This is an essay I’ve been planning to write for a long time. It’s one of the reasons I accepted the offer to come write at The Victorious Opposition. The furor over Palin’s “pro-America” comments last week reminded me that I had yet to sit down and write this. So here it is. I’ll ask that as you read this, and frame your responses, that you look at the big picture of what this essay is about, and let’s debate patriotism, rather than rat-holing on some specific political point - we have plenty of threads for those.

Biographical Note

Those of you who are regulars at The VO know all of this already. But in the hopes that we attract some new readers, I feel it’s important to reiterate some of my background and views, so that the rest of this essay is framed in the proper understanding of where I’m coming from.

I consider myself to be a small-L libertarian, in that I believe in a libertarian system, but I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative, to the extreme in certain areas. I was raised Jewish, and became a Christian at 18. I was raised by Democratic parents, and am likely the most conservative member of my immediate family.

This year will be the first time I am voting for a Republican at the Federal level. I voted Democrat as an idealistic liberal college student in the early-mid ‘80s, and since then have always voted for “the lesser of two evils”. I have never voted for a President, only against the one I disliked more. But I’m voting for John McCain. I like John McCain, and have for quite a while. I would have voted for him in 2000 had he been the candidate.

I have been opposed to the Bush administration since the 2000 Republican primaries. I felt at the time, and still feel, that George W. Bush is an actively stupid person, and he is, in my opinion, the worst President of my lifetime, if not of all time. I opposed the Iraq war before it was cool to do so, on two fundamental grounds - the strategy, or more correctly, the lack thereof, was inane; and there were no exigent circumstances for going into Iraq at that time, with the job unfinished in Afghanistan. I opposed the unmitigated power grab of the Executive branch of this administration, exemplified by the abuses of power such as FISA abuse that has been documented. This administration’s use of signing statements as a de-facto line-item veto is over the top. The administration’s positions on detention and prisoner treatment led to the abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan and GTMO, and while much of that has been rectified by DTA & MCA, they are still responsible. I believe there are grounds on which this president should have been impeached, primarily based on the Executive power-grab.

My voicing these positions has led, in the past, to me being accused of being un-American, un-patriotic, of hating my country, and being told that I should leave the country. Some of the biggest fights I had with my current co-authors, in our past at another forum, were over the issue of patriotism, in debates on these positions. These exchanges were not cordial or collegial debate, and the fact that we got past that at all to get here is somewhat surprising. So I feel it appropriate to discuss this issue here, and should have gotten around to it sooner.

Who Said That?

Let’s start with a game. I’ll give you a quote, and you tell me who said it, and whether the statement is patriotic or unpatriotic:

Part 1: On War

  1. You can support the troops but not the president.
  2. I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.
  3. name elided is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.
  4. Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.
  5. This is name elided‘s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.
  6. My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they’re made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do.
  7. These international war criminals were led by name elided ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, name elided.

Part 2: On Impeachment

  1. I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it’s not a vengeful one, it’s not vindictive, and it’s not craven. It’s just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ... as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door
  2. When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority—for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator—had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: “The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States.
  3. I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail.

Here are your answers:

Part 1:

  1. Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX)
  2. Gov. George W. Bush (R-TX)
  3. Rep. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
  4. Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
  5. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
  6. Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)
  7. Michael Savage (radio personality)

Part 2:

  1. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL)
  2. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)
  3. Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN)

That is the first time that I have ever cited Daily Kos as a source, and hopefully the last. But it was a good way to gather that collection of quotes to make this point:

Were these men patriotic or unpatriotic? They opposed a war our military was actively fighting. They were in favor of impeaching a sitting president during a time of war.

The statements quoted above are exactly the same things I and many others have said for the last 6+ years. We are routinely accused of being un-American, America-haters, unpatriotic, even traitors, for holding these beliefs and saying these things. So either the above Republicans are traitors right along with us, or there’s something else going on. Patriotism is not situational or political.

So What Is Patriotism?

To me, patriotism is love of country. Loving your country enough to stand up and make yourself noticed when you see it heading the wrong way. Dissent is uniquely American patriotism. It isn’t political. It isn’t situational. It is about ensuring that those empowered to lead don’t lose sight of what they’re leading.

And it’s about celebrating the good your country does, not out of blind devotion, but because it is good. It’s not about looking for the bad, it’s about looking for the good, and being upset about the bad you find.

It’s about personal responsibility. It’s about expecting others, at all levels, to take that same degree of personal responsibility. Helping them out if it’s appropriate, but mostly about making sure they can help themselves. And taking them to task for shirking that responsibility.

And What Is Patriotism Not?

Patriotism is not about blind devotion. It’s not about wearing a flag on your lapel - or castigating those who don’t. It’s not about hero-worship to the current leadership, or some potential future leader.

Opposing a war by opposing the military is not patriotic (I’m looking at you, Code Pink). You can oppose a war, but take your issues to the leadership & policy-makers. You do not castigate those who put their lives on the line for your safety.

Advocating your leadership being held for war crimes in foreign courts is not patriotic. We have systems in place to take care of these matters (through impeachment, through the courts). We can take care of our own.

Giving up our rights for the sake of some concept of security is not patriotic. To quote the inestimable Ben Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

On Dissent

At its core, this famous quote from Carl Schurz summarizes my view:

I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves - too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country-when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’

“Free Speech Zones” are not patriotic; they are perhaps as un-patriotic as can be found. At the same time, violent dissent is not patriotic, and the use of the police to keep order is proper. Let’s look at the appropriate part of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free speech zones fly in the face of the “peacably to assemble” part. However, what many protesters fail to comprehend is the “peacably” part of that. The First Amendment clearly pre-supposes dissent as appropriate - as long as it’s peacable. People on both sides of the spectrum seem to fail to understand this, and the country is the worse off for it.

On The Dixie Chicks

I love the Dixie Chicks. I’ve loved them for years. Not, as some have posited, because they oppose George W. Bush, but because of their art. The fact that they dislike Bush is a bonus.

People seem to forget about, or just be ignorant of, the Dixie Chicks before “The Incident”. This is the song that was #1 on the Country charts when “The Incident” happened:

Amazing, isn’t it? This personifies the whole “oppose the President, support the troops” theme. Now, I freely admit that they were naive to think they wouldn’t get the reaction they did from their country fan base, but that just demonstrates the false patriotism of that audience. “Our country right or wrong” is wrong. People also forget that the Dixie Chicks were not particularly politically active before “The Incident”. They were pretty unabashedly liberal, but no one would have considered them “activists”. They got turned into activists by the organized boycotts, death threats, and all that other good stuff.

Now take a look at this video. It’s a review/trailer for the documentary “Shut Up And Sing”; it’s the only place I could find the snippet I wanted to show. Skip ahead to 2:25 in the video and watch about fifteen seconds of it:

He really took the radio network execs to task for the organized boycott (there’s a little more to it if you watch the actual documentary). Here you have one of the most pro-war Senators taking people to task over their opposition to opposition to the war. This is a micro-example of why I am voting for John McCain.

At the end of the day, I think The Dixie Chicks represent my views pretty well. I think “Not Ready To Make Nice” is brilliant. I find what they did, that they keep doing what they do, and that they stick together unapologetically exceptionally American and patriotic.

A Final Note From John McCain

Here is another quote from John McCain:

Americans should argue about this war. It has cost the lives of nearly 2500 of the best of us. It has taken innocent life. It has imposed an enormous financial burden on our economy. At a minimum, it has complicated our ability to respond to other looming threats. Should we lose this war, our defeat will further destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, strengthen the threat of terrorism, and unleash furies that will assail us for a very long time. I believe the benefits of success will justify the costs and risks we have incurred. But if an American feels the decision was unwise, then they should state their opposition, and argue for another course. It is your right and your obligation. I respect you for it. I would not respect you if you chose to ignore such an important responsibility. But I ask that you consider the possibility that I, too, am trying to meet my responsibilities, to follow my conscience, to do my duty as best as I can, as God has given me light to see that duty.

(emphasis added) From his 2006 Commencement speech at Liberty University. That’s Falwell’s school in Lynchburg, VA - a well known bastion of liberal-hood (not!).

Remember this next time you tell me, or anyone else, that it is un-American to oppose the war. Not just a right. An obligation.