Listening to talk radio recently, a caller responded to a question about what loyalty to country means and what constitutes “patriotism”. This particular caller was especially agitated at protesters who are voicing their concerns about the United States’ involvement and perceived lack of direction in Iraq. These protesters are demanding answers from President Bush, and the Congress is responding to these concerns with questions of their own.
The caller (please allow me to clean up the language) was especially perturbed that these protesters were giving aid and comfort to the enemy by questioning the US government and the president. He then went on to explain how these protesters ought to get down on their knees and thank “God Almighty” that they live in a country where they are free to say whatever they want. Once he finished his tirade, he ended his call by demanding that these dissenters, these “enemies of the state” who are “free to say whatever they want”, sit down and shut up.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary says that patriotism is “love of or devotion to country”. So how does this “love” of country manifest itself? What is the legitimate claim of the “patriot” who insists that country can never be wrong and must never be challenged? What is the legitimate claim of the “patriot” who insists that one’s own country must be questioned; that it is not only a right but a responsibility?
What is it that we hope to achieve by this new sense of patriotism? That we only want what is best for “God and country” is not an adequate answer especially for those who demand specific responses to specific concerns. I have been a supporter of President Bush throughout his tenure, but I have to say that some of his minions cause me concern when they insinuate that any who would dare to question the president must not be “patriotic Americans”.
Is it unpatriotic to question those whom we have essentially “hired” to do a job? We as employees must stand before our own superiors and explain our work and hear the critique that may be coming our way. The questions and challenges are necessary so that misunderstandings can be cleared up and progress made and measured. A silent boss is the worst kind of boss to have because we can never really be sure where we stand. The company also suffers because some element of failure can usually be attached to silence.
We need constructive criticism. We have to hear about our own progress through the eyes of another, especially from one to whom we are accountable. Why should the US government be any different? If we elect a congressman or senator to office and never write or call, do we have a right to be upset if they never seem to represent our points of view?
The president can be no different. Of course, this one is a little different in that he has no more elections to worry about except for maybe the midterm elections in which I suspect Republicans may not do so well.
Patriotism has to mean more than simply parroting a call to arms, regardless of what those arms involve, and seeking someone to “hate” or to “blame”. Defending our country must also mean more than simply wearing the uniform of a US service man or woman. Love of country means that we sometimes have to face an ugly truth: that we made mistakes and must work to correct the mistake.
This is NOT a call to withdraw from Iraq. We are there now and the only way to ensure that all these soldiers and Marines did not die in vain is truly to finish the job. The patriots on the “left” are simply demanding that the job be better defined. It will be ok with me if a timetable is rejected, but can they at least give us some idea of what “the end” might look like?
We must be careful that patriotism does not become such an idol that we worship it and pay homage to it and even pay tribute to it even if we cannot identify it.
4 comments:
I agree that patriotism is hard to define and it certainly does not mean automatically supporting a call to arms. The difficult part is distinguishing between patriotic and unpatriotic dissent. Those who, for example, refer to our troops as war criminals, for example, fall into the latter category -- unless they can come up with proof to that effect. Those who think that the Bush Administration is not making sensible plans to win fall into the former.
I see what you're saying. I sometimes wonder about the ulterior motives of those dissenters who do not seek to engage more than to simply do battle just for the heck of it.
Unfortunately the unpatriotic antiwar folk so dirty the water for Bush Admin critics that they prevent important questions about the conduct of the war from being fully addressed. It's hard to have a serious discussion on the subject when so many of those who disagree with how Bush is handling the situation do not want us to win.
You're right. I just have a hard time believing that they seek a serious discussion, choosing only to engage in finger-pointing and name calling because there are the mid-term elections coming. It is not about right or wrong anymore; it's about power.
Post a Comment