The New [Pseudo] Patriotism

The New [Pseudo] Patriotism
By Steven Yates

Patriotism is suddenly in vogue. American flags are everywhere - on clothing, automobiles, storefronts, billboard advertisements, and so on. I believe I have seen more American flags in the past two months than in the previous two years. The same goes for the phrases 'United We Stand' and 'God Bless America.' They are everywhere.

I've found myself spending time putting my finger on what is troublesome about the new patriotism. It is superficial. From somewhere I recall hearing a sarcastic, 'Instant patriotism. Add water and stir.' Real patriotism is not simply worn on your lapel, or flown from your car. Real patriotism costs something.

But that isn't it. Many things in life are superficial. That doesn't necessarily make them bad. More to the point is that the new patriots seem to applaud the federal powergrab of the past two months. At least, the new patriotism has no serious problems with it. After all, we're at war now, it says. It suggests we can no longer afford the convenience of a distinction between society and government, or between patriotism understood as loyalty to the ideals under which the country was founded and blind submission to the yahoos currently running it. So relatively few are complaining that the much-touted Patriot Act of 2001 which Bush the Younger just signed has all the ingredients for setting up a police state in America in the name of 'homeland security.' The entire campaign has the full backing of the dominant media, where you will find statements like, "Big government is back, and high time, too." Or: "The time has come to end the government-bashing of the past 20
years." [The truth, of course, is that the size and scope of the federal government increased over the past 20 years - especially during the 1990s.]

So let's revisit real patriotism - that kind that was here all along, but
wasn't in vogue because it didn't kowtow to whatever came out of Washington,
D.C. Real patriotism, alluded to already, is loyalty to your country understood
as loyalty to the set of ideals under which it was founded. In our case, this
means loyalty to the ideas of God-given rights that inhere in individuals, not
in groups. It means responsibilities derived from a morality with a
transcendent source, not 'values' made up by human beings that differ from
culture to culture [relativism,] or deduced in some mysterious way from human
nature. It means commitment to the idea that government may be a necessary
evil, given sinful man, but as the product of men, government should be limited
to a few and carefully specified functions. That was the purpose of the U.S.
Constitution, to describe the structure and functions of the various branches
of government, and [after the struggle between the so-called federalists and
so-called anti-federalists] to enumerate rights. And it is important that the
portion of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights enumerates rights; it
does not create them out of thin air. It is one of the more interesting
delusions of modernity that it is possible for human beings, especially those
in government, to create rights. Following these provisions consistently means
maintaining a society committed to the rule of law, not rule by political
elites or gangs of criminals [sometimes they are the same thing.]

Finally, it should go without saying that no political leader loyal to the
Constitution is going to embark on an agenda which any thinking person must
soon realize cannot be accomplished without setting up a global empire. The
desire to retaliate against the thugs who destroyed the World Trade Center and
part of the Pentagon is quite understandable. I understand, 'Let's roll.'
However, an undeclared 'war' to eradicate all the bullies, tyrants, sociopaths
and misfits out there is not the answer. Assuming that the al Qaeda network is
responsible for what happened on September 11, we are talking about a highly
decentralized entity that spans many countries, and possibly connects to other
such entities not taking marching orders from Osama bin Laden. No one, of
course, knows for sure. But the limited 'successes' in Afghanistan are already
being cited as a possible pretext to a new invasion of Iraq - even though I am
aware of no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to the September 11 at
tacks. It could be a pretext to an invasion of still more nations. Talk about a
recipe for generating still more hatred of the 'Great Satan' in the Muslim
world!

The question has been asked before: how would we even know when we defeated
this network? A cessation of activities might just mean that its remaining
leaders have gone underground until the heat died down. Bush Jr.'s Marines
might get bin Laden before the year is out. My guess: they'll 'accidentally'
shoot him rather than bring him to the U.S. for what would quickly turn into
the biggest media circus since the O.J. Simpson show. But I recall hearing the
phrase somewhere, "One dead martyr is worth ten living leaders."

It is worth pointing out that FBI agents have known for several years that
there were terrorists on U.S. soil - some of them here illegally and some of
them here simply because of our absurdly lax immigration laws. There was
evidence long before September 11 that something was up. The federal government
could have stopped it, but the Clinton/Reno Regime wasn't interested; the Bush
Jr./Ashcroft one has followed suit. The point is, we've known for years that a
major terrorist attack could happen.

Where does all this leave the new patriotism? It is embarrassingly obvious that
flying the federal flag hardly counts as loyalty to the ideals spelled out in
the Constitution. [Most of the 'public school' graduates flying these flags
probably could not tell you what is in the Constitution.] Be this as it may, I
do not recall either Bush Jr. or Ashcroft so much as mentioning the
Constitution in any of their public statements. Has anyone besides Ron Paul
[R-TX] examined the new Patriot Act of 2001 with an eye to whether or not the
Constitution authorizes its various provisions? Does it authorize the kinds of
wiretapping of private conversations, etc., that Ashcroft has been talking
about? Does it authorize overriding attorney-client privilege? Does it
authorize holding several hundred people of Middle Eastern origin for days on
end in undisclosed locations without charging them with any crime?

And so we must declare the new patriotism to be a pseudo-patriotism - something
following closely on the heels of the past 12 years rather than repudiating
them. Political correctness has shifted in emphasis somewhat to accommodate the
country's new crisis mode - it is now barely permissible to criticize either
U.S. foreign policy or the feds' domestic efforts to deal with the alleged
emergency. Feelings are still what count: the federal flag is serving the same
function as Linus's security blanket. I presume the people flying it from their
cars feel supremely good about themselves. Meanwhile, the feds' efforts to deal
with the whatever threats really exist of acts of further terror on U.S. soil
would be laughable if they weren't so annoying: people having cigarette
lighters and nail-clippers confiscated by security personnel at airports, for
example. A couple of weeks ago, an innocent indiscretion by a man in a hurry to
retrieve a camera turned into a fiasco that shut down Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport for three hours. Now the man may face a
huge civil lawsuit over something that wouldn't have even raised eyebrows three
months ago. Welcome to the New America! There have been other fiascoes of this
nature at airports. Meanwhile, it is clear that those who wish to can get real
weapons past these buffoons, if they so choose. The federal government has done
nothing about whatever terrorist threats currently exist in this country except
to make matters worse.

Is this really the direction we want to go as a society?

I concur readily with anyone who says so that the people who blew up the World
Trade Center were sociopaths, and I doubt they are presently getting rewards
from Allah for murdering innocent people in cold blood! The Taliban, former
rulers of Afghanistan, were indeed a repressive, barely civilized gang whose
rank and file did not question authority. Much of the Middle East is like that.
[Somewhere in here is an argument against the silly multiculturalism of the
past 12 years holding that cultures can mix indiscriminately while maintaining
their cultural identity. But that's another column.]

If we allow this country to turn quietly but openly into a police state, saying
nothing as our 'leaders' build up an internationalist empire in the name of
eradicating terrorism, then the terrorists will have won. They will have won by
having destroyed the things that made this country worth defending. Worse yet,
our own political elites will have done the job for them. We will not have
defeated them; we will have become just like them, solving our problems through
brute force and mass murder. The new [pseudo] patriots see none of this. But
they had better start looking.
--------
Steven Yates has a Ph.D. in Philosophy and is the author of Civil Wrongs: What
Went Wrong With Affirmative Action [ICS Press, 1994.] He is a professional
writer at work on a number of projects including a work of political
philosophy, The Paradox of Liberty. He also writes for the Edgefield Journal,
and is available for lectures. He has started writing a novel and also set up a
small freelance writing business, Millennium 3 Communications, in the hope that
one or the other will eventually lead to an escape from underemployment. He
lives in Columbia, South Carolina.
Mr. Yates can be reached for comment at syates2@e...

-end article-
-------------------
-THe eXTReMiST
As Bush and Ashcroft continue their assault on the Constitution and our God-Given Liberties, doing more damage to our nation than any terrorist, it might be worthwhile to consider this quote:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the
president or any public official, save exactly to the degree he himself stands
by the country."
-Theodore Roosevelt