Patriotism and Politics
by Anna Schwartz
Republicans take note: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of regime is “[a] manner, method, or system of rule or government; a system or institution having widespread influence or prevalence. Now freq. applied disparagingly to a particular government or administration.”
When John Kerry said Wednesday that “what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but a regime change in the United States,” he was advocating for a Democratic victory – for his own victory in the 2004 election. A gaggle of House Republicans, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Speaker Dennis Hastert, misinterpreted Kerry’s speech and criticized him, implying that he was unpatriotic for challenging the commander in chief at wartime. Kerry’s remark was intended neither to disrespect the president, nor to draw an analogy between Bush and Hussein. What he said – if the rabidly partisan Republican leadership had actually bothered to listen – was actually quite sensible, realistic, and intelligent. His criticism was of Bush’s diplomacy, (or lack thereof), not of the war itself.
For a few weeks, immediately before and after the initial attacks on Iraq, war-related news sidelined coverage as well as action on the part of the Democratic candidates. The war was political at its inception; because it is the only hot issue currently, or perhaps in order to garner more media attention for themselves, the Democratic candidates have jumped into the fray of war debate. Criticism, like Kerry’s, is carefully delineated: Kerry is not anti-war per se, but pro-diplomacy, and regrets Bush’s total incompetence in that arena.
These candidates’ deepest fear is to be called unpatriotic – in a time of crisis, that accusation spells political death. Former Senator Gary Hart observed, “Democrats are perceived to be weak and against national defense.” The 2004 candidates, with the exception of Howard Dean, are trying their damnedest to break away from that stereotype. The Dems riding the pro-war wagon are doing so either for safety, like Edwards, or because they are hawks, like Lieberman; by not voicing dissent, they avoid the risk of their patriotism being questioned.
Is patriotism necessarily equivalent to supporting our president’s potentially bad decisions? What happened to our civil liberties – partially suspended in a time of crisis, will they be fully removed during war time? And is patriotism to be found in words or in actions? Kerry served in Vietnam while our president bravely guarded the great state of Texas. The two esteemed Congressmen leading the attack on Mr. Kerry themselves questioned President Clinton during the Kosovo conflict. As Joshua Marshall argues, the Republicans’ objective is “to set the standard for criticism extraordinarily high and scare any Democrat from criticizing the president at all as long as the war or probably even the reconstruction of Iraq goes on.” This is a savvy political move, but it is disturbingly undemocratic. Criticism of the president’s actions should be fair game for those who wish to run against him next fall; without dissent, there would be no point to competition. The denunciation the Republicans have engaged in is nothing better than elevated (and highly publicized) name-calling, and indicates a dearth of ability to form an intelligent response.
Patriotism is a flimsy criterion by which to judge political candidates – a love of one’s country should be assumed in running for political office. Tallying bumper-sticker flags does not belong in the realm of serious political debate and contestation. Of course Mr. Kerry is a patriot, as is Mr. Dean, as is President Bush. Each advocates what he believes is best for the nation and its citizens; whether this accords with ideals of unilateral aggression and monstrous military force is not a measure of patriotism, but of ideology.
by Anna Schwartz
Republicans take note: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of regime is “[a] manner, method, or system of rule or government; a system or institution having widespread influence or prevalence. Now freq. applied disparagingly to a particular government or administration.”
When John Kerry said Wednesday that “what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but a regime change in the United States,” he was advocating for a Democratic victory – for his own victory in the 2004 election. A gaggle of House Republicans, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Speaker Dennis Hastert, misinterpreted Kerry’s speech and criticized him, implying that he was unpatriotic for challenging the commander in chief at wartime. Kerry’s remark was intended neither to disrespect the president, nor to draw an analogy between Bush and Hussein. What he said – if the rabidly partisan Republican leadership had actually bothered to listen – was actually quite sensible, realistic, and intelligent. His criticism was of Bush’s diplomacy, (or lack thereof), not of the war itself.
For a few weeks, immediately before and after the initial attacks on Iraq, war-related news sidelined coverage as well as action on the part of the Democratic candidates. The war was political at its inception; because it is the only hot issue currently, or perhaps in order to garner more media attention for themselves, the Democratic candidates have jumped into the fray of war debate. Criticism, like Kerry’s, is carefully delineated: Kerry is not anti-war per se, but pro-diplomacy, and regrets Bush’s total incompetence in that arena.
These candidates’ deepest fear is to be called unpatriotic – in a time of crisis, that accusation spells political death. Former Senator Gary Hart observed, “Democrats are perceived to be weak and against national defense.” The 2004 candidates, with the exception of Howard Dean, are trying their damnedest to break away from that stereotype. The Dems riding the pro-war wagon are doing so either for safety, like Edwards, or because they are hawks, like Lieberman; by not voicing dissent, they avoid the risk of their patriotism being questioned.
Is patriotism necessarily equivalent to supporting our president’s potentially bad decisions? What happened to our civil liberties – partially suspended in a time of crisis, will they be fully removed during war time? And is patriotism to be found in words or in actions? Kerry served in Vietnam while our president bravely guarded the great state of Texas. The two esteemed Congressmen leading the attack on Mr. Kerry themselves questioned President Clinton during the Kosovo conflict. As Joshua Marshall argues, the Republicans’ objective is “to set the standard for criticism extraordinarily high and scare any Democrat from criticizing the president at all as long as the war or probably even the reconstruction of Iraq goes on.” This is a savvy political move, but it is disturbingly undemocratic. Criticism of the president’s actions should be fair game for those who wish to run against him next fall; without dissent, there would be no point to competition. The denunciation the Republicans have engaged in is nothing better than elevated (and highly publicized) name-calling, and indicates a dearth of ability to form an intelligent response.
Patriotism is a flimsy criterion by which to judge political candidates – a love of one’s country should be assumed in running for political office. Tallying bumper-sticker flags does not belong in the realm of serious political debate and contestation. Of course Mr. Kerry is a patriot, as is Mr. Dean, as is President Bush. Each advocates what he believes is best for the nation and its citizens; whether this accords with ideals of unilateral aggression and monstrous military force is not a measure of patriotism, but of ideology.
