Another Member of the Reality-Based Community	No	Utopia
	.. ....W H A T ' S . A . S W E E T H E A R T . L I K E . Y O U . D O I N ' . I N . A . D U M P . L I K E . T H I S ?

HOME

COMMENTARY

ESSAYS/STORIES

POEMS/SONGS

GRAPHICS

ARCHIVES

ROSHI BOB

LINKS

CONTACT

A Patriot's Game Jim Culleny I finally got around to reading David McCullough’s biography of John Adams. Adam’s, who became our 2nd president, was quite a guy and, in essential ways, seems to have had his head screwed on straight. As one who was instrumental in urging the U.S.A. through the pangs of birth, he fortunately had the clarity of mind and historical understanding to see and address the basic threat to political liberty. In short: vain men (not meaning to be sexist, this would include monomaniacal, vain women --if they ever get their hands on the levers of power). Adams was very unequivocal. "There is danger from all men," he said, and went on, "The only maxim of government ought to be, trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." A healthy scepticism, in other words, is the first defense against evil-doers looking to rob you blind of everything worth living for, as well as those with good intentions who create conditions that amount to the same thing. An associate recently suggested to me that criticism of the president amounted to treason. He said that if someone didn’t like it here, they should go elsewhere. This is a bad old idea last heard during the Viet Nam era, but which is lately gaining new respectability. It’s a lazy idea that’s just too easy to fall back upon. But consider it’s flip side: If someone would prefer living under the rule of one (as in a fascist dictatorship or or some other form of institutionalised egocentrism), why don’t they split to Bagdad or Egypt and see what stifled criticism is really all about? Then the rest of us can get on with the untidy process of arguing things out without being badgered by 21st century Tories. We didn’t get where we are today by putting too much power in the hands of executives -(current corporate meltdowns excepted). Attorney General John Ashcroft has said that critics of his anti-terrorist policies are giving "ammunition to America’s enemies". This sorry old club has been used to bash heads before. It was wielded most notably by freak-out anti-communist Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s. That ruthless senator, chaired the House Un-American Activities Committee, and ran roughshod over everything John Adams and his fellow rebels risked the noose for. Finally though, the country woke up. Republican senator Margaret Chase Smith, the first member of congress who found the courage to publicly confront McCarthy, said at the time, "Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism are all too frequently those who . . . ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism—the right to criticize, the right to hold unpopular beliefs, the right to protest, the right of independent thought." This was well said, and proved it’s possible that even a Republican can have faith in the constitution. Ok then, what exactly does it mean to be patriotic? Well, there’s that old one from Samuel Johnson. He said patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels. Too true. The dictionary, though, defines it as "love of country", which only begs another question: What, my fellow Americans, is love? But this is a provocative old puzzle that we’re probably not going to solve while gearing up for a war with Iraq. Most simply put, I think love of country is never having to say, "Ok, Mr. President, I’m swallowing the whole thing, hook, line, and sinker. Anything you say Head Bubba." The late journalist, Edward R. Murrow, claimed that critical thinking is not incompatible with patriotism. He said, "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies," he continued, "...the soul of America dies with it." After all, patriots, didn’t we cut our national teeth as a country of dissenters? We have a great tradition to uphold, the views of the present administration notwithstanding. Columnist Thomas Friedman in a recent commentary summarized the current view of many human rights advocates around the world. They tell him that, "America as an idea, as a source of optimism and as a beacon of liberty is critical to the world — but you Americans seem to have forgotten that since 9/11. You've stopped talking about who you are, and are only talking now about who you're going to invade, oust or sanction." If a liberty-loving America is going to survive such constipated, safety-first thinking we need a counterforce to this drift. Against John Ashcroft’s cranky call for unanimity we have, most thankfully, the example of mega-patriot John Adams’ who warned that men ought to "...avow their opinions and defend them with boldness." The decisions of each of us regarding which of these men and ideas is more credible and appropriate to our role as world democratic example will determine if Old Glory will continue to signify hope.