Posted on 10/06/2007 7:40:11 AM PDT by jdm
Over the last two days, the question of patriotism has been debated over the blogosphere. It started with Barack Obama's tortured explanation of why he stopped wearing a lapel pin representing the American flag. He told reporters that he took it off because unnamed others had used it to cover unpatriotic behavior and that the flag had become a "substitute for true patriotism," an explanation that annoyed many more people than did the absence of the lapel pin itself.
Today on Heading Right Radio, we debated another dimension of the same question. One of our callers, clearly frustrated with some Democratic Congressmen and specifically Robert Byrd, called them "traitors". Duane Patterson and I argued that being wrong does not make someone a traitor or unpatriotic. It goes to intent, as both of us argued. If one honestly believes in a set of policies, even if wrong, it does not make them unpatriotic -- and one does not commit treason by dissenting from the current administration, regardless of party. Unless they intend harm to come to America, they're not traitors, and unless they wish us to fail, they're not unpatriotic.
Earlier this evening, I read a post by David Freddoso at The Corner that captured the difference. A reader asserted that some dissent causes the death of American soldiers, and used the Tet Offensive as an example. Freddoso replied:
Does a dissenter cause the death of American soldiers by voicing an opinion? It was surely unpatriotic for some to collude with the communist enemy during the Vietnam War, and allege phony atrocities under oath (ahem, thinking of of a former presidential candidate here). That's called "spreading enemy propaganda."
But what about ordinary people of good faith, who love their country, simply expressing an opinion that a particular war is not worth the loss of life? I thought that the soldiers were fighting precisely for our freedom to express that opinion.
Rather than dissenters, I would think it's the insurgents who are killing the soldiers. But if you really want to blame someone besides them, why trace it to dissenters? What about the people who support the war? Soldiers wouldn't die in wars if they never started. But no, that's also silly, of course — war supporters who act in good faith aren't causing deaths either.
Neville Chamberlain was not unpatriotic towards the United Kingdom. He loved his country. He just saw appeasement as the best policy towards Hitler regarding British interests. He was tragically wrong, as was Daladier, who had much less enthusiasm for appeasement but went along with the British. Neither were traitors, but the appeasement strategies they pushed were the direct cause of tens of millions of unnecessary deaths.
Yesterday, I interviewed David Andelman of Forbes.com about his book on the Versailles treaty, A Shattered Peace. The people involved in that disastrous treaty were not unpatriotic nor traitorous, but they were grasping, shallow, and shortsighted beyond belief. They turned out to be very dangerous men who have an indirect responsibility not just for World War II but also most of the rest of the 20th century's conflicts, including our present war on terror. All of them loved their countries -- so much so that they couldn't see past the appetites and bruised egos of their nations.
Patriotic doesn't mean correct, nor does it mean incorrect. Patriots have defended this country in its every crisis. Just because Barack Obama disagrees with people or think them foolish doesn't mean that they have committed unpatriotic acts, which is why he began to back away from his foolish statement afterwards; he undoubtedly did not want to have to start naming names, because he had none. Just because Robert Byrd stood up on the Senate floor to accuse his colleagues of provoking Iran -- a day before they celebrated a national holiday of genocidal impulses by chanting "Death to America" at government-sponsored rallies -- he did not commit a traitorous or unpatriotic act. He's dead wrong about the resolution on the Al-Quds force, and he's a Hall of Fame porker, but I have no doubt that Robert Byrd loves his country and doesn't want harm to come to it.
We should hold the hyperbole, and assume the best motives whenever possible. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize actions and speeches when wrong, or that we should do so with insufficient vigor. It does mean that we should hold the most dire allegations for those who deserve it. Adam Gadahn is a traitor. Robert Byrd and Barack Obama are fools. The two are not synonymous. If we don't recognize that patriotism means love of country regardless of wisdom on policy, then we really will have reduced it to only the last refuge of scoundrels.
UPDATE: And, as Dave in PA reminds us in the comments, one has to commit a treasonous act in accordance with the Constitution to meet the legal requirement of being a traitor -- intent plus an act. Again, Adam Gadahn is a traitor in all senses of the word.
UPDATE II: Daladier, not Clemenceau, as Mike reminds me in the comments. Should have double-checked my copy of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
The statements of the Democrat Congress have been taken up by Bin Laden and other enemies of the US and repeated. Since the commentary of the Congress critters is being done with no mention of any different strategy or ideas but simply to under cut our forces, and is being picked up and repeated by our foes, it is treason.
The Democrat Leadership is giving propaganda aid and comfort to the enemies of the USA and encouraging them to maintain the fight against the USA.
Just because they disagree with a policy does NOT give them the right to actively aid our foes. There are legitimate ways for the Democrats to oppose the policy. PR blasts that do nothing but give aid and comfort to our foes is not one of them.
I enjoyed this article . I am still a little confused . My patriotism , my love and loyalty is really devoted more to the ideas of this country , freedom , enterprise , common defense , more than to the real estate however dear to me . Those who would shackle me to socialism do not have a common object of patriotic devotion except the geography . They would cause me to rebel and based on the quality of success , be defined as patriot or traitor .
btt
We need to update that tired saying about patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels. After all, it’s the 21st century.
Here’s my suggestion:
“Accusations of racism, sexism, and bigotry are the last refuge of scoundrels.”
Tortured? As strange as it may sound, he's being honest. He and others of his ilk are not traitors or unpatriotic -- to their America. Thus they are not "grasping, shallow, and shortsighted beyond belief" either.
Their America needs the defeat of our America on all fronts.
Within a fews days of 9/11 I heard radio talk show callers identifying themselves as liberals say that they are not showing and will never show the Flag. "The Flag is a symbol of the Republican Party that's why," said the callers.
Rat Party (formerly the traditional, old-time patriotic Democratic Party) Senator Feinstein is embarrassed to show the Flag of this America on foreign trips. Specifically the lapel version of the Flag.
Senator Barrack Hussein Obama's patriotism is for an America that can be. That is true patriotism, you see.
Popular on the left Robert Jensen author and employee of the journalism department of a major university kinda of nails something "Instead of claiming, 'America is the greatest nation on Earth,' we might say, 'I live in the United States and have deep emotional ties to its people, land and ideals, and I want to highlight the many positive things while working to change what is wrong.'"
In the 1960s it was "America, fix it or forget it" and that bumper sticker has grown to where it is now the raison d'être of all who want a U.S. defeat in Iraq, the demise (literally?) of the current Administration, conservative talk show hosts.. you name it.
I sincerely hope that soon! it is generally acknowledged that we are in some kind of civil war over whose America will survive. The Left declared war more than 40 years ago.
FALSE Patiotism is a refuge for scoundrels — and there are plenty of them out there, most with a (D) in back of their names or an ACLU card in their pocket.
Here's another example for my post above.
In the book, Unlimited Access, the author (retired FBI) Gary Aldrich recalled that loyalty investigation interviews often brought assurances by Clinton White House employees that indeed they were most loyal, no problem! and they will always be loyal to President and Mrs. Clinton.
Say what? It'd be Monty Python-class comedy if it wasn't war.
Yeah, you’re right. The leftists have basically seceded from the United States so technically they’re not traitors, they’re loyalists to the new anti-US country of the mind they’ve joined. So it’s really a civil war.
Virtually every talk show host and much of what I read have so stated. Everything from the "cultural war" to Mark Levin's "soft war."
I've just started Professor Huntington's Who Are We? so it is not his writings nor other pundits that influenced my thinking (it's living it since the 1940s) but the first few pages of Who Are We? are astounding.
From days of Robert Frost's America and "heroic deeds" at JFK's inauguration to BJ's Maya Angelou and her condemnation of America's eternal threats to the peoples of the world. Just short of having BJ's inauguration's breaking out in chants of "Death to America!"
"Death to [the traditional] America!" Did I just have a premonition of Hillary's inaugural speech?
My thought on this is revealed in my tagline.
Semper Fi,
I have lived for a reasonable number of years on God’s beautiful Earth; and I say from this that the greatest scoundrel of all is he or she that denigrates the very nation that has made his or her life possible in all its ramifications.
These people devour themselves.
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.