Archive for July 4, 2008

Karl Rove Thinks He Still Matters

At least that’s what I gather from this latest, last-ditch sermon to the choir.  Thanks, Karl, for reminding us that Democrats are pro-choice.  Also, water is wet.  Frankly, I’m disappointed in the New York Times for covering something like this.  It’s not a shock that Karl Rove wants to push divisive issues upon us, but why let him?  He doesn’t have a bully pulpit anymore.  In fact, he never did… rather, his hand-puppet doesn’t have a bully pulpit anymore.  It’s our choice whether or not we want to give him enough press coverage to make him relevant, and I think it’d be better for all if we chose in the negative (and the Opinion page at least agrees).

Update: apparently Rove called Obama, “the most pro-abortion candidate the Democrats have put forward.”  Is this guy a one-trick pony or what?  How come the guy that runs on the other ticket is always the most anti-[insert Republican issue here] candidate ever?  Please.  I sincerely hope Americans aren’t dumb enough to fall for that every time.

And happy Fourth, again, to all.  We’re very lucky.

Defining Patriotism: On Jesse Helms’ Death

Especially on the Fourth of July, we ought to recognize that, as Barack Obama said, patriotism knows no party lines:

But, when a political movement comes into conflict with the most basic values of America, to the point that it is clearly perpendicular with our foundational ideals, we ought to draw the definition of “patriot” to exclude that group.  I think that this line, if it exists, ought to be fairly hard to cross, particularly because calling someone “unpatriotic” is a clear slap in the face to individuals or groups who legitimately seek to improve America with their ideas, crazy though they may be.  The democratic requirement of a vibrant marketplace of ideas demands that we not so devalue each other.  Where an ideology comprises a shade of gray instead of an unequivocal danger to democracy, it’s not fair to call its adherents categorically unpatriotic. Patriotism merely requires that one do what’s best for America, with its foundational ideas. There are many respectable means to that end.

But there are ideologies that come at a crossroads with patriotism, though they come only when one seeks to oppose a fundamental, highly abstracted democratic principle.  America will brook no tyrant, for example, and anyone who would supplant democracy with kingship or tyranny couldn’t fairly be called a patriot.  Democracy requires free speech: shooting ones’ political opponents is clearly obnoxious to the idea of America, and therefore unpatriotic.

Similarly, while Americans obviously clash on the definition of how much difference our commitment to equality requires us to tolerate, I think we are justified in withdrawing the label “patriot” from someone who undertakes affirmative opposition to the very principle of equality before the law. While a patriot may fairly decide to fail to empower a group of society, no true American should co-opt the machinery of the state to suppress the same group. By example, I do not doubt that one may oppose gay rights (marriage, nondiscrimination) and still call themselves a patriot, but one may not affirmatively seek to remove the fundamental rights of all Americans, such as suffrage, from a group while claiming to vindicate any of America’s foundational principles.

Given that definition – which I’m still not so sure about, so I welcome debate – I’m not sure on which side of the line the late Jesse Helms falls.  I’m thinking about this because the immediate impetus when a powerful and successful American politician dies is to valorize the individual, and hail them as a patriot.  But I’m not sure Senator Helms’ legacy deserves the inevitable praise.

There’s something basically wrong about someone who fails to recognize the equal rights of black Americans, even after decades and decades in power, and decades of experience with men and women of all races.  While some wiggle room ought be given when evaluating historical figures, who must always work within the mode of the day – it’s a common human failing to not question the evils of ones’ time, if they’re widespread enough – persisting in bigotry while the rest of the world moves on signifies, to me, a certain corruption unbefitting an American.  Patriotism requires us to work always towards a more perfect union.  People who works against that, when the rest of the nation has moved on… those types really make me scratch my head.

Independence

Happy fourth of July! This year, and every year, let’s remember that patriotism is more than a flag pin; it is, or ought to be, a desire to leave our American nation, and the American state, better than we found it. 231 years ago, our Founders gave their lives and their livelihoods, in the hopes of doing just that. Though their sacrifice bought us the right to relax in prosperity, and ensured that all of us need not lay our lives on the line this year, we owe America the same commitment to progress this year, and every year.

While we’ve faced our share of obstacles, especially in the past decade, I have no doubt that we can overcome them. Although it’s an odd source, I’ve always thought that Stephen Sondheim, in the musical Assassins, spoke well on the continuing vitality of the American experiment. Singing on the threat violence poses to the national consciousness, Sondheim concludes that America’s vitality is not lightly depleted:

Someone tell the story; someone sing the song. Every now and then the country goes a little wrong; everyone now and then a madman’s bound to come along. Doesn’t stop the story; story’s pretty strong. Doesn’t change the tune.

We’ve been through a lot, and we’ve come back stronger each time. Although it requires our help each time, the idea of America is a hope for the future, one that’s never disappointed yet. Our story’s pretty strong.