Tuesday, May 30, 2006

patriotism in a nation of laws

What does it mean to be a patriot? I sense that there is an ugly sentiment among the populace that any exercise of dissent, indeed, any exercise of the liberties that define America, is un-patriotic. In my opinion, quite the reverse is true.

We are a nation of laws. That used to be unique; it's still something to be proud of. We are a nation founded on principles of reason and tolerance. The very essence of patriotism, therefore, is the honoring of those principles and respect for those laws. How can it be un-patriotic, in and of itself, to disagree with the majority? The foundation of our republic is the compromise among strong competing interests (federalism and state's rights, big and small, North and South). I submit that the strength of our constitution, the codification of what patriots supposedly honor, is directly proportional to the magnitude of its compromises.

Nor can it be un-patriotic to be wrong. Charles Lindberg supported Hitler. Nobody can claim that Lindy was not a patriot. Yet, no one would argue that the thousands of Americans who went to war to defeat Hitler were not patriots, too. So, Lindy was wrong. That doesn't diminish his patriotism.

So, who might we say is not patriotic? I believe that those who would subvert the laws of government, the Constitution, to a regime of anti-libertarian "crackdowns" are anti-American. Those who would involve the U. S. in "foreign entanglements" (as George Washington called them) for other than the public's interest are anti-American. Those who would seek to make America intolerant are anti-American. Those who would have America act in ways that are not supported by reasoned argument are anti-American. Lying to Congress about Medicare; lying to the world about terrorist activities; suspending due process for citizens (and non-citizens, for that matter); leaking the names of covert operatives for political revenge; these actions are fundamentally anti-American and, indeed, illegal.

No comments: