PAtownhall.com
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
PAtownhall.com
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
by Colin Hanna
As I write this American Radio Journal commentary, it is July 3rd, the eve of our great national holiday. I am writing it from the Army and Navy Club in Washington, surrounded by photos, paintings and other mementoes of our military history and the men and women who put their lives on the line so that we might retain the independence which we declared in Philadelphia two hundred and thirty two years ago.
I am seated at a desk that was used by one of our current Justices of the United States Supreme Court while he was undergoing Senate hearings on his nomination. The symbols of patriotism, love of country, literally surround me at this moment. And on the Justice's desk is a copy of the latest issue of Time Magazine, whose cover story is on "the real meaning of Patriotism." That story suggests that both political parties get it wrong – but fortunately for all of us lesser types, the all-wise writers and editors of Time are available to step into that void and tell us how to fix it – how to get patriotism right.
Earlier this week, Senator Obama gave a speech in Independence Missouri, home of President Harry Truman, in which he attempted to redefine patriotism. So if all of these folks think that it's time to reexamine and possibly redefine patriotism, let's have a go at it also.
In its simplest form, patriotism is simply love of country. On what should that love be based? Is it a conditional love, or an unconditional love? If it is a conditional love, on what condition should it depend?
That's the perilous territory on which Senator Obama chose to tread in his speech. He proposed a new definition of patriotism as "love of country always; love of government when it deserves it." Of course, dissent can be patriotic. I don't doubt that most of those who signed the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia in 1776 thought of themselves as patriotic Englishmen – but whose love of country could be easily distinguished from their abhorrence of tyranny and oppressive taxation. If that's what Senator Obama was getting at in his speech, I'd have no problem with it.
But a careful examination of that speech reveals something else – an undercurrent of disdain for the very values to which 56 patriotic signers of the Declaration pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. It also reveals what I believe may be Obama's greatest vulnerability: a deep-seated emotional need to "have it both ways" on controversial or divisive matters. That's worse than Kerry's flip-flopping. Flip-floppers are on one side of an issue one day, and on the opposite side another day. Someone who wants to have it both ways wants to be on both sides of the issue at all times. The inherent contradiction, the inherent lack if intellectual integrity, is greater than for the flip-flopper.
For instance, in his speech, Obama claims to have a, quote, deep and abiding love for this country as a given" Yet as one conservative woman blogger on wordpress.com points out, that "deep and abiding love" doesn't translate into the friends he keeps – the likes of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. She goes on to suggest that Obama's reference to the question of who is or who is not a patriot quote "all too often poisons our political debates." Now, that's just not a serious comment. Certainly not in a speech that in fact attempts to do exactly that: to redefine patriotism so that we can determine afresh who is and who is not a patriot. No, just as in the now-celebrated dustup concerning Reverend Wright, Obama wants to have it both ways – to be able to claim the sympathy of victimhood when he is the target, but then to make charges of his own that his critics "poison" the political debate. And who are these critics who poison the debate? The blogger suggests that it's "America-loving, military-respecting Americans who know it is unpatriotic to withhold funds from warriors in the midst of battle and that it unpatriotic to condemn and accuse our military falsely. This is the first attempt to call a Democrat out on their unpatriotic ways. His assumptions here smack of "think like me and we'll all get along."
I'll admit that I may be affected by the setting here in the Army and Navy Club, but I think that the blogger has it right and that Senator Obama has it wrong. Particularly in a time of war, we owe it to our fighting forces not to undermine their defense of our freedom by suggesting that unconditional love of country is a flawed and dated concept. I much prefer Senator McCain's essay on patriotism in Time magazine, which says simply, that Patriotism is "another way of saying service to a cause greater than your self interest."
On this Independence weekend, take a few minutes and read the series of articles and essays on patriotism in Time magazine and decide for yourself who presents a definition of patriotism that would cause you to sign your names and pledge your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor to a set of ideals that go beyond mere self interest.
This has been Colin Hanna of Let Freedom Ring for American Radio Journal. Please visit our website at www.LetFreedomRingUSA.com.
