Once again, so-called conservatives Just Don't Get It.
Having long ago appointed themselves guardians of the Sacred Definition and Practice of Patriotism in the United States, it would appear that the fine folks at RedState.com have learned absolutely nothing in the last eight years.
Maybe it was the title of the diary that gave it away: "Liberals Don't Know What Patriotism Means" (Insert loud groan followed by deep sigh here).
More below the fold.
It's tiresome after a while, isn't it? I mean, the argument, sure, as we've only heard ourselves called traitors a few million times by Ann Coulter and her acolytes. But even moreso, it's tiresome to have to constantly correct both their history and their overall arguments.
According to this diarist, referred to as "Erick" although the post was made by Warner Todd Huston, being a patriot means following your government whether it's right or wrong:
But, first, what is patriotism?
After the War of 1812 one of our most celebrated sea captains, Stephen Decatur (America's first post Revolutionary War military hero) once gave a toast at Norfolk to his fellow seamen that is the most perfect illustration of true patriotism. As he lifted his glass, Decatur said, "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."
So to define patriotism, you're going to turn to a post Revolutionary "hero", because to quote the actual revolutionaries of the drive for independence would completely contradict your argument. I mean, they weren't for country right or wrong, actually, they were SHOOTING at their government. So let's get this straight, according to this wingnut at RedState, true patriots don't come on the scene until the War of 1812, and all the revolutionary heroes beforehand must have been traitors. I guess the diarist probably wouldn't agree to that, but that would also invalidate his whole argument, so don't expect him to say it out loud.
Secondly, how nice it is that we have the fine people at RedState to tell us what a patriot is. I mean, it's not as if there could be a complex definition, or more than one acceptable definition, or more than one way to express and practice patriotism. It's pretty clear by their reasoning: either you're a war hero who follows his country no matter what, or you're someone who admires war heroes and follows their country no matter what, or you're a traitor. Seems clear enough, and we all know how wingnuts enjoy their black and white answers. Surely we can all agree that a famous commander from the 19th century is more of a patriot than say ... a community organizer, right?
Next, as the arrogance approches imperial levels, the diarist suggests that he knows why and how other peoples around the world feel and express patriotism in their societies:
For some nations, patriotism is defined because of its homogeneous racial or religious makeup. Sometimes it is a mere aspect of geography and longevity as a nation. The French love France because they are French. The English love England because it has a proud, defiant history of standing as one against all comers, etc., etc. As a matter of course, most peoples imagine that their patriotism is based on an assumption that their country has intrinsic value.
God. Where to start. How about "The French love France because they are French." Stunning in its simplistic ignorance, it's hard to counter an argument that DOESN"T EXIST. And truly, after the whole freedom fries debacle and pouring out French wine you'd already paid for in the street as a protest, I am hereby declaring a ten year moratorium on any Republican saying anything about France. And since I am in the majority party and we are making this decision, then I'm sure the diarist will be a good patriot and go along with the policy whether it violates the Constitution or not.
And England? The English love England because "it has a proud, defiant history of standing as one against all comers, etc., etc." Note to diarist, when the strongest part of your argument is "etc. etc." you've lost the debate. I'd also like to point out that it's Great Britain, you ignoramus. The Scots aren't always so keen on England, or the Welsh sometimes. You are hereby banned from watching "Last of the Mohicans" for the 156th time. Don't like it? Traitor.
I have serious problems with any one person defining our patriotism, or telling me what an American is, or how patriotism should be practiced. It then goes without saying that any argument based on the premise of knowing the absolute definition of patriotism better than anyone else probably precludes you from defining it for other societies as well. I am hereby confiscating your video collection of Sarah Palin stump speeches, and don't you dare disagree.
Lastly, I beg the diarist to take an introductory debate course. Your arguments are not only self-defeating, they are contradictory paragraph by paragraph:
None of this is meant to excuse mistakes, or even crimes, by papering them over with the flag. In a democratic nation, a chief freedom is to be able to bring redress to one's own nation, to petition government, to criticize its actions, and to correct mistakes by the vote of its people. But, through all strife and political debate there has to be an assumption that the surgeon is being called because the patient to be cured, in this case a nation, is worth the valiant, life-saving effort. The nation must be worthy for anyone to bother.
So, if we Americans truly believe in our national precepts, our national soul, then it shouldn't matter who is in the White House or what party controls Congress. And this is where liberals fail the test of patriotism. Like the starry eyed bride, liberals are more in love with the idea of being in love than they are in what that love is applied to. Like the bride that married her man for what she thinks she can turn him into, liberals love what they want the USA to become, not what it is.
Let me paraphrase, since it's difficult to follow.
-
In a democratic nation, a chief freedom is to be able to bring redress to one's own nation, to petition government, to criticize its actions, and to correct mistakes by the vote of its people.
So in other words, it's fine for anyone to use their Constitutional rights to influence government and try to change/improve policy.
-
Like the bride that married her man for what she thinks she can turn him into, liberals love what they want the USA to become, not what it is.
Liberals want to change policy for something they feel is better, so therefore they aren't patriots.
I congratulate the author of the diary on RedState, as it is not only difficult to argue with yourself in two consecutive paragraphs, it is an art form, and you have perfected it.
I'm a liberal, and an American patriot. So are all my fellow Kossacks.
And what you advocate? My country right or wrong? It's called Nationalism, and that's different than patriotism.
Write it down, please.