I Love My Country, But It Doesn’t Always Love Me
Featured, Social Justice — By M. Morford on July 4, 2010 at 8:00 amI love the USA. I love everything about it. I love the Constitution (and ALL of the amendments) and the Declaration of Independence. I love the Founding Fathers – those who “pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.” I love my country as a parent loves a child – fiercely and relentlessly – but this does not mean that I agree with – or support – every decision or am proud of every venture.
As a kid, my heart soared with patriotic songs; God Bless America, America the Beautiful and This Land is Your Land. I loved songs that proclaimed the bounty, resourcefulness and sense of community that made America great and welcoming. I was proud that my country was the world’s land of opportunity and refuge. I loved the monuments – the Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore and the parks that represented protection and honoring of our natural legacies. I love my country, and I expect it to always be better. The past is not good enough. What other countries do is not good enough. My country is defined by the first word of its name: “United.” We are not a loose federation of states who each make their own way and bicker about every issue under the guise of “states rights.” We are the United States and we stand strongest, proudest, and truest to ourselves when we stand and work together.
As a child I assumed that others – adults in particular – shared my glowing pride and sense of identity with my country.
I have been called “Un-American” many times in my life, but surely it is those who belittle our leaders, undermine (or profit from) our political system and set our states and political parties against each other who are truly and deeply UnAmerican. Patriotism, like faith, is perhaps more
widely known by its distortions; cynicism and manipulation. In any other era, these people would be seen as traitors, but since they try to dress like patriots of long ago – and quote – highly selectively – from the Founding Fathers, they claim the territory of patriotism. Their claim that “We the people” only applies to those who agree with them could not be further from the truly historic civil generosity that makes – and has always made – America strong and attractive to peoples from around the world.
In the old days, traitors hid their treasonous intentions. Today’s traitors are proud of their treason. They broadcast (sometimes literally) their hatred of their own country. How did a nation founded by immigrants become defined by its resentment against immigrants? How did “freedom of religion” become freedom for some? How did public events, like the National Day of Prayer, lose track of what prayer is – a time of humility, worship and reflection – and become a political exercise in nationalistic bravado? How did the term “We the people” lose its context of strength, courage and unity to become the slogan of every splinter group’s public tantrum? These people call themselves “real Americans” with all the passion and sincerity of someone yelling “I’m not drunk!” They say they love America, but they dishonor everything that makes our nation great.
Many seem to think that US stands for (people like) US – not United States. These “real Americans” seem eager to proclaim their ignorance. “ America” after all, is not a nation – it a continent – actually two. Someone born in and who never leaves Argentina, El Salvador or Brazil can legitimately calls themselves “real Americans.” In fact, “real Americans” across the Western Hemisphere are far more likely to speak Spanish than English. These “real Americans” seem to be as ignorant of history as they are of geography. They forget that the first permanent settlement in what is now the USA is St Augustine, Florida, founded in 1565, by the Spanish – over 50 years before the landing at Plymouth Rock – and over 200 years before the American Revolution?
Imagine someone who says that they love their family, yet does everything to destroy their neighbor’s family. Would anyone call that a love of family? Do we demonstrate our love of country by intervening in other countries? Surely love of country presumes a respect for the love citizens of another country have for their own nation. What do these “patriots” love? Certainly not the land. Obviously not our political process. Not the free and open political participation of every citizen. Not even our own history. They distort and manipulate our past, are afraid of the future and don’t like the present. They hate authority – but want it for themselves. They love freedom – but would deny it to others. They proclaim their faith, but mock the faith of others. Could there be anything more purely un-American? Silly hats and soundbites are no substitute for real love of country. True patriotism is not “safe” or formulaic and does not resort to stereotyping and name-calling. A true patriot unites us and reminds us of who we are at our best and calls us to sacrifice and courage – not cowardice and negativity. A true patriot is an informed citizen. I love my country with a fierceness far beyond lapel pins and cliché’s. I want America to be great – I want us to be worthy of those grand documents that proclaimed freedom, refuge and opportunity.
America, at its best, has stood as a political, religious and economic refuge to those persecuted and uprooted by circumstance, hence the greeting to the world and all of history from the Statue of Liberty;
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.”
31 Comments
If I weren’t so narcissistic, I would love this. Since I am, this piece ruined my day because I didn’t write it.
Seriously, thanks. I find it frustrating that a lot of people — on the right and left — claim to love America but don’t seem to like Americans that much. I’ve seen it when some of my liberal colleagues make jokes about rednecks and when neo-cons like Christian radio host Frank Pastore goes on a scourge against immigrants as if the whole world didn’t really belong to God. Good stuff. God bless the USA.
I agree a lot of people have regrettable attitudes, but I wonder what purpose it serves to complain about them. M, isn’t there some good you see in people that you’d like to write about?
I’ll say it. This seems like a “public tantrum” – full of stereotypes and vague negative sentiments that always apply to someone else, no tangible specifics or actions steps.
Thinking back on my own comment, it’s more harsh that it should have been. I’m sorry.
I am tired of the mysterious and almost unidentifiable “they” on both sides. “They” resent immigrants, want to destroy families, hate the land? It seems like a caricature, and it seems like we should be better than that. Just because people disagree with us doesn’t mean they are less educated, more hateful, or uninformed. It doesn’t even mean they have radically different values. Among Christians, especially, it seems like we should be called to represent others honestly and fairly, even if we think they’re wrong. If nothing else, arguing against the opposing viewpoints well must involve identifying them fairly, at least to ourselves. It seems like this piece almost went there, but dipped into negativity and stereotypes (the very thing it tries to argue against), instead.
I have to say that I find my critics quite fascinating.
I generally don’t like to be “vague”, but my sense is that not only are those I criticize NOT “mysterious and almost unidentifiable” – they are in every day’s news, my neighborhood, my (and probably your) church.
I could list, document and show “actions” against every lunatic fringe group out there. But why even give the slightest credence to the deranged and destructive fantasies of the birthers, oath keepers, sovereign staters, seccesionists and many others?
It would have taken another thousand words – and for what purpose?
Do I see “some good” in them? Nope.
It is not that I “disagree” with them. If you listen to them (and I have) they will tell you very clearly (and passionately – though perhaps not coherently) that they hate America, they do not want to pay their share or do their share. They have the precise attitude they condemn in others – a sense of privileged entitlement.
These are not people who have different “values” (whatever that means) these are people who deliberately want to destroy the United States, the American Dream and have made it all too clear that they hate people like me.
I’ll never understand how Christianity became a haven for those who hate the truth, would eagerly withhold basic human rights from others and cheerfully distort our political system.
My critics are right; I am not fans of these people. And the feelings are mutual.
I don’t go to church, so there goes that. I’ve never heard any sane person, even those who have radically different politics from me, claim all the things you keep saying are “everywhere”. I’m sorry that you think the mysterious “they” hate people “like you”, whatever that means. Still, after this comment I’m back to my original sentiment.
This is a public tantrum. It does almost exactly what it claims to be against.
I’m going to have to agree with Morf on this one. I’ve been a Tea party on tax day, have family that are radically conservative, and recently got into a discussion with a birther, and while they didn’t utter the exact words “I hate America” they are very, very, hateful towards everything America stands for as it is right now, the things that we, as a people, lawfully voted in. Including the President, welfare, taxes, etc. And i can attest that they hate liberal people and poor people. At least the ones I talked to/saw. So they are out there, you just have to be open to it. But hey, I know liberals who hate conservatives and other people with the same degree, we’re all broken people. Birthers are just crazy about it.
I’m not a Tea Partier, but I thought this article was really good. I didn’t spend a lot of time digging into the kerfuffle he’s referencing, but I’m not sure that matters to get the point.
For some reason, I sincerely think you might like it, Emily.
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Is-the-Tea-Party-a-Christian-Movement.html
So what if it is all true? It seems to be to be an exercise in finger-pointing. “I sure am glad I’m not like THOSE people!”
I didn’t say you could find good in those people (whoever they are). I meant isn’t there enough good going on in the world that you could focus on? That’s what I was saying. Seems to me that if you are indeed focused on “those people”, then how are you any different from the people who are hung up on Obama’s birth certificate?
Emily, M was careful not to bring up Right vs. Left. But since it’s out there and you mentioned Tea Partiers, I’ll go ahead and say it: it is my observation that those on the Left are at least as hateful as those on the Right. I am, of course, speaking of the extremists. There are good, reasonable people on the Left and Right, and most of them are in the middle to some degree.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The divisiveness that is so strong in our nation these days will only get better when people start insisting on correcting those on their own side. That is, instead of lefties criticizing the hatefulness of O’Reilly, Rush, Coulter, Beck, etc., and the righties pointing out the venom spewed by Maher, Franken, Sharpton, and Clooney, we need to reverse it.
Reverse it. Swap places. Let the conservatives tell the hateful talking heads on the Right that they need to adopt a respectful tone, and let the liberals tell the do the same to those who purport to speak for them. It’s the only way it will get fixed. The fact is, Coulter and O’Reilly laugh when someone on the Left criticizes them. That’s not who buys their books, so why should they care? Same with the loudest, most hateful liberals. But if they start hearing discouragement about their tone from within their own political family, then they’d be more likely to listen. If we stop buying their books, then maybe we’d get their attention.
And I had better place this disclaimer before Jordan gets onto me: I know that there are not simply two sides in the US. Most citizens are varying shades of purple, not Red or Blue. But one cannot deny that among those who speak so loud that they get tons of press with their vehemence, it does seem to be that they line up strongly on the Left or Right. And they tend to demonize the other side. I don’t see any Centrists who do this.
I think that the thing I find most frustrating is that I wanted to like this article and expected to, especially based on the tagline, but I couldn’t because halfway through it became all about stereotypes and name-calling. Instead of heading toward accountability unity, it nosedived into identifying the “them” that the “us” is against.
Years ago, while I was studying abroad in Europe, a friend from France told me I could not call myself American because Mexicans, Canadians, and even people from South America were also Americans. My younger self became very distraught in not knowing how to identify herself if she could not call herself American. I have heard French-speakers call us the equivalent to “United Statesians,” but that doesn’t sound right to my ears either and, having moved between several different states as a kid, I don’t feel inclined to refer to myself by my state’s name either.
But, I don’t think labels are the point you’re trying to make. From what I understand, you’re simply trying to humble us a bit and remind us that we aren’t necessarily the greatest. I do appreciate you writing this. It is a reminder as well of how quickly we forget or choose to ignore our history and how destructive that blindness can be.
Thank you.
I love this so much!! I am also very jealous that I didn’t write it. AMAZING!!
I generally find the Left/Right dichotomy useless and isolating. Even more in this context.
This issue here, and perhaps in every earnest and intelligent conversation, is never “these people against those people”. And there are lunatic fringes in every category of life, but some are clearly more threatening than others. What are we to make of political candidates, sponsored by a major political party, and wildly popular, who call for a “Second Amendment solution” to election results they don’t like?
Or what about the burgeoning secessionist movements, primarily in South Carolina, Texas and Alaska (where Todd Palin has been a long time member)? Just last week I heard a Southern politician who gleefully told the reporter “We seceded before and we can do it again”.
And what are we to make of those (Texas School Board) who want to alter the nation’s history textbooks to get rid of Thomas Jefferson – and replace him with Phylis Shaffly?
And then there are those who say they love the Constitution – but want to revoke the 14th & 17th Amendments (having to do with citizenship and how senators are elected).
Is there any “Left” corollary to all this? Somehow I don’t think so.
To say that there are two sides is to imply that the two sides are approximately equal in size, influence and perhaps strategy. This is so far from reality as to be preposterous.
Again, the Left/Right dichotomy is a distraction. I believe the real issue is that some of us believe that we can – and need to – work together. And then there are those who wish nothing more than to divide us and fight to the death for their issue de jour.
Abe Lincoln called us to move “toward a more perfect union” – it is more than ironic that it is essentially the same people fighting against that noble vision even now.
Morf, I am not aware of every reference you make above, but if I am reading you correctly, you’re saying that you don’t buy into the left-right dichotomy, then you rip into the extremists on the Right as if leftist extremists either (a) don’t exist; or (b) aren’t just as potentially dangerous. A ridiculous thing to say, to put it kindly.
You then say that “I believe the real issue is that some of us believe that we can – and need to – work together.”
Yeah, well, doesn’t this entire post of yours, in which you slam those who don’t agree with you, fly right in the face of that? How is the finger-pointing and divisiveness you initiate here any different from the divisiveness they engage in?
Not to put words in Morf’s mouth (because Morf is doing a fine job of that), but it’s certainly legitimate to criticize people for divisiveness. Currently the Left isn’t getting criticized for divisiveness for a couple reasons:
1. They’ve got a majority and can set the agenda, while making noise about wanting to “reach across the aisle,” and:
2. When the Left wasn’t in power, they weren’t real good at blocking the Right’s agenda. (Jon Stewart, who I don’t think is any friend of yours, James, makes fun of them for this all the time.) No doubt they engaged in some of the mindless legislative roadblocks we’re seeing these days, but the Right just seems to be BETTER at that kind of stuff.
But here I go turning this into a Left/Right issue. It’s also a Right/Right issue. There was a revealing segment on the PBS News Hour last night, where Judy Woodruff interviewed Utah Senator Robert Bennett, a good Republican who recently lost his primary to the Tea Party because he’d worked on a bipartisan health care bill and didn’t seem angry enough during his TV appearances. They contrasted him with SC Senator Jim DeMint, who’s a Tea Party supporter. The general consensus is that, in previous years, Bennett’s conservative credentials would’ve been unimpeachable, but this year he’s a lame duck. At one point during the interview, DeMint said this:
“It is very difficult to work with the Democrats because they’re not working for the good of the country. And the Republicans have been partially guilty of that in some ways, but not nearly to the degree. I think this idea of we have got to work together doesn’t work anymore.”
(Here’s the transcript: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/gop_07-07.html)
DeMint remained calm during his interview, but Bennett sounded like a much more reasonable guy, whether you agree with his politics or not. DeMint’s statement above lacks any self-awareness, and is a huge plank in his eye.
Politics is politics, so of course you’re gonna hear this kind of indignation from the opposition party, no matter who they are. But come on–doesn’t it seem like it’s really come to a head within the Republican Party?
Of course, all this is complicated by the Tea Party’s claims that they’re not fighting Right/Left issues EITHER, but are fighting the issue of big gov’t/small gov’t, or Anti-Constitution/Pro-Constitution or whatever passive-aggressive frame they wanna give it.
So far I haven’t seen any serious proposals for major entitlement reform (SSA, Medicare, Medicaid), which is probably the only thing that could noticeably make the government smaller. (Well, that and getting out of Afghanistan.) Someone please correct me if such proposals are on the table, somewhere.
You say that some “lunatic fringes” are more threatening than others, but seem to assert that your opinion is the only accurate on as to which those are.
You act as though the controversial items you list are insane fabrications, when they have been controversial since, and even before, the Constitution was written.
You act as though anyone who comes to different conclusions must be ignorant and care less, but “more perfect Union” is from the preamble to the Constitution. The only time I can think of that Lincoln ever quoted that line was in his first inaugural address in which he is arguning that the Constitution was written to support that Articles of Association. That had nothing to do with unity of opinion or beliefs.
You say you want to work together, and that the dichotomy is a distraction, but you clearly define who you are against, and the only people you seem to want to work with are the ones that absolutely agree with you. If that’s how you feel, then ok, but it was disappointing given that the tagline was about getting away from stereotypes and name-calling
I apologized for my harshness, in the beginning, because I assumed you were reasonable and didn’t mean to come across as you did. However, you’ve gotten more extreme and farther from building any kind of unity or moving away from stereotypes in the comments.
Josh, I strongly, and respectfully, disagree with this statement:
“2. When the Left wasn’t in power, they weren’t real good at blocking the Right’s agenda”.
The Right has been saying for years they’d do something about abortion, and when the R party had the majority in Congress as well as White House simultaneously–for 4 years, mind you–nothing of consequence occurred to further that cause. Contrast that with the Health Care reform, which was strongly opposed by the Right, yet it managed to get written, debated, passed, and signed into law barely one year after Obama took office.
If one were to define the Right/Left debate simply by big govt/small govt, then the Left agenda has been getting passed over and over for decades. We’re way further to the Left than ever before, by that definition. And it happened with a lot of help from Republican politicians.
Did the Republicans have any concrete anti-abortion legislation on the table, though? Were there bills in committee or something? (I might easily have missed them.) Short of nominating and confirming “constructionist” Supreme Court judges, what exactly CAN the federal government do to make abortion illegal? (Which I assume is what you meant by “do something about abortion.”) In your example, what exactly did the Democratic minority block?
I always sort of cynically assume that Republicans say they’re pro-life to get elected, without actually having any ideas that would limit the practice of abortion. (I mean, I’m sure the politicians ARE actually pro-life, but also out of ideas.)
By the way, Josh, although I did say once that Jon Stewart is in love with himself, he’s still right when he criticizes the Republicans on this stuff. I’ve said on several occasions that the politicians who talk about making govt smaller and make it bigger in the process are much bigger scoundrels than their leftist counterparts. I commend the D’s for their forthrightness on most of these issues. They want bigger govt, and they offer bigger govt. And the voters have responded positively to it.
Josh, you said:
“So far I haven’t seen any serious proposals for major entitlement reform (SSA, Medicare, Medicaid), which is probably the only thing that could noticeably make the government smaller. (Well, that and getting out of Afghanistan.) Someone please correct me if such proposals are on the table, somewhere.”
You are correct, and since entitlement programs are untouchable (by which I mean it’s political suicide to talk about saving money by reducing those programs), the deficit will never get smaller. I think the idea of the govt getting smaller, however, is more complicated. It’s just as much about regulation and wealth distribution as it is about spending.
But Morf’s post wasn’t about govt spending. It was about division and finger-pointing and general hatefulness. And my only point was that finger-pointing toward finger-pointing is still finger-pointing. Morf, and those who agree with him politically and socially, can be just as divisive as the people he’s complaining about.
Anyone who thinks only the right, or the Tea Party, or Republicans in general, have a corner on the divisiveness market is delusional. For every Rush Limbaugh there’s a Bill Maher. For every Ann Coulter, there’s a Keith Olbermann.
I hear you, James. Finger-pointing is finger-pointing, you are correct. Lefties are often divisive, also true. And Morf wasn’t really writing about gov’t spending.
What I said about entitlement reform was more just an aside, tangentially related to the main discussion in this way (let’s see if I can do this…):
Morf’s article said, “True patriotism is not “safe” or formulaic and does not resort to stereotyping and name-calling. A true patriot unites us and reminds us of who we are at our best and calls us to sacrifice and courage – not cowardice and negativity.”
Morf also decried “Their claim that “We the people” only applies to those who agree with them…”
Those are the statements that reminded me of Jim DeMint’s absurd claim on the News Hour–he flat-out says that Democrats aren’t working for the good of the country, and that he’s given up on working together with them. And that arrogant attitude isn’t just separating Republicans from Democrats–it’s also separating Tea Party Republicans from not-especially-moderate Republicans like Bob Bennett. One of the main fuels for this divisive attitude is concern over government spending. If that concern isn’t coupled with a concrete strategy for reducing entitlement spending, it’s either naive or disingenuous; it’s certainly not sacrificial or courageous.
So right now, within the Republican party, you’ve got this bizarre spectacle of a party rooting out those apostate members who aren’t orthodox enough, who dare to work with the opposition. This isn’t completely unique to Republicans, but it’s prevalent enough that I think we can fairly credit Republicans with, let’s say, an extra dollop of divisiveness.
And, just to add fuel to the fire, and probably convince no one to change their mind….
Tancrazo: “President Barack Obama is the single greatest threat that the United States has ever faced. Tancredo says this after listing off a number of things, including both World Wars, the Cold War, Al Qaida and the Depression, that the U.S. has seen over the past… century. None of these things, he says, were ‘greater threats’ than President Obama. Our own President, says Tancredo, is a greater threat to the United States than Nazis. Or commies. Or nuclear annihilation. ”
You can see the whole screed here…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s4NGyNoAQY
Still missing the point.
Morf, I agree with you that statements like this are absurd and have no place in political discourse. They’re disgraceful from any citizen, doubly so when coming from an elected leader. I never said otherwise. My concern was that your post seemed to assert that people who agree with you politically don’t include some who make equally shameful statements. I again present the previous examples of Olbermann, Clooney, Maher, etc.
I can’t say anything about Olbermann, Maher & the rest. I’ve heard Olbermann perhaps 30 seconds and have never heard Maher – besides, I support reasonable coherent “opinion” from just about anyone. What bother me is the ranting hatefulness of political figures and their cheering crowds. They should know better.
The call for a “Second Amendment solution” by the way is for an armed response. Given the history of assassinations in the US, I don’t find it encouraging….
I agree about that, but when I said I wasn’t familiar with the reference, I mean that I had never heard anyone say that (“Second Amendment solution”) before. Shame on whoever said it.
This Land is Your Land is not a patriotic song.
I started to bring that up. It’s an angry song, arguably pro-socialism.
I should add that in the mid-50′s, when Guthrie wrote it, to be pro-socialist was to be anti-US. We don’t necessarily see it that way now, but that’s the mindset at the time.