Posted on 01/09/2006 10:04:32 AM PST by smoothsailing
Patriotism Means Service, Not 'Dissent'
by Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Posted Jan 9, 2006
With fewer liberals than ever enlisting in our armed services or serving in command positions, liberals have redefined patriotism to mean "dissent",protesting against U.S. policy. Why? Because that is what liberals do. They criticize their country and moralize to their countrymen. They are generally not policemen, firemen or soldiers. They are "above" the rest of us.
But dissent is not service. Dissent is simply personal gratification, a right guaranteed. Though I have a right to eat, my eating is not an act of patriotism. Patriotism is service; and the act of denouncing one's country simply serves one's personal need to be heard.
Likewise, idealism has been redefined by many liberals to mean doing that which undermines U.S. attempts at self-defense and condemning one's country abroad, even though by so doing one jeopardizes the physical safety of fellow citizens.
More often than not, left-wing parents of these "idealistic" young people are far more proud of their children engaged in "dissent" than if they were serving in the military. To these elitists, military service is an embarrassment, beneath their class, a sign of failure to have really "achieved". But such is the luxury of certain well-heeled, comfortable, haughty elements in our society. They can confer upon themselves and their dissent the label "courage" knowing that other peoples' 19- and 20-year-olds are out there making sure that they, the perpetual protestors, are safe to vent their disdain for this country, our safety, and the military protecting them.
In fact, it is the opposite of courage -- it is the height of conformity. For in their circles, dissenters against everything American are lauded and praised as sophisticated, cosmopolitan, smarter. Dissenters are not parochial but internationalists, i.e., better.
In today's politically-correct milieu, the truly courageous are those willing to buck the salon mentality by being pro-American.
One would have hoped the sophisticates could at least have given the military its due, a grateful recognition. Instead, this clique of "patriots" does whatever it can to stymie the military and even denigrates our soldiers' backgrounds. New York City media elites and their neighbors tell us that our soldiers are uneducated, rednecks, that they come from the poorer regions of the country and enlist, therefore, not out of a sense of duty and honor but out of a need to have a job and make some money.
By disallowing R.O.T.C. on campus and harassing military recruitment officers, they send their personal message that military service is ignoble and those that serve are engaged in something bad. By being ever so eager to indict our soldiers for war crimes whenever a quick decision is needed to save a U.S. life over that of a terrorist, it is obvious they care not a wit about our young heroes, wishing instead to demonize them.
That many seem indifferent to our soldiers is a consequence of their not having, today, family, friends or neighbors in the military. Many do not personally know an active marine or army gunner. It is true that soldiers do not pass the "interesting" test that has now become the standard for admiration within fashionable social circles. After all, it is not as if a soldier were a wealthy anti-American novelist, or an engaged gay couple, or Tookie Williams.
Yet, to have such rage at those things military and at our soldiers implies more than simply ignorance or a difference in opinion. It has to be personal. The antagonism is so emotional! What is behind, as one famous liberal said, this loathing of the military?
It is jealousy and bitterness. Jealous that with all their education and sense of betterness, they do not have the courage to do what the soldier does. Though not afraid of the courtroom, they are afraid of the battlefield. They are better at appeasement and words than hand-to-hand physical combat. They could not live the Spartan soldier life, nor rely on a gun for survival.
Many of us cannot soldier, but we have the grace and humility to be grateful to those who can. There is, however, a certain type of liberal that will not abide in others the masculinity he can not muster -- a masculinity that he was taught, early on, to fear and, therefore, despise.
It is a meanness: "I will not credit that which I've chosen -- out of fear -- not to do. I will not acknowledge that which reflects, deep down, my weakness." They deny their weakness by depicting the army as an evil war machine unworthy of them and conceal their selfishness by claiming those who serve do so not out of honor and duty but as a means for temporary employment.
Leftists are bitter that instead of our country relying on them, the schooled internationalists, to negotiate our outcomes, we as a country place our hope in the strength of our military and soldiers to achieve victory and, thereby, determine our destiny. "How dare George Bush overlook the negotiating, Jaw-Boning Class -- the 'best and the brightest' -- and place our future in the hands of generals and those Ollie North types. Why, most of them never went to Columbia or Brown, as did we."
Yes, it is a "class" thing. Today's liberal leaders, and most of their children, are snobs. They are convinced they are superior. They've become rich, and smug. Imbued with this "appreciation" of themselves, they gravitate to the political philosophy that, today, thinks in condescending terms, a nouveau class-ism where the "enlightened" are supposed to rule and get all the credit -- not the military.
Back in the 1960s, the left derided values like patriotism and heroism. They scoffed at these antiquated, bourgeois, puritan notions. I remember. I was there.
Living now in an age where steadfast values have resurfaced, the liberal/left imputes them to itself. In its Orwellian way, it has turned core values upside down to match what it is: Patriotism is dissent, heroism is making your country defenseless. Soldiers are misfits, and those like the President wishing to protect our children are a threat to our security.
Are these people evil or misguided beyond hope?
Perhaps, they are simply immersed in a spoiled world with no relation to reality or history. Beyond question, they are wound up in an arrogant sense of superiority over their countrymen. I don't think America has ever been plagued by an educated, wealthy group so ardently un-American. How did it come about that America bred in its midst such self-worshipping ingrates and self-centered brats?
Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Excellent article
At least, I think so. Having served in the military, I ain't pertikerly edyookated.
Unfortunately a democrat simply has to say the magic words "Are you questioning my patriotism?" for the typical republican to go running for cover.
BUMP
bttt
It really pi$$ed me off !!!!
My standard response is, "No, you have none to question."
An extraordiary article...VERY well written.
Mega-bump! Can you post this every day?
thank you for the ping
It's difficult to have an intelligent, meaningful conversation with liberals. They really have a shallow understanding of the world. Don't know why they have such a hallowed reputation, or at least today's crop hasn't earned it.
Liberals = SNOBS
Accurate, factual, and concise.
Wonderfully composed and well thought out.
We hang together, or we’re hung by our enemy.
VERY good point, drawing the line between social justice and socialism. I have seen than far too often in other religion as well, that blurring of the line, no distinction, but never quite put my finger on it.
"Better put some ice on that..." a phrase attributed to one who arguably represents the ultimate in what ails America.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
Many Jews who vote liberal are not really religious Jews, and don't really identify as Jews in the Biblical sense. Further, many Jews (myself included) have realized that the left has aligned itself with islam, and are antithetical to our interests (whereas the Christian George Bush is a true friend to Israel). The majority of liberals are not Jews, but mainline Protestant. That includes Jews in Name Only who not only do not sit in a synagogue, as you put it, but never sat in any house of worship, or became Unitarians.
You're right in your analysis that what the Rabbi is describing is Cultural Marxism. What's going on today is simply "critical theory" in application.
HA! Thanks. :)
Something for you servicemen and ex-service men!
I, an ex-liberal, will answer that. The 'movement' is more 'hip' because it's comprised of mostly young people. Therefore, it has the cool element built in. The hallowed reputation derives from the coolness and the fact that they 'act' as if they have the moral high ground. It's all very well to say that you are the architect of the Vaccines for Children program and then neglect to say that because that program made it unprofitable to stay in the vaccines business(by lowering prices while keeping liabilities static), most of the manufacturer's dropped out leaving the most highly industrialized economy in the history of the species with 2 vaccine manufacturers. Most of the Dummycrats will only remember that the name of the program and my, doesn't it just sound lovely.
"That's what TR said, you remove it from the context, and use it as license for continuous seditious babble, you are not Teddy Roosevelt."
"That what TR said", followed by blah-blah-blah.
Sorry - I'll take the words of one of America's great Presidents over a babbling rabbi who wants the US to do the work of Israel.
I'd be interested what you base your criticism of the Rabbi on.
I read the article, he's lucid, not babbling.
Nothing I read indicates that he wants the US to do the work of Israel.
-------------
captain anode, you seem to be indicating that Blzbba is wrong, that TR might not approve of the criticisms from the Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, Howard Dean front.
You're right, as a look at the paragraph the selective quote comes from demonstrates.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star",May 7, 1918
Other than to those who consider Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, Howard Dean truthful, of course.
Unfortunately, the slanderous, borderline, seditious nature of the actions/words of today's Democrats, is not mere criticism.
I'll stick with Abraham Lincoln:
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale
and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled,
or hanged."
See the full quote in post 29. Teddy would agree. He stresses HONEST criticism.
It's also worth noting that the author isn't discussing criticism of the President, rather the military. I'm sure the same standards would apply.
Dissent is the highest expression of patriotism in a free country. If those rights are not exercised, they don't exist.
Aryeh Spero, warmly labeled by his listeners and political colleagues as “America’s Rabbi,” is president of Caucus for America. He is host of his own program on Rightalk Radio, Free Republic, and is known for his lively and thought-provoking "One Minute Commentaries" on the radio.
He also has hosted his own radio show, “Talking Sense,” on WWDJ, WSNR and WEVD in the New York metropolitan region. He has been interviewed on WABC, WLIR and WEVD in New York as well as media outlets in Cleveland, Las Vegas, Boulder, Indianapolis, Houston, and Washington, D.C. On television Aryeh Spero has appeared on CBS, C-SPAN, WOR, NET (American Family, Paul Weyrich, Capital Watch) and MSNBC.
He has spoken in front of the National Press Club, testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee, and has addressed The Heritage Foundation. He is an acclaimed public speaker, inspiring diverse audiences. Aryeh Spero’s articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, National Review, New York Sun, Human Events, Newsmax.com, Policy Review , American Conservative Union, Christian American, Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Fundamentalist Journal, Judaism, Tradition, Midstream, Free Congress Foundation, Response, Jewish Spectator, Post and Opinion, Sh'ma, Free Republic, Viewpoint, Jewish Press and he contributed a chapter to Cultural Conservatism.
He is a frequent contributor to Human Events, and also a contributor to Jewish World Review. He has been invited to inform policy-makers, candidates, and elected officials, and has led a conservative think-tank.
During his career he has led congregations in the Midwest, South and Northeast. He was the first rabbi to endorse Ronald Reagan for President in public newspaper ads around the country.
"I don't see Liberals balancing sedition with any praise and TRUTH, give me a break, liberals lower the debate to volume alone."
Well, that's true and my "TR" quote certainly wasn't intended for the "Michael Moores" of the world. It was more for the fed-up conservatives and others who, while supporting America, are told to stay in lockstep with all Bush's policies else not be considered "patriotic", which is crap.
Bush's (lack of a) Mexican border policy, for instance...
Liberals have been so disloyal and hateful of America that they have had to redefine "patriotism" as hating America.
I saw your post after I had sent my reply. I agree on the President/military criticism thing but thought that it was a good counter-quote, if you will. Although it appears that it wasn't needed. Thanks.
In my view, the howling of moonbats is not dissent, it is self-gratification that has no positive goal.
But I've always tried to view dissent - even idiotic dissent - as a celebration of our freedom. I try to think "Isn't this a wonderful nation? There isn't anywhere else on earth where a citizen can behave this contemptuously and this foolishly without any threat of retribution from the state."
I can remember telling "war protestors" in the '60s, that "although I disagree with what you say, I have and will continue to defend your right to say it".
President Rodham appreciates your sentiment.
The neighbor, who enlisted and is putting his life on the line, can exercise his right to freely speak his political mind, as well. At least as long as he isn't critiquing his commanders...
Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Franklin et al were dissenters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.