It started in 2002 when I wrote something about Veteran’s Day over at Armed Liberal. Here’s what I wrote in ‘I Started To Write About Veteran’s Day…’:
…and to thank the veterans alive and dead for protecting me and mine.
And worried that what I wrote kept coming out sounding either too qualified or would be interpreted as being too nationalistic.
And I realized something about my own thinking, a basic principle I’ll set out as a guiding point for the Democrats and the Left in general as they try and figure out the next act in this drama we are in.
First, you have to love America.
This isn’t a perfect country. I think it’s the best county; I’ve debated this with commenters before, and I’ll point out that while people worldwide tend to vote with their feet, there may be other (economic) attractions that pull them. But there are virtues here which far outweigh any sins. And I’ll start with the virtue of hope.
The hope of the immigrants, abandoning their farms and security for a new place here.
The hope of the settlers, walking across Death Valley, burying their dead as they went.
The hope of the “folks” who moved to California after the war.
The hope of the two Latino kids doing their Computer Science homework at Starbucks’.
I love this country, my country, my people. And those who attack her…from guerilla cells, boardrooms, or their comfy chairs in expensive restaurants…better watch out.
I don’t get a clear sense that my fellow liberals feel the same way. And if so, why should “the folks” follow them? Why are we worthy of the support of a nation that we don’t support?
So let me suggest an axiom for the New Model Democrats:
America is a great goddamn country, and we’re both going to defend it from those who attack it and fight to make it better.
And for everyone who is going to comment and remind me that ‘all liberals already do that’…no they don’t. Not when the Chancellor has to intervene at U.C. Berkeley to get “permission” for American flags to be flown and red-white-and-blue ribbons to be worn. Not when the strongest voices in liberalism give lip service to responding to an attack on our citizens on our soil.
Loving this country isn’t the same thing as jingoism; it isn’t the same thing as imperialism; it isn’t the same thing as blind support of the worst traits of our government or our people.
It starts with recognizing the best traits, and there are a hell of a lot of them.
They were worth defending in my father’s time, and they are worth defending today.
So thanks, veterans. Thanks soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen. Thanks for doing your jobs and I hope you all come home hale and whole, every one of you.
Two years ago, I discussed why I felt that being progressive did not contradict being patriotic, and why even the most ardent American leftist could – and should – embrace American exceptionalism.
Last year, I explained my own journey from disdaining the men and women who serve in the military to honoring them, pointing to Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson as an example of what our military really is made of.
This year, I want to talk about what we owe the men and women serving today.
The war we are involved in has cost 2,000 of them their lives, and many others wounds from which they may never heal. It has cost others their jobs and families as the heavy use of reserves has disrupted many lives.
First and foremost we owe them simple care. It’s outrageous that bloggers are shilling to raise a few tens of thousands of dollars to buy voice-actuated laptops for the troops. It’s outrageous that more large businesses don’t support their reservists. I’ve turned a budget-minded eye to some cuts in VA care for aging veterans who have long since returned to civilian life, but the notion that freshly-wounded veterans of current wars lack for any care is offensive.
It’s a cost of making war.
Next, we owe them personal respect. Reactions to veterans in this war is more characterized by applause than opprobrium, and that’s a good thing. It is one thing to put out a flag on Veteran’s Day, and another to go out of one’s way to shake the hand of a soldier you happen to see at an airport. I’ve done them both, and both of them feel pretty good.
Next, we owe them some measure of understanding and forgiveness. Commenter JC recently posted a thread of comments which set out the basic premise that the horrible death dealt to a child – burned to death by U.S. weapons illegitimized the war. The child’s death is, to him made more horrible by the war’s illegitimacy – I pointed out to him that because he began from the premise that the war was morally wrong, any death was automatically inherently evil.
Our soldiers deal in death, and to paraphrase Patton, their job is not to die for their country, but to see that others die for theirs. We have, in this war gone to unprecedented lengths to spare the innocent, and to act militarily with a standard of care that would have been unthinkable twenty years ago, much less in World War II. To some, it’s still not enough.
That may be the case, and the merits of the war may well be subject to argument by reasonable people (as well as the unreasonable on both sides). But the men and women who bear the arms, drop the bombs, launch the missiles and shells are – with rare exceptions – blameless. If there is moral hazard in this war, let the politicians who decided it and the citizens – like me – who supported it bear that risk. The troops who bear the physical risk should be beyond that. As they bear the physical risk for us, we should bear the moral risk for them.
And finally and most of all, we owe the soldiers a level of seriousness in discussing matters of war that has been largely absent from the discussion in the last few years. Cheap partisan and ideological struggles have been played out around the issues of this war. Both sides – again – should look and feel guilty over what they have done in the name of political advantage and expediency.
Veteran’s Day is a simple day in which we – as a nation – express our gratitude to the veterans who have sacrificed, suffered, and risked for us. Acknowledging that requires three simple things:
* To acknowledge that there is an ‘us’ on whose behalf the veterans have served.
* To acknowledge that their service itself was an honor.
* To acknowledge that our nation – like all others – owes no small part of its existence, wealth, and freedom to the simple fact that we were (and I hope are) willing to defend it with the force of arms. We are born in blood, and live with bloody hands.
Finally, to acknowledge that last moral debt with a personal commitment to make that blood others have spent for us matter. To use our freedom, build our community, do something to create a future better than our present.
Honoring our veterans today is the right thing to do. Tomorrow, join them and offer some service yourself to make the country whose uniform they wear a better place – in any way you know how.
I really like your basic ideas thier. The Libs should follow this reasoning and thier really is no reasonable reason to not. unless well they really dont love this nation. But back to point I would add just one more to your basics…
Judge US on the sum of our good deeds and not by the sum of the evil or mistakes of the past.
This tenent backwards is what brought the Libs to the anti-american ideology they are stuck in today. The washington freed the nation and gave up the norm of Kingdom for Democracy BUT he had slaves so he is irrelevent and bad. and so on.. Nothing and no one on Earth is perfect Human Nature makes that a fact personally I think that Washington’s good out weighs his evil of owning slaves at a time when most people did, after all if not for the democratic politics the slaves very likely would have never been freed and if so they would have been freed and sent back. After all if Washington would have been someone else the world we know today would be radicaly different on so many levels that I dont know how anyone can say his owning slaves outweighed the good or his impact. This on a larger scale of the US en whole is what the Libs current problem is today.
Well done. I’ve been a Democrat all my life but there NO WAY I would vote for a Democrat again unless I was convinced that they shared these sentiments.
Don’t ever give up speaking about the good in America, it takes effort to ignore it and eventually some will tire of hiding their heads.
Cordially,
Uncle J
The vast majority of Democrats are proud of this country and of those who fight to defend it. That the Republican media and government leaders have succeeded in branding Democratics as being unpatriotic and disdainful of America is the most depressing dimension to the current political climate.
The vast majority of Democrats agree with the “ends” of Bush Docctrine in the war on terror, we just disagree with the “means.” How this difference in opinion became unpatriotic,cowardly appeasement is astonishing.
Nate, the disagreement became “unpatriotic” when the Democrats allowed the virulent anti-war minority take over their agenda.
Go ahead and clean them out of the Democrat Party and return the agenda to adult debate of policies and we will all cheer.
No, Nate, it is not “astonishing” that the Republican Propogandists try to label anyone who disagrees with their unilateralist (to be generous) foreign policies as “unpatriotic”…
…it is unpatriotic in and of itself to suggest that the simple excercise of free speech in our Democracy is akin to treason.
I’ll cheer (SPQR) when the disproportionate influence of people who think like YOU are “cleaned out” (perhaps flushed is a better word) of the political discourse completely.
Even your Commandante today was uttering this kind of nonsense in his speech, basically dishonoring all the vets who fought and died to preserve the rights of all Americans to voice their opinions and have a role in directing and scrutinizing government activities.
Why do Republicans and Neocons hate America?
Sorry guys, just not true. I know and have talked to too many of my fellow D’s who identify themselves primarily as ‘cosmopolitan’ and think that patriotism is a usually harmless affectation.
No one here is tarring you or anyone else as ‘anti-American’, and one can certainly be antiwar and pro-American.
Most of the most visible members and leaders of the current antiwar movement and progressive movement don’t.
A.L.
“Most of the most visible members and leaders of the current antiwar movement and progressive movement don’t.”
Don’t…you mean “aren’t” both ant-war and Pro-American?
Oh, please. How the hell do you know this? Because Rush and Sean and Fox News keep telling you this?
Maybe you can start by defining for us what you think it means to be “Pro-American”?
I’m sure you will acknowledge that yours may be different than others…
Or maybe Professor Glenn Reynolds?
“The White House needs to go on the offensive here in a big way — and Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base, that it’s deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad.
And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they’re acting unpatriotically.”
http://instapundit.com/archives/026792.php
Notice how the Profs prescription is purely political in nature.
There’s no room for Democracy in the minds of such individuals.
So tell us, do you really think the Left (or any Patriot) should engage this vile demagoguery?
For some events worthy of Veterans Day, you might visit http://www.loc.gov/vets/ where there is a wealth of stories from veterans.
Thanks, A.L., for your love of your country.
Thank you Stanhope, for being a perfect example. Perfectly bad example actually.
bq. Sorry guys, just not true. I know and have talked to too many of my fellow D’s who identify themselves primarily as ‘cosmopolitan’ and think that patriotism is a usually harmless affectation.
And yet those “cosmpolitan Democrats” tend not the ones supporting an administration that’s arguing for the right to torture, like Armed “Liberal” is.
Funny, that. If that’s the definition of “patriot” we’re using today, count me out.
“Most of the most visible members and leaders of the current antiwar movement and progressive movement don’t.”
names, please. Both people who are, in your opinion, anti-war & anti-America n, and who are, in your opinion, anti-war & pro-American.
Michael Moore published a book of letters sent him by troops. at Tillman’s favorite author was Noam Chomsky. Kos’s forum regularly posts great diaries by soldiers, who obviously don’t feel he’s anti-American. Who exactly are you calling anti-American?
You’ll notice too how the Neocon propoganda push works.
First, its the “fringe Lefties” who are anti-American (or whatever) for being against the war in Iraq.
Then you have Professor I’m-a-pure-propogandist-but-academics-is-full-of-biased-liberals Reynolds expanding this to “Democratic Politicians” (this guy can only survive outside of academics with this kind of sloppy “thinking”).
Remember what they were able to turn Ward Churchill’s comments into? Major Dems were being held accountable for the foolish statements of one radical.
Were only the Republicans and Bush supporters held to the same standard…they’d have a lot of explaining to do over their loudmouth slandering brethren who, unfortunately, are not fringe but front and center in the party.
It’s like a cancer patient with a huge tumor growing out of his head on one side who keeps insisting that you, doctor, treat his stuffy nose, but ignore the lump!
If anyone can come up with the names of the so-called Anti-war Anti-Americans who are ruining it all for the Dems, you’ll see what I mean.
Armed Liberal:
If you venture away from the coasts you will find a tremendous amount of Democrats that are at the furthest thing possible from cosmpolitan elites. In fact, if you get out of any big city in California and travel to the outer suburbs and rural areas, you will find an abundance of gritty Democrats. California is the state that has lost the most troops in Iraq.
The leftist anti-war movement is and always has been irrelevant. As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, the real “anti-war” movement in the run-up to the invasion came from the assorted members of the “realist” right-wing, that of Brent Scowcroft, Pat Buchanon, etc. I suppose what Democrats want to know is why they aren’t ever accused of underming the boys in Iraq.
I ultimately want to know why the Republicans are allowed to closet dirty laundry like Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter and yet Democrats are accused of letting Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan sleep in the master bedroom. They are a fringe movement!
A fringe movement? That explains why Democrat House and Senate leadership are fronting for these “fringe” movements in their speeches?
Your side:
“O’Reilly to San Francisco: “[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. … You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead”.
This guy has a nightly prime time program on a major network.
Or Pat Robertson to fellow Americans in PA who voted to keep the teaching of creation out of science class: “If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin…”
This guy also has millions of viewers on his “700 club” show.
Care to even try to raise a SINGLE counter-example from the “Left”???
You do not want to get into this argument, believe me.
But anyone (Armed Liberal) willing to make statements like he did about fellow Americans who are against this war, and then run away from defending them is a coward.
Sorry guys…been too busy to respond.
Here’s a quickie:
“I take responsibility partly for my son’s death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. {applause}”
…Cindy Sheehan, who then met with:
“I met with Cindy Sheehan and three activist supporters here in my office at the DNC (two of whom were involved in the Presidential race) on Saturday after the rally. Some of you have met her, but for those who have not, I thought I would share my impressions.
She is a delightful person. She had not a drop of holier than thou zealotry. She is unpretentious and very clear. All this I expected, given the terrible sacrifice she has made, and her willingness to speak out.”
…Howard Dean.
AFAIK, Pat Buchanan became persona non grata in the Republican Party for being too out of control; my own opinion on Ann Coulter was public a “long time ago”:http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000348.html and then again “a long time ago”:http://www.armedliberal.com/archives/000329.html
A.L.
Sure, everyone get’s “too busy” when they know they’re pinched against a wall.
Cindy Sheehan? That’s it? She lost her son in Iraq and now she’s Anti-American because she’s against what her government is doing?
And Howard Dean? Supporting Cindy Sheehan for what she’s been through (sacrificing a son to fight for America) doesn’t sound in the least Anti-American to me.
But then again you’re too busy for all this. Too bad you’re not too busy to make stupid statements that you can’t back up to begin with.
Like I said, find me the public personality with millions of daily listeners who is the Left’s equivalent of Rush, Sean, O’Reilly, Hume, etc. and we can talk. Othewise, go back to what you were doing.
Bosso, not want to get into the argument? To the contrary, you already lost it.
O’Reilly and Robertson are not Republican leaders. I’ve often denounced O’Reilly as a blowhard and Robertson is a fringe whose comments have been denounced by the White House in the past.
However, the city of San Francisco ( which is what O’Reilly was refering to ) voted to resist military recruitment – that’s pretty unpatriotic and it was a majority of those casting ballots. A fringe?
As A.L. references, Cindy Sheehan – the friend of Iraqi insurgents and terrorist sympathizers – has had a lot of explicit support from core Democrats and MoveOn.org has been backing her with staff. A fringe?
Democratic leadership, not backbenchers, have been running the anti-war activist themes of continuously revisiting their mythology of the argument for the Iraq War. These are direct efforts to undermine the ongoing war on terrorism both in and out of Iraq.
Bosso, that’s freaking pathetic.
I’m not on-call for you or anyone else – this is a hobby.
You raise a fair point, which is worth engaging – “says who?” and then piss it away a) with your sophomoric tone; and b) by not acknowledging the words that came out of Sheehan’s mouth.
bzzzt. Care to play again? I’m off to a dinner party; see if you can engage the real question in a grown-up way, and I’ll play tomorrow.
A.L.
Well, I don’t want to contribute to any further erosion of civility here. But in my opinion, if Bush can meet with Pat Robertson, Howard Dean can meet with Cindy Sheehan. Both sides cater to the ugly fringes.
And one thing to remember is that the “Bush lied” debate has no real relevance on how people feel about the war. If things continue as they are or get worse, it hurts the President. If things get better, it helps him.
I was reading this blog, and was ready with some pithy response, then I realized that A.L. and R.R. have already cleaned up.
Oh well.
Preventing military recruiting is about as Anti-American as it gets. Whatever you think of the administration or your politics, the republic cannot survive unless able men stand ready.
Just to point one little thing out to the propogandists:
“Voting to restrict military recruitment” or
“Preventing military recruitment”
are not Anti-American, as you are implying.
But to suggest that it is, is.
Why do recruiters need access to the telephone numbers and addresses of minority or lower income high-school students?
Communities and parents or legal guardians have every right to restrict this access, just as they do for telemarketers.
Freedom, properly implemented, is all about restrictions imposed upon one group’s actions over anothers in order to preserve autonomy.
But, in your cases, that is Anti-American, I take it, when it means your views cannot be force-fed to others. So righteous are you in your beliefs.
Perhaps those who want to assert what they think it means to be “American” should educate themselves on the basic rights of its citizens first?
IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK???
Are you talking about “Voting to restrict military recruitment” or “Communities and parents or legal guardians have every right to restrict this access” [to personal data]
You seem to have changed topics in the middle of your post.