This article originally appears in The American Thinker
It’s nearly mid-summer here in the beautiful Midwest. The old saying about the corn being “knee high by the 4th of July” is laughably anachronistic. These days, with hybrid seeds, scientific farming methods, and soil so rich it’s almost a separate food group by itself, the corn is waist high by now and reaching for the sky.
There is perhaps no holiday I look forward to more in my adulthood than the 4th. I have several traditions that have taken hold over the years; watching the wonderful series The Revolution on the History Channel all day, playing patriotic music both old and new, steaks on the barbecue, watching the White Sox, and finally a trip to the local fireworks show.
And never far below the surface is a powerful emotion that can emerge at the most unexpected of times. Sometimes, a particular song can make the throat tighten or a passing memory of a childhood patriotic celebration will cause my eyes to mist over. These outward manifestations of patriotic feelings are, I am sure, shared by many if not most conservatives. We love this country of ours. We worship its past – the great men and women who risked so much and sacrificed all to create the greatest nation on earth. We glory in our traditions and the symbols of our nationhood.
This despite the fact that most of us also recognize that America has failed at times to live up to the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution; that to this day, the words “all men are created equal” ring hollow for those who suffer the effects of racism, sexism, and bigotry. And that we, a nation of immigrants, don’t always welcome newcomers the way we should.
This is one of the major reasons I love history. America is, at bottom, the most schizophrenic nation imaginable. As long ago as 1765 in the midst of the Stamp Act crisis, wise old Samuel Johnson, the English man of letters who compiled the first English language dictionary, wrote to a friend “Why is it we hear the loudest yelps for freedom from the drivers of Negro slaves?”
Johnson nailed the historical dichotomy of America that continues to this day. We are nation in love with peace who have fought uncounted wars and battles just since the end of World War II. We are a nation with a Statue of Liberty who welcomes immigrants with the stirring words “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, ...” who then turns around and puts up signs “No Irish need apply” or “English only spoken here.”
Herein lies the great chasm that separates liberals and conservatives when it comes to defining the word “patriotism.” The right sees patriotism as a physical, emotional connection with the past; an open acknowledgment and tribute to those who came before us and guaranteed with their blood, sweat, and tears that we, their progeny, would live in freedom. We are aware that America is not all it could be but rather than dwelling on our imperfections, we celebrate all that is good and decent in this land and its people.
The flip side of the same coin is how liberals define patriotism. They seem to intellectualize their love of country. They distrust outward displays of patriotic emotion, tending to equate fervor with patriotism’s evil twin – nationalism. Liberals see a problematic past for America and are not shy about pointing out where America has fallen short in its promises of liberty and equality.
But does this mean that liberals are less patriotic than conservatives?
Is it unpatriotic to want your country to live up to its extraordinary ideals? Is it unpatriotic to criticize what liberals see as hypocrisy in our history, where we celebrate freedom while keeping millions in bondage? Or speak glowingly of Native American culture while treating them abysmally?
Last week, Peter Beinart penned the most thoughtful article on patriotism of the right and left I have ever read. In it, he demonstrated that just because the two sides define the word differently doesn’t mean that both don’t love America equally. Here’s how Beinart, a man of the left, defines the way liberals see patriotism:
If conservatives tend to see patriotism as an inheritance from a glorious past, liberals often see it as the promise of a future that redeems the past. Consider Obama’s original answer about the flag pin: “I won’t wear that pin on my chest,” he said last fall. “Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.” Will make this country great? It wasn’t great in the past? It’s not great as it is?The liberal answer is, Not great enough. For liberals, America is less a common culture than a set of ideals about democracy, equality and the rule of law. American history is a chronicle of the distance between those ideals and reality. And American patriotism is the struggle to narrow the gap. Thus, patriotism isn’t about honoring and replicating the past; it’s about surpassing it.
Just this past Monday, Barack Obama, feeling his patriotism questioned, gave a similar explanation for where his own patriotism flows:
As I got older, that gut instinct – that America is the greatest country on earth – would survive my growing awareness of our nation’s imperfections: it’s ongoing racial strife; the perversion of our political system laid bare during the Watergate hearings; the wrenching poverty of the Mississippi Delta and the hills of Appalachia. Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief – that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father’s steadying hand, it is this essential American idea – that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will – that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.
That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America’s ideals – ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one. It is the application of these ideals that separate us from Zimbabwe, where the opposition party and their supporters have been silently hunted, tortured or killed; or Burma, where tens of thousands continue to struggle for basic food and shelter in the wake of a monstrous storm because a military junta fears opening up the country to outsiders; or Iraq, where despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the courage of many ordinary Iraqis, even limited cooperation between various factions remains far too elusive.
I believe those who attack America’s flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.
A fair minded person can read what Obama says and get the sense that his idea of patriotism really isn’t that much different from the love of country expressed by conservatives. He condemns the mindless hatred many on the far left express about America while aknowledging that honoring the symbols and history of America is a legitimate way to express one’s patriotism. The key to his love of America, though, is his belief that where our past comes up short in living up to our ideals, it is our patriotic duty to close that gap.
Beinart shows how even though there are different ways that liberals and conservatives express their love of country, they are both necessary and vital for a whole America:
When it comes to patriotism, conservatives and liberals need each other, because love of country requires both affirmation and criticism. It’s a good thing that Americans fly the flag on July 4. In a country as diverse as ours, patriotic symbols are a powerful balm. And if people stopped flying the flag every time the government did something they didn’t like, it would become an emblem not of national unity but of political division. On the other hand, waving a flag, like holding a Bible, is supposed to be a spur to action. When it becomes an end in itself, America needs people willing to follow in the footsteps of the prophets and remind us that complacent ritual can be the enemy of true devotion.Patriotism should be proud but not blind, critical yet loving. And liberals and conservatives should agree that if patriotism entails no sacrifice, if it is all faith and no works, then something has gone wrong. The American who volunteers to fight in Iraq and the American who protests the war both express a truer patriotism than the American who treats it as a distant spectacle with no claim on his talents or conscience.
In a very real sense, Beinart’s ideas are as revolutionary as America itself. His connecting the two different yet essential forms of patriotism harkens back to our founding where two competing views on the nature of man fought for dominance at the Constitutional Convention.
The difference between liberal and conservative on this point is profound and has been at the bottom of every political argument in our history. It goes back to the debate over the Constitution – between those who possessed what historian Page Smith referred to as a “classical Christian conscience” and those who believed in the values and precepts of the enlightenment.
Smith believed that the Constitution is infused with elements of both but that the classical Christain conscience dominates. It is the belief that man is inherently evil and will do mischief to his fellow man unless restrained by law and governance. (Smith ascribed a belief in original sin and man’s corruptibility as prerequisites for the classical Christian conscience.) Most of the Federalists ended up in this camp if only because they saw a need to restrain the passions of the common man and keep a strong hand on the tiller of state.
The Jeffersonians had a much more expansive and benign view of human nature. They believed in the perfectibility of man and, like true children of the enlightenment, saw man as basically good but error prone. By applying rational and reasoned concepts to government, Jeffersonians believed man was perfectly capable of governing himself as long as sensible laws were enacted to govern his passions.
One can immediately see the basics of the liberal-conservative schism in this debate over the shape of our constitution. And if you were to extrapolate a bit, you can even see how two definitions of patriotism could emerge from the competing philosophies.
I hold out little hope that many readers (at least those who leave comments) on this site or most sites on the internet would grant Mr. Beinart the legitimacy of his thesis. The patriotism issue is just too emotionally charged and too closely identified with the war for most of us to let go of our petty vindictiveness and grant the opposition the one thing both sides crave the most; recognition that they are acting with the best interests of the United States uppermost in their hearts and minds.
I’m not saying everyone should abandon political combat and move into some loathsome kind of Obama-led paradise where everybody agrees about everything and our great national debates on the war, the energy crisis, the budget, or social issues would suddenly be stilled as we all recognize the error of our ways and come together to hold hands around the great American campfire. That sickening kind of political heaven might be attractive to the ignorant but idealistic young and a segment of the left that sees opposition to its policies the same way the Catholic Church viewed Martin Luther.
But it is not for me. I will continue to battle the left with anger at times but also humor, sarcasm, and satire – hopefully vouchsafing the genuineness of their beliefs and yes, their patriotism in opposing me.
That’s an ideal that all of us – liberal and conservative – can live up to.
9:20 pm
It is quite easy to accept Peter Beinhart’s thesis, but, as I posted before under the subject of patriotism, we can accept the critiques of the past and present by liberals, but not necessarily the ideas or plans for the future. There seem to be the following ideological contretemps between conservatives and liberals:
1. Realism, not Relativism
2. Skepticism, not Progressivism
3. Evolved Order, not Constructivism
4. Federalism, not Statism
5. Capitalism, not Collectivism
6. Theism, not Secularism
7. Sovereignty, not Internationalism
8. Personal Responsibility, not Central Solutions to All Problems
9. Moral Rectitude, not Hedonism
10. Rejection of liberalism, socialism, communism, and pacifism, not acceptance
11. Charity, not welfare, insofar as possible, but yes, aid the truly needy
12. Proactive defense of the nation, not passive response.
9:49 pm
The first six of these comparisons were from Brad Minor in his “The Short Conservatism Encyclopedia”.
10:25 pm
You are right, I am having a hard time swallowing this, for this basic reason:
The Democrat party of today is not your father’s democrat party.
It is filled with hard left socialists (they prefer the word “progressive” or socialist leaning people who do not like the basic fundamentals of our country and seek to change them.
They do not love this country, they wish to change it so that they CAN love it the way they envision it.
They, for the most part, do not fight against the war because or moral reasons, they are against it for political reasons. They do not fight, for the most part, for the environment for moral reasons, they are political movements.
We are on the verge of electing our first full fledged socialist as President (Mccain may not be conservative but he’s not a socialist) with a congress led by said “progressives” (believe me, as an ex californian, I have been watching Pelosi for years) who threaten impeachment as a punishment, war crimes against a sitting Executive Branch, nationalizing oil companies and virtually unlimited access to your wallet, not to mention a liberal Supreme Court that took away your property rights in trade for private development, free speech rights during elections and 40% of whom think the 2nd Amendment is negotiable.
Patriotic? Do they love America? Not in my view, not until it joins the socialist community.
Happy Independence Day 2008!
8:59 am
I spent the 4th with a mixture of people. All of the democrats are dead inside. They are only concerned with themselves and money, nothing more. No patriotism or care about the country in any shape or form (if it doesn’t benefit them personally, and isn’t free, then screw it) to see there. Remember who fought the civil rights act and are still supporting slavery (criminal aliens crossing the border in violation of established law) so they can have their ‘cheap’ house and ground keepers and field negro’s of a different color.
9:19 am
In my experience, the more informed people are, the more likely they are to be conservative. The more they have worked in the private sector, the more conservative they are. The more they have seen the results of socialism, communism or totalitarianism first hand, the more conservative they are.
I wish for no end to the current battle between right and left. We are engaged in an ideological war and only when my opponent “reaches across the aisle” by waving the white flag will I be happy. When he abandons his plans to change my country into something that I will no longer recognize as the land of the free, I will welcome him. I will grant that his brand of patriotism is equivalent to mine when he recognizes that the Founders’ Constitution is superior to anything that his judges and ACLU can conceive.
I understand Beinart’s thesis, and see merit in some aspects of it. Certainly many progressives are well-intentioned, good-hearted people. I fear, however, that many of them have no knowledge of the dark history of their own political movement – nor do they see the unsavory and anti-capitalist forces in the shadows behind their current crop of politicians. I agree with Marv: most progressives have been swept by emotion into what is at its base a corrupt play to reattain political power.
3:49 pm
America was founded by great people who were courageous and unselfish in creating a government of the people, by the people and for the people. This is truly to be celebrated.
I don’t see democrats or republicans; or members of the left or the right on Independence Day (calling it the 4th of July is like calling Christmas the sparkle season) – I see only other Americans. I care greatly for the people of America but have only disdain for our current president/regime, contempt for our do nothing cowardly congress and especially loath the illegal federal reserve system that has become a parasite, sapping the prosperity and freedom from our citizens.
Today, our government is much more akin to the tyrants who ruled the English empire than to the humble, restrained and law abiding government our forefathers created.
I took great pleasure in lighting off illegal fireworks as a patriotic act of defiance in the face of a government that has become largely dysfunctional, corrupt and criminal. This is not their nation, it is ours, and we need to take it back.
Stop by and read my patriotic post at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/4/20614/42125/818/534118
This is an extension of a comment I had posted here earlier.
4:18 pm
“I hold out little hope that many readers (at least those who leave comments) on this site or most sites on the internet would grant Mr. Beinart the legitimacy of his thesis. The patriotism issue is just too emotionally charged and too closely identified with the war for most of us to let go of our petty vindictiveness and grant the opposition the one thing both sides crave the most; recognition that they are acting with the best interests of the United States uppermost in their hearts and minds.”
Looks like you are correct, Rick!
6:02 am
And they say time travel’s not possible. Hah! I come here to Rick’s comments and it’s always 1968. Tired minds trapped in some imagined past.
I’m a Democrat. I am not remotely a socialist. There’s not a single government department I want to create. Not a single government department that I want to keep that would not also carry 75% of the GOP members of Congress.
Like Mr. Obama, I favor a larger military, and have for a long time. (In fact, quite a bit longer than most of you Rumsfeld-ennabling GOP water carriers.) Like Mr. Obama, I am a great believer in individual responsibility. Like Mr. Obama, I love my country. Unlike Mr. Obama, but like Rick Moran, I am entirely secular.
There is this strange disconnect between Rick and the commenters here. He’s clearly not a prisoner of tired 60’s era cold war, Nixonian cliches, but most of you are. You want to know why the GOP is losing ground? You’ve stopped being the party of ideas, and started being the party of the past.
Is the idea that Obama wants a bigger military another one of his “pivots” toward the center? Follow the link to this video of Obama talking about how he wants to gut the defense department and you tell me?
ed.
12:10 pm
I wonder why Reynolds picked 1968? Many, if not most of the conservative ideas date back to perhaps 100 BC (for you youngsters, that means Before Christ). That these ideas have survived over 2 thousand years attests to their enduring strength and relevance.
It is the liberal democrat that wishes to push hedonism, relativism, and the rest of their “do what feels good” agenda, abortion, and on and on…to the detrement of our society. They should be ashamed to claim 50 million baby killings as one of their “legacies”.
Talking about tired ideas, holding up secularism as a positive position merely tags one as missing the better part of the spiritual, religious experience in life, and shows one to be a deadender.
(See comment #1 for a more complete list of liberal nonsense—the second item per line)
1:58 pm
Rick:
He said he wanted to decluearize. Lots of pro-defense moderates—Sam Nunn—agree.
He talked about delaying new weapons systems. He didn’t specify, but I’d guess air superiority (over whom?) fighters, nuclear attack subs and few other such expensive toys. You can round up a lot of generals who’d agree that new weapons systems are not what matters. I doubt Petraeus and Odierno are crying for new computerized mobile artillery systems (great for defending the Fulda gap) or anti-missile systems or the latest high-tech ASW sensor. They’re fighting guys who’s high-end weapon is a mortar or an RPG.
We are not in trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan because we lack combat aircraft or subs or carriers, we’re in trouble because we lack soldiers/Marines. We lack airlift. We lack drones. We’re having trouble because we don’t have enough of the unglamorous things that careerist Pentagon generals don’t care much about.
Unless I watched the wrong tape I didn’t see Obama say he’d cut special forces, or armored personnel carriers or battlefield communications systems, or airlift, or additional training, or veteran’s benefits. None of which mundane things do much to put a fourth star on anyone’s shoulder or ensure a nice post-retirement position at Raytheon. Those things just happen to be what we need.
1:28 pm
It seems that many generals tend to fight the last war they were in, or the war they are in right now. Few seem to be able to project the types of warfare we will be drawn into in the future, as is clearly illustrated by the many deficiencies we have had in the Iraq/
Afghanistan conflicts.
So what can be concluded about our weapon and C4I developments? That obviously depends heavily on the possible conflicts we may face, and in what timeframe. We have fought several classes of warfare since WWII, including insurgencies and large-scale land engagements.
In the near term, it appears that insurgencies, or minor land engagements leading to insurgencies are the main threat. This leads to the need for trained manpower, small-scale weapons, transport, power projection, and good C4I capabilities.
However, in the intermediate and long term, say ten years out and longer, we may well be faced with major conflicts with our usual cold war enemies—Russia and China—singly or in concert. Both appear to be rearming with upgraded weapons systems of all types at a rapid pace, in conjunction with their growing economic power.
They are also equipping their client nations with some first-line weapons systems, notably aircraft. Their manpower pool is certainly significant. So is their nuclear capability, which negates our nuclear advantage.
It seems to me that this argues for continued development of major weapons systems at a well-planned pace in order to: 1)stay competitive in the armament field; and 2)to be able to ramp up production of superior weapons in the event of need downstream. We also need to maintain the volunteer army at an increased level and maintain ready reserves as well.
Since major weapons of the F-22, F-35, Virginia Class Subs, Carriers, and fighting vehicles require many years to conceive, develop, test, and field, the time to start is yesterday, as we have indeed been doing.
At the moment we are using weapons systems that in some cases are much older than the men manning them (B-52Hs and F-15s, for example), and one can argue that the useful life of such equipment is running out quickly, in particular when compared to newer items being fielded by our potential enemies.
We should not complacently be dismantling our weapons industries for a short-term “peace dividend” either. We are still suffering from the Clinton reductions on force that Bush only belatedly began to reverse.
Are we heading in the Clinton head-in-sand direction once more? What does military history tell us about being prepared?
5:22 pm
No one is suggesting we dismantle our defense establishment. But choices have to be made. We cannot buy everything.
China has nothing in the air, or on the drawing board that touches our air superiority. They have no capacity to challenge our naval power in the near or medium term. Their ability to project forces overseas is non-existent. Their defense budget is far smaller than ours, and even smaller when contrasted with us and our allies.
They share borders with a hostile India, a potentially unstable Russia, a hostile Vietnam, an unstable North Korea and various ‘Stans. We have borders with Mexico and Canada. Right now, today, China cannot credibly threaten Taiwan, let alone Japan or us. And no one in his right mind would trade our geostrategic position for theirs.
It’s true that some of our weapons systems are old. But that’s often a misleading fact. Aging bombers carry some very up-to-date ordnance. Aging carriers launch state of the best fighters on earth and state-of-the-art cruise missiles.
There is not a power, or combination of powers, that could take the US on in a conventional war. There are, however, any number of forces that can take us on in asymmetric warfare. That’s what we need to be ready to fight. And nothing Mr. Obama has proposed in any way diminishes those capabilities.
8:25 pm
Your points seem true for now, but I was carefully projecting out ten or more years, where enough time has elapsed for our potential enemies to field new rounds of weapons equal to or superior to what we currently rely upon. They have the revenues now, and the will.
I am quite aware of the state of our forces versus current threats, but I do not have direct insight into what Russia or China might field in 10, 15, or 20 years. They are capable of building top-level weapons systems in such a period of time, I believe, especially if they acquire our technology, plans and data via a vigorous spy campaign, as they have done in the past.
Further, with the democrats in power, I would not be surprised to see our forces drawn down and not renewed as they should be, thus leaving us with a sham for an armed forces by comparison in the out years. Clintonism again, or Obamaism.
The real point is, we need both kinds of capabilities to be worked upon and ready for production and deployment in the fairly near future. We should choose wisely, of course, but this does not mean gutting the F-22, new fighting vehicles, The Virginia class subs, etc. We are replacing carriers to maintain a modern force at a slow pace, and the navy has invested in the super hornet to go with the carriers. among other things…
We seem to be aware that we need updated tankers! A pity it had to be influenced away from Boeing—so far.
8:47 pm
First off I findit laughable that Obama’s love of country matches those of the men who landed at Tarawa or even the men one finds in a VFW ghall. I doubt his vision of America would match most people at a bowling alley although I gather most faculty lounges can accept it without trouble.
For those who argue that the military can be cut back I have no doubt that they are all graduates of our staff colleges and have spent long years serving the flag.
Unfortunately one has only to have a passing knowledge of history to realize what happened in 1940 when the world’s strongest army was humbled in six weeks. Or how those ignorant, bakward Japanese who were so nearsighted ruled the sky for the first six months of the war although we were assured in the pre war period the Japanese couldn’t design an original aircraft let alone a superior one. And so thousands of American sailors and airmen were sacrificed for those who thought military spending and research could be sacrificed.
In reading the comments above I remember only too well a conversation I had Thanksgiving 2000. Someone argued we could cut our defense budget because we were the only super power and who would dare attack us. We were to witness what some hateful people sitting in caves in Afghanistan could accomplish shortly. More Americans were to die at these people hands than at the hands of any other foreign enemy.
Today we see the saw Russian bombers probing our air defenses and PRC subs probing our naval defences while we are assured by those who would never serve, nor honor their betters, that a reduction in our defensive expenditures is nothing to worry about.
Do not worry that today there are over 35 nations with nuclear delivery systems comapred to six twenty years ago. Do not worry that nuclear and biological weapons are spreading.
Just click your heels three times andsprinkle the magic pixie dust and all these events will vanish. And indeed they will, for one day when we least expect it you will awake to a blinding flash and will no longer have to worry because your military wasn’t well enough equipped, prepared, or trained to prevent it. But why worry these commenters bray, after all just look at France in 1940.
8:49 pm
We have been surprised at the start of just about every conflict in the last 100 years by the technology and the products of our enemies.
We had to buy fighters from France in WWI because we didn’t have anything near as good. We were surprised in WWII by all manner of innovation by Germany, and even by the UK. In Korea, we were very surprised by the Mig-15s capabilities. In Nam, we were not really ready for the type of battles we were in, which carried over to Iraq in many ways.
In these cases, we had the time to react with our production capabilities, but not without real pain in battle until we had better weapons. We did not have a decent tank till about the end of WWII. The Sherman was literally cannon-fodder.
If we are not to dismantle our military and industrial capabilities, there must be many programs for them to work on, many men recruited and trained, and many really fine weapons developed, tested and fielded, in my opinion. That is the price we must pay.
5:58 am
Not sure EVERYONE would agree that conservatives are the descendants of Jeffersonians, but I like it.
And Mr Reynolds, all do respect, you seem a bit out of touch:
1) Iraq isn’t a disaster, even Obama thinks he might be able to find the guts to stay in the mix there:
See Here.
And Here.
And Here.
2) And… ...Obama pretty much said he would gut the military:
See Here.
And for fun, I love this on the ‘unproven missile defense systems’ Here.
3) And finally, I am really disturbed in the way the speaker of the house and far too many other democrats find themselves sitting with and negotiating with terrorist states (like Syria), terrorist organizations (like FARC), and working tirelessly to gut our war efforts. These are not the actions of patriots, but the actions of traitors. It becomes very hard to reach across the aisle, when the person on the other side is working to de-fund your boy who is fighting for freedom in Iraq, or is sitting down with an author of terrorism who is responsible for the kidnappings and/or deaths of your friends and allies.
6:03 am
sorry abt typo, meant ‘due’ not ‘do’.
6:06 am
Our situation today is in now way analogous to 1940. In 1940 we had a small army, and a decent but by no means dominant navy. Several nations could rival our industrial and technological capacity. Today we are unchallenged.
As for complaining about Democrats hollowing out the military, excuse me, but I’ve been through this bull——before. All through the Clinton years Republicans cried that we had a hollow military, too small to win a war. And what did Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld do when they were given the chance to fix this alleged problem? They pivoted and decided that the very force they had decried as too small and too weak could be smaller still and yet manage to fight two wars simultaneously.
I remember very well in the days immediately after the Iraq invasion when I would write that we had too small a force in Iraq, too small a force level overall, and be derided as everything from a coward to a traitor by loud-mouthed GOP water-carriers who insisted there was no problem, no problem at all. Well, there was and is a problem. If the Clinton army was too small to maintain peace, then no one but a damned fool would argue that the same force was adequate to fight two wars.
And yet, that’s exactly what Republicans argued.
Sorry, boys, but Republicans have zero credibility on this. Zero.
7:26 am
Zorn
I didn’t say Iraq was a disaster.
Obama didn’t say he’d gut the military.
As for negotiating with terrorist states. You mean like North Korea?
Got anything else?
4:26 pm
Reynolds:
I see you just don’t get the point do you. France had the finest army in Europe yet it was crushed by a smaller force that had better doctriine, technology, morale and organization. Just as France believed its technology was supreme you fall victim to the same mindset. Sadly you ignore the fact or are unaware of the fact that technology rests with no nation. The price the French and the West paid was the Germans marching through Paris.
Indeed a 50% reduction of the military by Clinton has hollowed outthe US military. We see how it is stretched to fight in two relatively minor theaters. One can imagine how well we would do if we had to fight the PRC without nuclear weapons or if North Korea were to become aggressive today. Yes Bush didn’t expand the military, a serious mistake.
But we are treated to the bogus Obama who promises to cut the military.
Thank you for demonstrating your military expertise and years of service sir. Only someone who suffered the rigerous training endured in a sandbox could reach the conclusions you have.
So now we are to thrust the national security of the nation to a party that hasn’t been right about national security in fifty years?
Americans believed they reigned supreme in technology in 1940. It didn’t matter that its army was smaller than Poland’s. It didn’t matter that its aircraft were obsolete. It didn’t matter that the navy’s optics, torpedoes, or fire control were inferior to the Japanese. After all those who were responsible were going to pay the butcher’s bill for being wrong.
As the army discovered when it first met the Germans in North Africa, or the Navy at Guadalcanal or Nidway. Or the thousands of tank crews or aircrews who went to their deaths because their equipment was thought to be effective by people as thoroughly versed with the military as you obviously are.
Let us rather embrace the philosophy of those who tell us not to worry about our freedoms and the safety of those who must guard our freedoms with toss off lines from the DU. The French did as did those at Oxford when they said they wouldn’t fight for King nor country and encouraged those with a more realistic view of politics to plunge the world into war.
But we can be happy that the 65 million who died listened to such tripe.
5:12 pm
TJ:
I don’t think I’m going to waste any more of my time.
11:34 pm
Beinart paints a far too benign picture of contemporary liberalism’s take on America. Liberals do not love their country; they absolutely despise a majority of its citizens and believe its history is one long tale of genocide and destruction. Liberalism is born of adolescent narcissm, ignorance, and a deep psychological problem with authority. To quote Beinart:
“Thus, patriotism isn’t about honoring and replicating the past; it’s about surpassing it.”
For liberals, I believe “patriotism” is about repudiating the past.
8:24 am
Samuel:
Liberals repudiate the country’s past? You mean, the way they hate freedom of religion and association and the press? (I thought liberals were the press.) Or is it their deep and abiding hatred of the anti-slavery movement. Or perhaps their contempt or women’s suffrage? Or the labor movement. Or Civil Rights. Or their unending hostility toward Jefferson and Lincoln? How about World War II, in which we were led by the ur-liberal, FDR?
Look, genius, this country’s “past” covers a lot of ground. You decide—on some basis that only makes sense to you—that some of our past is our real past, and other parts of our past are somehow not, and then manage to convince yourself that because liberals despise slavery and genocide and Jim Crow that they hate America.
Um . . . what?
Do conservatives somehow honor slavery and genocide and Jim Crow? Are there no parts of our past that trouble conservatives just a bit? Really proud of that whole Mexican-American War thing? That wild-eyed radical Ulysses Grant despised that war. You kind of think what we did to the Cherokee and the Seminoles was no biggie?
Conservatives hate a lot of this nation’s past. They are ashamed of a lot of our past. Liberals hate a lot of it. I think if you put ten minutes thought into the matter you’d discover (surprise!) that there’s about a 90% overlap.
9:08 am
[...] Do Liberals Love America Too? Right Wing Nut House [...]
4:29 pm
Wow I see Reynolds just can’t help himself. Such ignorance is just too laughable.
Ashamed of slavery? I never owned a slave. What country in 1776 had outlawed slavery?
I am ashamed of those who display such vast ignorance.
Do us all a favor and don’t waste bandwidth or our time with such braying.
11:36 pm
Reynolds: There is much to be proud of in American history, including our evolution on basic civil rights for all citizens. Liberals acknowledge none of it. To them, America remains an unrepentent racist nation bent on subjugating all people of color and exploiting the world’s poor.
You are deeply confused. Liberals do hate freedom of religion (if it is Christianity) and freedom of the press when it says something they don’t like (i.e. The “Fairness Doctrine”). Leftists routinely abolish both of these freedoms as soon as they take power.
Our past contains many mistakes (e.g FDR’s internment camps), but on the whole is a tale that is an inspiration to humanity. I will stand against those who wish to fundamentally “change” America into a multicultural socialist tyranny by rewriting history to focus on the worst of the past in order to deligitimize our culture.
11:12 pm
Samuel Davis Said:
“I will stand against those who wish to fundamentally “change” America into a multicultural socialist tyranny by rewriting history to focus on the worst of the past in order to deligitimize our culture.”
Ya won’t be alone,those that judge the actions and beliefs of people long gone by present standards miss the courage they showed in opposing the established institutions of the day.Those who believe our forebears lacked an anti-slavery bias are to ill informed to have read the original drafts of The Declaration of Independence or writings of those most honorable men,those who believe in the absolute right of an Imperial Spanish Monarchy would be unworthy to have stood against the Monarch of England as our founders did,those who disparage our Protestant identity would have us thank politicians for our freedoms instead of hold them as a gift from God almighty and no mans to deny,those that would have us give up our arms would have us ignore that those that took up arms against their own government recognised it second only to free speech as a fundamental and indespensible right.Liberals may have fondness for our nation but are too ill informed to fully appreciate its basic decency and the incredible vision of honorable men and cry to little to late no matter the achievement and Conservatives simple marvel at their creations resilience and the short period it has taken for that vision to reshape the world.
12:24 am
[...] Do Liberals Love America Too? Right Wing Nut House Share With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
8:49 am
[...] In order to improve America you must dissent from what is, in order to achieve what should be. I have written of this definitional difference of patriotism between the right and left and Obama himself has [...]