a particular level of taxation or supporting a certain sized welfare state? Does it cease to be unpatriotic to complain about taxes when they reach 40%, 50%, 75%?

Also, just what are "the considerable goods" each of us needs to be considered equal democratic citizens? I thought that had more to do with equality before the law.

I would also note the oft-overlooked possibility that those of us on the anti-big government side might care deeply about the less fortunate, but disagree that welfare state programs help them or that the only choice is between government programs or uncaring Scroogism.

Finally, speaking as someone in a lower tax bracket than yours, how does one establish a uniform standard (or presume to know) where one should not feel pain at certain levels of finacial loss, such that it is almost unpatriotic to voice a negative opinon about that loss?

Posted by: hr | Dec 12, 2004 3:19:08 AM

Posted by: John F. Opie

Hi -

Intriguing post by Elizabeth, but one question: where do you get your definition of patriotism? You state:

"that loyal citizens must unequivocally support its foreign policy, especially in matters of war; that advocates pursuing U.S. national interests to the fullest, regardless of the costs inflicted on others."

and I don't see a definition of patriotism there. The classic dictionary definition is love of one's country, plus the willingness to sacrifice for it.

What you don't like is dogmatic loyalty. Fine with me: I don't like it either.

The problem that the left has is that there are a lot of folks out there who see statements and actions by the left - I know the left isn't monolithic, but it sure looks like that from the outside sometimes - seem to speak directly against loving your country and more to loathing it.

And when does the left start to adress the problem of anti-patriotism? Of not loving but loathing the country? There have been a number of incidents recently where in the pursuit of making political points the by-product of the effort has harmed the country, not helped it. This is perhaps the litmus test of patriotism: when you know something that could harm the country, but decide to deal with it off camera, instead of rubbing it in everyone's faces.

John

Posted by: John F. Opie | Dec 12, 2004 3:41:17 AM

Posted by: Andromeda

The thing is, that even though most Democrats and liberals may be the patriotic "loyal opposition", there is an obvious segment of the Left which is not. "Liberals" (for lack of a better word) seem to be evasive about these elements, sometime claiming that they are irrelevant, or that they don't exist, sometimes appearing to excuse or apologize for them. Sometimes seeming to subtly imply agreement with them.

Unfortunately, these people do real harm to America's national security, both by undermining it's position in the world and by spreading around anti-American rhetoric that incites violence against the United States. For instance, in the same way that Al Jazeera has been inciting violence in Iraq by broadcasting slanted news coverage.

The anti-globalization movement is filled with rhetoric that portays America's support for free trade (a position supported by the vast majority of economists), as a plot by "multinational corporations" to exploit the poor in the third world.

Meanwhile, the anti-war movement frequently equates the unintentional deaths of civilians in precision airstrikes with "terrorism", implying that the tactics of Al Qaeda are morally equal to American warfare tactics (some do more than imply). That rhetoric is broadcast throughout the Arab world and is used to rationalize support for terrorism and continuing instability in Iraq.

The international left, including some in America, also have allied themselves with conservative Islamist groups, mainly in the anti-war movement. It is obvious that they want to see America unseated as the world's superpower, and are willing to tacitly ally themselves with terrorists to do so. I personally think that many have been so poisoned by the anti-American rhetoric of the left in the anti-war movement and anti-globalization movement that they have convinced themselves that the US is in fact morally equivalent to a terrorist state, thus justifying their tacit support for almost any barbarity commited by terrorists. (i.e. beheading hostages on tape).

I've yet to see any significant effort by Democratic or liberal organizations to distance themselves from these elements. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a clear dividing line between the hard-left in the anti-globalization movement and liberal activist groups. Rather, they seem to be closely allied with eachother on numerous issues. Consequently, it is not obvious from the "outside" view that the liberal-Democratic base doesn't share the sympathies of these groups.

One problem may be that many Democrats are simply unaware of some of the more extreme rhetoric of groups they are cooperating with. For example, I found that many Democratic fans for Farenheit 9/11 had never heard about Michael Moores famous characterization of Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen" or his opposition to the war in Afghanistan. It may be that mainstream Democrats simply DON'T KNOW about much of the rhetoric emanating from the left. But I feel this is a serious problem. There seems to be a kind of collective willful amnesia on the part of liberals when it comes to the left. They're willing to sort of pretend not to see some of the things that are going on over there because they think it is politically helpful to pick and choose from the rhetoric of the far left when it suits them, and to ignore it, dismiss them as fringe elements, or pretend they don't exist when it doesn't.

Posted by: Andromeda | Dec 12, 2004 3:58:02 AM

Posted by: jonathon martin

I'm in no position to speak about American patriotism, being a European. Interestingly though, the people who are not especially patriotic in academia in Europe in my experience often give as their reason that the concept is not entirely coherent. That is to say that being proud of something for which you are not responsible doesn't make a huge amount of sense and it can cloud one's judgment with regards the actions of your government.

It also appears from this European's perspective that the scepticism shown by Europeans towards their governments in both the media and the populace at large is a healthy thing. We would not have our media apologise for failing to question the government in the run up to a war as the New York Times had to do.

I am aware though that much partiotism in the US comes from the idea of the country as founded on unimpeachable values. I find it far easier to understand pride in values than being proud of big buildings and so on. That pride though, should turn to disappointment and anger when those values are not being lived up to and blindly following a leader and refusing to question him out of a misplaced sense of loyalty is a destructive patriotism.

Posted by: jonathon martin | Dec 12, 2004 4:32:46 AM

Posted by: Dean Esmay

One of the things that I've noticed is that I seem (from where I sit) to see the left objecting to having their patriotism questioned a good bit more often than anyone actually quesions their patriotism.

On the other hand, I have to admit that there are people on the left whose patriotism I question, as well as people on the right.

To the specific matter of foreign policy: where I will generally question someone's patriotism is when I see them dogmatically attacking, in kneejerk and almost automatic fashion, anything and everything our leaders do, without ever offering clear alternative policies that they would prefer. Merely snearing at what someone else is doing while refusing to offer constructive suggestions or alternatives is very childish and selfish behavior, most particularly when there are troops at war. Because to me that comes off as backbiting and partisan pettifoggery and (apparently) designed to do nothing but sow disunity.

Ditto when people engage in hindsight and say that obviously our efforts abroad are screwed up when they weren't there making any suggestions of what to do better in the first place. More than once I questioned (to myself, never aloud during the campaign) John Kerry's patriotism, for all the times that he said that our efforts in Iraq were completely screwed up, mismanaged, "mis-lead" and so on--but whenever pressed for how he would have done things differently he could and would never say what he would have done differently, nor could I ever find him on record in the runup to the war or the opening months of the war out there saying, "No, the President is doing this wrong, he should be doing this instead." Instead it was just accusations of incompetenece, dishonesty, etc. etc. all while our brave fighting men and women were busy actually on the ground fighting and sometimes dying over there.

It struck me as extraordinarily selfish. I wouldn't say it aloud because I didn't want to go on record as saying John Kerry was unAmerican because he might just win and, if he did, I would have done my best to support him and, if I had criticisms of what he did, I would always be careful to say not just what I thought he was doing wrong, but what I thought the right thing to do instead was--and then wish him luck and hope he was right and I was wrong.

To me that's patriotic dissent. Simple criticism isn't enough in my view; anyone who's had a parent, a spouse, a boss, or someone else in their life who could do nothing but criticize and find fault and never had a word of constructive criticism knows what this feels like. It's just plain terrible behavior.

But thoughtful dissent and criticism I've never had a problem with.

So let me put this to you: to question someone's patriotism is not unAmerican, and it is not an assault on the 1st amendment. Indeed, questioning someone's patriotism is very in keeping with the 1st amendment. My freedom to say, "Your words and actions are offensive and unpatriotic" is as sacrosanct as your right to say "the President mis-lead us into an unnecessary war, bring the troops home now!" And if your patriotism is questioned, should your proper response be, "How dare you question me?" Or should it be, "Hmm, maybe I am acting rather badly?"

There also used to be an old-fashioned attitude that seemed to fly out the window these last couple of years: "I disagreed with this war but now that we're in it I want to do what I can to help us win it as quickly and decisively as possible--and here's what I'm going to do to try to make it happen."

I help run a charity that sends toys and medical supplies to troops in Iraq to distribute to children over there. We've gotten hundreds of thousands in donations and in toys and supplies shipped over there--but it's stunning how seldom we can get anyone on the political left to help us in our efforts. Here our troops are trying to make a positive difference in the lives of everyday Iraqis, and yet we've actually had people on the left criticize and condemn what we're doing.

I don't see what's wrong with labeling that kind of behavior as unpatriotic. I just don't. Ditto when a guy like Tom Hayden actually proposes that the left do whatever it can to cause America to lose in Iraq--how can you not call that unpatriotic?

So sometimes, when I see someone angrily objecting to having their patriotism questioned, I often find myself wondering, "Hmm. Struck a nerve there, did they?"

But let me also put this to you: It is my view that there are people on the right whose patriotism needs to be questioned a lot more often. The kind of people who follow the "Christian Identity" movement are obviously unpatriotic. David Duke is obviously unpatriotic. Those on the right OR left who want to secede from the Union are obviously unpatriotic. But even further: the kind of people who speak of American popular culture as a cesspool of filth and degradation strike me as unpatriotic--we make wonderful movies, wonderful television shows, fabulous music, and yet some conservatives sit around talking about how we're all "slouching toward Gomorrah." Balderdash! We're a vibrant, shining culture, certainly not perfect but with much to praise and be proud of.

People on the left and right who sit around grunting about how stupid, illiterate, selfish, etc. most Americans are are showing a deep contempt for their countrymen and thus their country itself. Isn't that unpatriotic in your view? It is in mine.

Posted by: Dean Esmay | Dec 12, 2004 4:38:39 AM

Posted by: Dallas

I love my country, and I am proud of it. How do I convey these feelings to my two elementary school children? This summer, my husband and I took them to New York City. Why do we love New York City, this bluest of blue metropolitan areas, as the embodiment of what is so great about America?

Anderson,

I cannot recall ever seeing a more glaring example of the depth and width of the Grand Canyon separating the Blue states from the Red states.

I would like to suggest that, next summer, you take your children to Yorktown, or to Antietam, or to West Point, or to Annapolis, or to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, or some other place that truly embodies patriotism.

Posted by: Dallas | Dec 12, 2004 4:51:29 AM

Posted by: sortapundit

If you'll allow me to indulge in a little nepotism for a moment, my brother has an interesting post titled Thoughts on Patiotism - with the addendum For King and Country - up at his site, for additional reading.

Posted by: sortapundit | Dec 12, 2004 5:28:18 AM

Posted by: Dean Esmay

I can't quite say I see it Dallas' way. Although I think appreciating the sacrifice and valor of those who came before us who helped make America what it was, pride in our nation's great achievements in science, medicine, agriculture, architecture, and so on is surely an expression of patriotism.

For all that I bang on Hollywood, I am also proud of many of the great advances in the art of film making, and many of the great, immortal films it has given us--from Citizen Kane to Singin' In The Rain to Star Wars to The Shawshank Redemption to.... you get the gist (even if you don't agree on my film choices per se).

America: it's rock'n'roll, it's country and blues and jazz and soul, it's cowboy boots and bronx cheers and the Sears Tower and the airplane and... God when you just think about so many great, great things in this country how can you not feel proud of it even if there are things you don't like about it?

Posted by: Dean Esmay | Dec 12, 2004 6:29:49 AM

Posted by: J. Peden

Patriotism "... that advocates pursuing U.S. national interests to the fullest, regardless of the costs inflicted on others." Elizabeth

Who advocates this? The idea is pernicious, a statement of an ethic no one would agree with, but often imputed to Bush, Capitalists, or anyone the Left wants to tar as evil. Please!

Converting "patriotism" into paying taxes? I smell a tithing complex at work, to wit, if I just give enough money, I have bought my own salvation, or done my bit. [sp? tithe]

I can't tell you how obvious this is, as I've been noticing it for years in regard to supporting causes as a substitute for personal action on the matter, especially missionary environmentalism and "helping the poor".

In the case of taxes, Government becomes God, and Gov't spending the path to salvation.

Another hint here, Government spending is a very poor way to create wealth. Only capitalism does this to any significant extent. It would be more patriotic to support capitalism, imho.

Posted by: J. Peden | Dec 12, 2004 6:43:01 AM

Posted by: S. Weasel

There are observations I'd like to make on the topic, but I find myself completely distracted (and amused) by the idea of Chinatown as an example of the greatness of America. There are Chinatowns in cities all over the world, and it's hard to see them as an example of anything but the resilience and natural capitalist inclinations of the Chinese.

I mean, Shantytown and Darktown haven't work out all that well, have they?

Posted by: S. Weasel | Dec 12, 2004 7:48:41 AM

Posted by: Rob Perelli-Minetti

I think that the primary reason that the left is vulnerable to charges that it is, on the whole, unpatriotic lies in the fact that the very far left has historically been anti-American, and the moderate left has often suffered from what has been described as a "no enemy to the left" psychology that has prevented the moderate left from condemning the extreme left and making it clear they have no place in a democratic left.

Historical perspective is essential here. You mention an origin in McCarthyism, which is the left's standard bugbear with regard to the right's charges against the left. A few points need to be considered here. First, there really was a Soviet state trying to subert the United States and the other western countries. And, we now know, thanks to revelations from the Soviet archives, that people like Hiss and the Rosenbergs really were Soviet agents. So, while it may be arguable that the right went too far in its anti-communist zeal, there really were people out there trying to harm us. Even paranoids may have enemies. Suspicion of the patriotism of much of the moderate left in this period was, I would argue, a result of the moderate left's embrace of extreme left and its refusal to cast out the truly unpatriotic. To use a popular cliche, lie down with dogs and you're going to get fleas.

Some elements of the moderate left at that time did indeed oppose the communists, one thinks of the origins of the Americans for Democratic Action and the bulk of the Congressional Democrats in the '40's and 50's. No one would have questioned the patriotism of John Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey.

This changed with the opposition to the Vietnam war. What began as protests organized by the more extreme elements of the old left, and the New Left, ended up as the policy of the Democratic Party by the 1972 election.

When someone says to me opposition to the Vietnam War was not unpatriotic, my response is "what sort of opposition?" It's certainly permissible to honestly disagree on policy. The question there is a matter of judgment, not necessarily of patriotism. However, chants -- which all of us who witnessed or participated in anti-war rallies heard -- of "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Min, the NLF is Gonna Win!" and the disply of North Vietnamese flags are unpatriotic. Attacking our troops as babykillers is unpatriotic.

Those chants, the North Vietnamese flags, and Jane Fonda sitting at a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun stick in ordinary peoples' minds, perhaps subconsciously, long after the participants have grown into adulthood and middle age.

Others have commented on the same phenomenon with respect to opposition to the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War, so I will confine my comment to a symbolic point I haven't seen mentioned. At an anti-war rally in San Francisco, there was a banner prominently displayed that had wide circulation on the internet: We Support Our Troops ... When the Shoot their Officers. That, my friends, is unpatriotic. Again, we don't see the moderate and academic left dissociating itself from these views, or from views such as those of the Columbia professor who wished for a million Mogadishus. Silence in the face of that sort of thing is going to lead people to conclude you agree with the sentiments, or at least don't disagree.

For myself, I distinguish between those on the left I consider unpatriotic -- such as the Alger Hisses, those wanted an NLF victory, and people like Michael Moore and others who advocate military mutiny and want to see America hobbled, and the rest of the left. I really don't see any possiblity of communication with the first category. The second group, which I take to be represented here, seem to me sincere enough and often thoughtful. What I, and I think many others on the "right" question in the moderate left, (which would include mainstream Democrats who opposed Reagan's approach to the Cold War, and have generally favored cuts to the military and its procurement) is more their judgement than their patriotism.

Posted by: Rob Perelli-Minetti | Dec 12, 2004 8:17:17 AM

Posted by: Lena Carr

It has been my experience that "patriot" is - for those on both the left and right that I have spoken with - the assumed *default* position. One is assumed to love the country, her ideals and her values, and appreciate the riches one has, just by being a citizen, until proven otherwise.

One's patriotism is rarely questioned out of the blue - every time I have seen it happen (as it happened ever so many times this past election season) it has followed some action on the part of one person that could give a second reason to question the first's motives; be that action a statement equating the US with some terrorist organization or state, or an appearance of concern with individual wealth over the good of the nation.

Re: defining acts of patriotism - I find it interesting that little mention of personnal service to the country is mentioned. Yes, Rudy Giuliani did a great deal, but his leadership was not the only contribution required to make (and keep) NYC a safe and wonderful place to raise a family.

Instead of highlighting the very individual involvement of civil service (police, city leadership, inspectors and firemen), or that of military service to the nation as a whole, Ms Anderson points at the act of speaking support for government actions (no matter the wisdom of those actions) and the act of paying taxes (no matter the wisdom of the actions paid for by those taxes.) In a country where the taxes are (compared to the EU) rather low, and the freedom to speak ones mind protected by law, neither action strikes me as demonstrating a great deal of commitment.

As regards the point about taxes - many conservatives come from a pov that nearly all government actions on or for the governed are going to be invasive and interfer with the people's daily lives, even when providing needed services. By taxpayers resenting the hell out of every penny of taxes, the government is forced to work within a budget, and therefore must limit its interference to only those most essential projects.

Which projects are essential, of course, is a subject of debate.

Posted by: Lena Carr | Dec 12, 2004 8:20:14 AM

Posted by: Robb Lutton

I love this country, but I think the freedom riders of the sixties who voluntarily put their lives on the line to fight for freedom were bigger heroes than GI's who were drafted to fight for nothing much in Vietnam. This is the divide between right and left.

Of course we on the left love America. We love it best when it lives up to its ideals and hate the tendency to crush those ideals here and overseas. We think it helps not hurts when we criticise bad actions.

The right doesn't like to talk about the fuckups and the evil that we have done and continue to do. Lets hear from those of you on the right who think (just to give one example) the US sponsored terrorism against Cuba and Nicaragua was a good idea. Most honest people on both sides of the the debate think it was bad, but rightwingers say something like; "lets don't wash our dirty laundery in public".

Unfortunately that only lets the bad guys off the hook. Like it or not we (and only we here in the US) can do anything about our own evil doers. That is our responsibility to the rest of the world.

Posted by: Robb Lutton | Dec 12, 2004 9:16:03 AM

Posted by: atrain

The latest example is Michael Moore's suggestion that the U.S. went to war against the Taliban in order to get an oil pipeline built across that country. Only slightly less absurd is the suggestion that the U.S. went into Iraq to seize its oil.

Yeah Elizabeth, everyone who is not absurd realizes that these factors had nothing to do with our policy decisions.

Posted by: atrain | Dec 12, 2004 9:57:44 AM

Posted by: a-train

BTW ... What is so great about patriotism? Why is this so important? What would happen if people were not patriotic?

Is it better to love, respect and care about an abstract idea like a "nation" or your family, neighbors and fellow humans? What is the problem with 'one world under God'?

Posted by: a-train | Dec 12, 2004 10:04:13 AM

Posted by: cas

..."who think (just to give one example) the US sponsored terrorism against Cuba and Nicaragua was a good idea."
I'm sorry Robb, I must show my ignorance...exactly WHAT acts of terrorism are you speaking of? And how are you so SURE that they were "US-backed?"

...What is so great about patriotism? Why is this so important? What would happen if people were not patriotic?
If you HATE your country, what are doing constructively to change it? How does the idea "one world under God" help to solve the problems you perceive in your country that make you unable to show pride in your country, and those whose sacrifice themselves in her name?

Posted by: cas | Dec 12, 2004 10:11:59 AM

Posted by: Eddie Gilchrist

It is not that the left "lacks patriotism." It is the perceived willingness of the left to subordinate your support of the kids - who are always the ones called on to die - for your political agenda. Look, I am against the Iraq war, and have been from the beginning. I think we should mind our own business and get out of all 145+ countries where we have our military stationed.

In that sense, I am with most of the left. What I despise and abhor about the left is their willingness to impute the most horrific and despicable aims to the ones who start a war they disagree with. The willingness to tolerate turn a blind eye to, and even support the most execrable accusations against their political opponents makes Richard Nixon look like a piker by comparison.

It makes the left supporters of sons of bitches like Oliver Stone, the Winter Soldier conference, and films like "Apocalyse Now" that portray our soldiers as drug crazed maniacal murderers. Of course, Michael Moore, the patron saint of lying assholes everywhere, has become a "spokesman" for the left. In short, political power is the ultimate goal of the left and they are willing to lie, fabricate documents(!), smear, and paint their opponents as demons from hell, and most importantly, TO WILLINGLY BELIEVE PATENT LIES, if it is perceived as an avenue to that political power.

I can only descibe this as a moral plague, and say that until the left is willing to purge itself, I will will join the right in dancing on their political graves.

Posted by: Eddie Gilchrist | Dec 12, 2004 10:17:51 AM

Posted by: David Velleman

Notice the number of comments that run like this: "Yes, but what about the other liberals who ... .?" Liz has written a stirring and stimulating essay on patriotism, and several commenters respond by saying, in effect, "Let's talk about Jane Fonda instead." No, let's not talk about Jane Fonda. Liz herself has criticized the Left for "eagerly imputing to the United States the most nefarious motives in international affairs, even when the charges are patently ridiculous", and she has challenged the Left to support law-enforcement efforts such as those of Mayor Giuliani. Pointing to other liberals who are less reasonable than Liz is just changing the subject.

Liz has challenged the Right to acknowledge that much of what is great about this country would be impossible without a strong infrastructure of public goods: she mentions public transportation and zoning, but obviously the list is much longer. Central Park, which she describes so beautifully, is not a commercial theme park: it's a public facility, maintained by taxes. Liz asks, Shouldn't we be proud to pay the taxes that maintain Central Park? How can we claim to be patriots if we complain about contributing our share to what makes the country great?

The answer to this question is not "Yeah, but what about that Jane Fonda?"

Posted by: David Velleman | Dec 12, 2004 10:46:29 AM

Posted by: Daniel

G.K. Chesterton's position, with which I agree, is that the only person to be trusted to change a thing (a person, a place, etc.) is a person who loves that thing. To illustrate: which would you rather have as a teacher for your children, one who loves your child, or one who hates your child? And if competence is an issue, is it not easier to raise competence than change hate to love? Who wants to hear that old saying by the surgeon for whom the patient isn't real: the operation was a success but the patient died.

It is for that reason that patriotism is important for me. I can't trust those who hate this country when they say they want to change it.

Posted by: Daniel | Dec 12, 2004 11:04:08 AM

Posted by: David Velleman

Chesterton's position has an obvious corollary: wanting to change a thing is not necessarily a sign of hating it. Parents want to make their children better, teachers want to make their students better, but these desires are expressions of love, not hate. Wanting to make one's country better can be an expression of patriotism.

Posted by: David Velleman | Dec 12, 2004 11:10:54 AM

Posted by: Tony

Ever heard of the Venona Project? While most of what McCarthy did later was despicable, his early warning about communists was on target. Check out the declassified intercepts in the project earlier mentioned. The leftist reactionaries (not liberals) use McCarthy as an excuse. I am a soldier and a 'classic' liberal. I support freedom (liberty) for everyone. Don't tell me how to worship, or who to marry; the government should set up just enough laws to keep us from killing each other. Freedom is the best motivator and capitalism is a blurry reflection of that. I've been to Haiti, Iraq and countless other places where people are yearning to be free. I love this country because it isn't perfect but it looks itself in the mirror and asks what it can do better and has CONSISTENTLY extended freedom to more and more of our countrymen and women. NO other country has done that in history (not even the Greek city-states). That is the true calling of the progressive movement to ask what we can do better.

Posted by: Tony | Dec 12, 2004 11:40:20 AM

Posted by: Robb Lutton

To Atrain,

To give one example;

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbosch.htm

This is a short report about Orlando Bosch who blew up a Cuban Airliner with 76 people aboard.

Posted by: Robb Lutton | Dec 12, 2004 11:42:07 AM

Posted by: duus

I am patriotic. I love my country. Moreover, I know what I mean when I say "my country." I mean the people of this country, and the people who are not yet born and won't be for a thousand years. What do you mean by 'the country'? Anyone? What do you love when you love the country? I think this is a large divide between right and left. What does anyone on the right mean by "the country" when they say they love it? I don't really understand.

Posted by: duus | Dec 12, 2004 11:46:24 AM

Posted by: S. Weasel

Moreover, I know what I mean when I say "my country." I mean the people of this country, and the people who are not yet born and won't be for a thousand years.

I don't understand. How are the people of this country intrinsically different from people in other countries, aside from those who self-selected to come here?

Posted by: S. Weasel | Dec 12, 2004 11:53:02 AM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

Neither the Right nor the Left should accuse the other of being unpatriotic. It's churlish behavior and, on that particular count, I think the Right acts churlishly more often than the Left. Of course, the Left can be more churlish on other points (e.g., accusations of racism), but perhaps that will be another tread.

I don't happen to share Ms Anderson's conclusion that love of country entails love of big government, and I think the Left too often conflates the society and the state. Moreover, I can’t help but suspect that she does resent a penny or two of her taxes here or there when they’re spent on, oh, say, SDI or corporate subsidies or that perennial favorite, waste, fraud and abuse. If I’m wrong, I apologize in advance.

In any case, there is nothing unpatriotic about criticizing one’s country or, especially, one’s government. Believe me, the Right does it all the time. The Right, however, senses that the Left, or at least the far Left, reflexively takes an anti-American position regardless of the circumstances. Whether that is fair or not, it would help lower the rhetorical volume if the non-far Left spoke out more often at the excesses of the likes of Michael Moore even as the non-far Right should denounce the likes of David Duke or Patrick Buchanan.

I would quibble with Mr. Velleman’s final sentence only in that I think wanting to make one’s country better *is* an expression of patriotism. I would hope the Left could understand that it is no less true for those on the Right who seek such change.

(On a semi-churlish final note, I’m happy to hear that the incomes of academicians has risen to the point where the money just piles up. As the father of college age children, my experience has been a bit different, but I’ll certainly pass the good news along to their schools and my alumni associations.)

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Dec 12, 2004 12:20:49 PM

Post a comment