A 21st century framing of the theme of patriotism
By
Amaury Cruz Read Spanish Version
We
hear much from politicians about patriotism. “Patriotism is the
last refuge of scoundrels,” Samuel Johnson famously said. One could
make an inference that many politicians are scoundrels.
Johnson
uttered his famous witticism on the evening of April 7, 1775,
according to Scottish lawyer,
diarist, and author
James Boswell. We do not know exactly what Johnson meant because we
lack the context. Boswell says that Johnson was not condemning
patriotism generally, only false patriotism.
To
speak of false patriotism we need to agree on what true patriotism
is. Politicians commonly link patriotism to mental frames such as
“support for the troops.” But what is support for the troops? It
if is to provide them with proper equipment, training and
compensation while they are in service, then we have a whole army of
political leaders and bureaucrats who have been unpatriotic in recent
times. If it is not to send them to a possible death or
incapacitating injuries except as a last resort, these same cadre of
political leaders, aided by a compliant media, have been guilty of
extreme negligence at best. If it is to provide these troops with
adequate and humane medical care, free of absurd regulations and
bureaucratic impediments that hinder and retard the receipt of
services by these injured veterans, then many more government
officials have been utterly unpatriotic.
But
suppose the troops had not been put in harm’s way for the sake of
an unnecessary war based on lies and brainwashing. Suppose the troops
received every care and consideration they deserve, and earned decent
salaries and benefits so that they and their families could enjoy the
benefits of middle class America to the fullest. Would that in itself
be patriotism? No. It would only be the government doing its job.
Nothing special.
The
“support the troops” frame works irrespective of the reality of
how our government supports our troops because it fits within the
larger frame of American exceptionalism and mutually reinforces it.
To support the troops evokes the superiority of American arms and
personnel, the righteousness of a battle to the end for the sake of
cherished principles, such as freedom, democracy, human rights, etc.
It suggests the grandeur of martial displays, of virtuous conquering
armies that overrun an evil enemy and are received with open arms and
flower offerings by the long-suffering denizens of the liberated
countries, at last freed of tyranny and able to plant the seeds of
representative, republican government. It is linked to the idea that
we are the best and most powerful for good reason, and have the right
to make others unto our image. We are a chosen people with the
responsibility of a Manifest Destiny, and we will carry it out
through the force of arms if necessary. That is what supporting our
troops has really meant in most of the 30 invasions, interventions
and regime changes the U.S. has promoted since WWII, which is not
supporting the troops, but supporting a government policy dictated by
certain people who can be right or wrong, and who have interests or
respond to special interests while they tell the people a pack of
lies. We all know this by now. We are no longer innocent.
“The
war against terrorism” is another frame associated with patriotism
nowadays. The problem is, as many have pointed out, one cannot have a
war against an abstraction, which is what the term “terrorism”
is. Terrorism is a method of political action; one cannot fight a
“war” against a method. Against acts, yes. Or even against
planning, but not against a way of doing things. It’s absurd.
Another problem is, it is conceivable that terrorism will never
disappear and therefore this “war” will never end. This is a
similar problem as the “war on drugs.” One cannot “make war”
on commodities that circulate throughout most of the world, specially
not in the U.S., which is the largest illicit-drug consuming country
in the world. It would be like making war on petroleum, or corn. What
these two frames have in common is that, using premeditated and
well-executed fear-mongering, politicians have in recent times scared
the American people to the point where we have surrendered essential
liberties at the foundation of true patriotism.
According
to “the founder of American literature,” Mark Twain, this is true
patriotism: “Loyalty to the country always, and loyalty to the
government only when it deserves it.”
The
distinction is critical to understanding additional frames used by
modern reactionaries for the purpose of mind-controlling the
population. We are drawn to the fact that country and government are
not the same thing. We know what government is, but what is country?
Or people? Or nation? These four concepts should not be confused and
one should not be allowed to fall into the trap of committing to one
of them in a discussion and having the terms changed in the course of
it by the reactionary party.
The
concept of country best expresses the idea of a united polity. A
people is an aggregation of individuals, conceptually in a category
because of a common trait, such as ethnicity, race, or language.
There may be many peoples inside a country. A nation is a political
entity. Nation implies the agencies not only of government, but
social, religious, civic, and political institutions, as well as a
common legal system and a particular history.
Most
of the time, those who load their discourse with reactionary frames
try to equate government (which can be questioned, as Mark Twain
suggests) with country or nation (arguably, in its noble sense,
something not to question). By continuing a refrain of linking one
with the others and condemning anyone who questions them as disloyal,
political discourse can be suppressed without censorship or any other
overt repressive acts. This system is not only finer and more
elegant than what was used in the old Soviet Union. It is more
effective. By enabling individuals to comment freely, ordinary
individuals are considered free, but in fact cannot make use of such
freedom because they lack access to the means of propaganda permitted
by the country. The media could be free and has been free in the
past, but in recent times has kowtowed to the government. Therefore,
one can cry out loudly a disdain for a particular national leader,
for example, without fear of reprisal, as long as that cry does not
represent a threat to those in power.
Those
in power are people. They are not the country or the nation. They can
be wrong. They can be questioned. And they should.
This
is also a form of true patriotism: to question authority. “To
petition the government for a redress of grievances.” To make the
government accountable to the people. “A government of the people,
for the people and by the people.” The most patriotic of all
Americans, the Founding Fathers, understood perfectly that the
government had to be restrained, that the people needed a mechanism
to confront the government.
But
the government does not listen to and is out of touch with the
people. The executive is led by arrogant individuals who claimed to
have more experience and savvy than their adversaries. Yet they have
proved inept in all areas ranging from disaster planning and relief
to unprovoked wars and failing to protect the environment and the
world while dilapidating the national treasure. More than ineptness,
this government and its defenders have brought this country huge
human loss, close to financial ruin, increased poverty, less
security, diminished civil liberties, and a national debt of
approximately $400,000 per person at last count. The Congress has an
equal share of the blame for failing to rein in a run-away president
and bowing to fears of political pressure when a defense of civil
liberties has been needed instead. And the judiciary has contributed
to the disaster by failing to uphold minimal election reforms passed
by Congress, literally equating money with speech. The First
Amendment now says “Congress shall make no law restricting the
freedom of money.”
Much
of this, we could say, is the ultimate in disloyalty. This is
treason. This is how to frame the theme of patriotism.
Amaury
Cruz is an attorney from Miami.
