So I’ve had a very busy week and this is getting out a few
days late. But last weekend my sister
sent me a very entertaining animated video, in honor of our Independence Day
(or as she liked to put it, our “Interdependence Day”), in which the famed
progressive economist Robert Reich proposed his definition of what genuine
patriotism was really all about.
But
first let me preface my remarks by stating an observation that, in my life, it
seems that there are just so many self-described patriots who actually believe
in things that are quite un-American. At
the top of the list is the common belief that they, and only they, have a
legitimate understanding of what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and that
anyone who does not share that understanding and agree with it is not a patriot
... like, of course, they are. This has
been an attitude that I have found equally common among both those on the right
and the left. It’s always struck me as
being a very odd way of thinking, that someone can profess a love for liberty
and yet be against everyone who does not think the way they do, that they so
proudly brand themselves as Defenders of the First Amendment, and yet want to
define free expression as only for those ideas they personally find
acceptable. They are defining freedom as
freedom for themselves. But let someone
else have ideas for their own freedom and suddenly they are attacking that as
unpatriotic.
It is
my contention that it is entirely possible to claim the moniker of “patriot”
whether you’re on the right, the left, or in the middle. At least according to the vision of the
Founding Fathers, where one falls on the political spectrum really has nothing
to do with whether one is a patriot or not.
For our entire nation’s history, we have had a healthy split between
major political parties, always with diametrically opposed visions for what was
considered ideal government, but also always qualifying as genuinely
patriotic. It started in the 18th
century with the Whigs vs the Federalists, one wanting a very weak national
government with the bulk of the power going to the states, the other striving
for a strong central federal government.
By the time of the Civil War, it was the Democrats vs the
Democrat-Republicans, the former being the party of the big city political
machines, the latter the party of the farmers and small merchants. By the time Lincoln was elected, the
Democrat-Republican party became simply the Republicans. By the 20th century, the old-time
Democrats had been vanquished and replaced by the modern Republican party, and
the modern Democrat party became the new standard bearer for the old
Democrat-Republicans.
So
there’s been a tremendous amount of ebb and flow in our political system over
the centuries, a huge amount of tension but that’s mostly been a good thing, and
after 240 years still major parties that have diametrically opposite visions of
what the country should be like. On the
surface, that seems like a bad thing since we’re always arguing about
something. But in the Big Picture it’s
been a good thing because, despite all the disagreement, we somehow usually
manage to find common ground and get things done and, in times of genuine
crisis, we always manage to come together.
Watching things day to day, it seems like utter and total chaos. But looking at the entire 240 years, we have
grown from 13 small insignificant colonies of what was then the greatest global
power in history to ourselves becoming the greatest global power in
history. Whatever else one thinks of the
United States, we are the strongest, most prosperous, most liberty-endowed
nation in world history AND the ONLY continuously operating government in the
history of the world that has lasted 240 years.
We are
a culture that thrives on bad news so we don’t often take a step back, take a
deep breath and look at the Big Picture to appreciate the many thousands of
good things that happen here every day.
But the greatest beauty of all is that we have a very vigorous sense of
dissent in this country. Not only do we
tolerate people challenging the government, we actively encourage it. Where else would maverick underdogs like
Jesse Jackson and Bernie Sanders have been able to go so far in a presidential
contest? It was the Founding Fathers
credo: I find your ideas revolting but I
defend to the death your right to have them.
Therein
lies the very definition of liberalism – a vast dissemination of contrasting,
often revolting, ideas but tempered with vigorous constructive debate. The Founding Fathers philosophy was that
there was no such thing as an idea unsuitable for public discourse but that,
through the process of debate, bad ideas would winnow and fade. The current presidential campaign
notwithstanding, this philosophy has handily stood the test of time for 240
years.
********************************************************
Before
I get to Robert Reich’s ideas of patriotism and then present my own, Peter
Jennings once gave a definition of patriotism and liberty that I have never
forgotten. Before the fall of the Berlin
Wall and the reunification of the two Germanys, he did a great story about the
struggles of the East Germans to escape to West Germany. The most telling part of that story was the
perfectly idyllic life that was portrayed in the East German media about their
perfectly oiled government. But because
of the miracle of modern broadcasting, East Germans were easily able to view
West German television. On East German
television, they were reminded daily of the decadence of the Western world, the
poverty, the crime, the homelessness, the ethnic and political divisions,
problems which (of course) did not exist in East Germany. But the East Germans could watch West German
television to see the reality for themselves.
What was reported? All the above
exists. As Jennings noted, “That does
not stop any of them from wanting to come to the West.”
Yes,
there are problems, many problems.
Dissenters help remind us of these problems every day. And the tension that has always existed
between the political parties and the resulting compromises that eventually
consequently usher forth pushes us a little closer to solutions every day. Unfortunately, we like to focus a lot more on
the occasional setbacks than on the many strides forward. But in a way, that’s a healthy thing too.
So what
is Robert Reich’s idea of patriotism? He
makes five basic points:
2.
True patriotism means sharing the burden, everyone
paying their fair share of taxes and not dodging your civic duties by seeking
to deprive your fellow citizens through tax dodges and loopholes.
3.
Not just voting but becoming politically active and
that means volunteerism and fighting to preserve democratic processes by
defending the right to vote rather than creating obstructions to it.
4.
Working with government to improve it for the common
good rather than hating it and working against it as if government can do
nothing right.
5.
Celebrating diversity by really emphasizing the “We” in
“We the People.”
Well, you can’t really argue with
any of that except for one thing. People
on both sides would say the same thing but for entirely different reasons
because people on both sides have very different ideas of what is meant by the
common good, sharing the burden, political activism, how to improve government,
and diversity. These last two are
particularly problematic. Some people’s
idea of improving government is to get rid of it altogether. Some people’s idea of diversity is the Ku
Klux Klan.
So this
video has inspired me to write my own ideas about patriotism. What is it that makes a true patriot that
would be inclusive of everybody – right, left, and middle – just as the
Founding Fathers envisioned?
In my
ideal world, nobody could call themselves a patriot unless they could satisfy
the following three criteria:
1.
First and foremost, a true patriot is not just someone
who votes but votes for the candidate they believe will be in the best interest
of the country, rather than the candidate who has promised to give them
something. I place this Number One
because it has always profoundly disturbed me in the extensive political
discourse I have had in my life with fellow voters how very many of them
support candidates whose philosophy they personally agree with even if, by
their own admission, they’re not competent.
How can electing a weak leader possibly be in the best interests of the
country just because one shares a position on the issues? The checks and balances in our government do
such a marvelous job of pushing our leaders to the middle that, in the end,
their positions on the issues are really quite subordinate to their ability to
lead. I find it disturbing that people
will support a candidate they think will give them a personal benefit even if they
believe they’re not the brightest bulb in the room. So my first and foremost test of patriotism –
put the country before your own self-interest.
2.
This goes hand in hand with one, because #1 cannot
happen without this. Just as the
Declaration of Independence says, “We find these truths to be self evident,” I
say this is self-evident. Vote! One cannot claim to be a patriot unless one
is a voter. How does this differ from
Reich’s #3? Very simply that he plainly
states that voting alone does not make one a patriot, that it must be
accompanied by activism. I say no. Voting alone does make one a patriot. Why?
We have an electorate where only 40% of those who are eligible to vote
do so, and that’s only in a really big election. In most elections, it’s 20% or less. That’s less than 1 in 5 of our citizens who
vote. No other democratic country in the
world has such a pathetic record. Does
anybody have any idea how much power is being wasted here? Who needs activism? Voting IS the ultimate activism! They complain about having lousy
choices!? Whose fault is that? Just show the f--- up! If they would just show up, they could change
the world overnight. No one can call themselves
a patriot if they don’t bother to show up.
I’ve heard the
arguments. “Oh my vote’s not going to
make any difference.” “Why bother, the
whole system is rigged.” Bull! Of course, your vote’s not going to make a
difference is you don’t show up. And if
the system is rigged (and I don’t really believe it is, but that’s another
essay), it’s only because you don’t show up.
In my lifetime, I cannot recall a single election where there wasn’t at
least one race somewhere (usually several) where the difference between the
winner and the loser was only a handful of votes. Of course, until election night, we have no
idea of which contests are going to end like that. So don’t tell me your vote doesn’t count and
don’t be disgusted by the system being rigged.
If you just bother to show up, you can turn this whole dynamic on its
ear. That’s why, though I’ve been a
staunch Hillary supporter ever since she showed up on the national scene in
1990, I think Bernie Sanders has had a very healthy influence on this race. He’s been turning this whole dynamic on its
ear. I just hope he doesn’t get
discouraged and give up. Even though I
believe he would have been a lame duck president for four years, I also believe
he’s done more good than he probably realizes.
3.
Maybe all three of these are equally important because
this one is certainly crucial. Just as
the oath of every government and military office in the land says, any true
patriot must be pledged to “preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution.” Besides the fact that it
has endured 240 years of the most intense scrutiny imaginable and is still
alive and prospering (as stated before, we are the oldest continuously
operating government in world history), what is so special about our
Constitution?
The Founding
Fathers were ingenious enough to understand that democracy, in its pure form,
simply doesn’t work. The Greeks proved
that, their fledgling experiment in democracy crumbling because they took it
much too literally. The United States is
not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Our founders were wise enough to understand
that there are certain things, rights, liberties that must not be left to
popular will. Otherwise we could quickly
devolve into an Orwellian society where a popular vote could arbitrarily strip an
entire class of citizens of their rights.
So they framed a Constitution that not only specifically spelled out
rights that were considered inviolate and thereby immune to popular will, but
also an unprecedented framework of government meticulously designed to ensure these
would always remain inviolate and even have the flexibility of expanding. For 240 years, it has worked.
When the framers
first adopted it, the Constitution gave the vote only to white male
landowners. In fact, slaves were
specifically mentioned as being only 3/5 of a person, something the framers
were quite reluctantly forced to do or the southern states would not join the
new union and the country would never have gotten started, something Great
Britain was very much expecting and salivating over. After the Civil War, the slaves were freed
and all black men given the right to vote (though it took a good century to
enforce this.) By then, the vote had
also expanded to all men regardless of privilege. By the time FDR came along, women had been added
to the roster and, in the waning days of Vietnam, the 18 year olds. Today there are hate crime laws and official
rights codified into statutes for the gay community. Pretty soon, there’s going to be some major
progress in breaking the glass ceiling.
In 240 years, liberties just keep expanding.
All of this, of
course, does not stop people from being human and influenced by ignorance,
bigotry, greed and plain old self-aggrandizement. That’s why the other genius thing we
celebrate on the 4th of July is the creation of the three separate
but equal branches of government. It’s
really not possible to protect and defend the Constitution unless you first
understand how the three branches work and interact with each other in order to
preserve our freedoms. My guess is that
the average “patriot” who chooses not to vote because they believe the system
is rigged cannot even name the three branches, let alone intelligently describe
them. This is certainly true if you
believe the surveys that have been done.
So
that’s my litmus test for patriotism. If
we’re going to call ourselves patriots, we have to ardently believe in and
practice the principles on which this country was founded – voting for what’s
best for the country, voting period!, and defending the Constitution.
This
final point requires more discussion for I do not mean defending what one may
think the Constitution to be. I mean
defending the real Constitution, not just the few words that are contained it. I will illustrate what I mean by this by
using recent incidents from history.
There
are a number of extremist groups in this country that have taken radical stands
on individual liberties (theirs, of course, not others) claiming their
justification is based on the Constitution.
There are activist groups that refuse to pay taxes because of their
belief that the Constitution makes taxation a voluntary matter. There are secessionist groups that believe they
have a specific Constitutional right to leave the Union at their pleasure. In the past few weeks, since the Supreme
Court ruled against the Texas abortion statutes, there’s been talk of a
so-called “Texit” (which isn’t exactly a new thing.) In fact, after that ruling was handed down,
there was a letter to the editor written by someone claiming to be a lawyer
specialized in constitutional law and stating that the high court’s ruling
itself was unconstitutional. And just
this past week, there was an article about some law professors claiming that a
misplaced comma in the Declaration of Independence (something not in the
original record, not in any of Thomas Jefferson’s unofficial earlier drafts,
but found by radiography on the original parchment in the National Archives),
could change basic rights that have been conferred on some minorities.
Let’s
take them one at a time.
*********************************************************
The Secessionists:
I’m sure you can recall the Nevada
extremist group that was in a long running standoff with the FBI (thankfully
ended peacefully) in which their militia took control of federal property and
refused to recognized federal jurisdiction over that property. They wished to secede from the Union and
claimed the Constitution gave them the right.
Similar incidents have happened in Kansas and most recently now in Texas
though it’s hardly the first time for Texas.
They all share the commonality that the Constitution gives them the
right to secede through popular vote.
Have
they actually read the Constitution?
There is no such provision, as was proven when Texas tried to secede in
the early 19th century, and when the southern states tried to secede
during the Civil War. There’s only one
way to secede and that’s the same process as admission. You send your representatives to Congress and
persuade the whole to write a bill allowing you to come in (or leave per the
discussion here.) In 240 years, except
for the Civil War, secession by popular will has never come up. We are a Union. The whole point is to be united. We have representatives in the Congress
through which we can work out our grievances.
So far, in 240 years, it’s worked.
The No
Taxes:
What about the No Tax crowd? They insist that they don’t need to pay taxes
because it’s written in the Constitution that taxation is voluntary. This became an important enough story that
they did a segment on “60 Minutes” some years back. On this segment, they interviewed both the
leaders of the anti-Tax movement and officials from the IRS. What was shocking was that the IRS official
actually agreed that it was in the Constitution that taxation was voluntary but
that didn’t mean you could opt out of paying them. He actually said, “Yes, taxation is voluntary
but every citizen MUST voluntarily CHOOSE to pay their taxes.” It was a pretty ridiculous statement, all the
more so because it simply isn’t true.
This IRS official was a poor spokesman and should have been sent back to
school for a lesson in basic civics. Article
I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have
power to lay and collect taxes ... “
Also Amendment 16: “The Congress
shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source
derived ...”
The
Texas Abortion Ruling:
This
one really got me, the utter ignorance displayed by the letter writer
displaying dismay that one of the justices wrote in the opinion that “women
have a constitutional right to an abortion.”
The writer, claiming to be a constitutional expert, stated simply that
the justice was wrong because the word “abortion” cannot be found anywhere in
the Constitution and that, therefore, there is no such right. The fact is the justice is completely right and
the letter writer completely wrong. I
can best demonstrate this by bringing up another hotly contested Constitutional
issue, the right to keep and bear arms.
The 2nd
Amendment:
It’s
curious how we got through the first 200 years of our history without this
bothering anyone. Until the 1960s, gun
rights were assumed and there was no extensive, let alone controversial,
political debate about it. It was
commonplace until the Vietnam War that most families, particularly rural
dwellers, kept a firearm on their property, often on their persons, for
protection of property, life and limb.
Even the spike in violent crime during the 1920’s and 30s did not raise
any real eyebrows about gun rights. It
was with the spike in gun deaths during the 60s and 70s that there appeared a
sudden surge of activism on both sides of the debate.
The
amendment contains just 25 words and reads, “A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The
pro-gun crowd, championed by the NRA, has always seized on the second half of
the amendment as their proof incarnate that the Constitution guarantees a
completely unrestricted right for anyone anywhere to have any kind of weapon
they want and the government has no say in it.
Likewise, the anti-gun people have taken the first half as their
indisputable argument that the Founding Fathers intended arms only to be had by
police and military and no one else.
Actually,
they are both wrong. The main body of
the Constitution actually has explicit language that states categorically that
neither you nor I have any legal authority to interpret what those 25 words or
any other part of the Constitution means.
Article III, Section 1: “The
judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court ... “
and Section 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made ...”
It is
clearly stated that the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, gets to
decide what those 25 words mean. Do you
want to know what the 2nd Amendment really means? Study the hundreds of 2nd
Amendments rulings that have been handed down by the Court during the last 240
years. You will find consistent rulings
upholding the rights of ordinary citizens to keep and bear ordinary arms. You will equally find many consistent rulings
codifying a clear need for some reasonable restrictions, such as limiting
weapons of mass destruction like automatic assault weapons and other such arms
that would ordinarily be used only by the military, and by keeping any weapons
out of the hands of convicted felons, the
mentally disturbed and other such people who might ordinarily be rejected by
the military as being unfit to handle firearms.
So both
sides are wrong. The Constitution
clearly states that only the Supreme Court can decide what the language means
and there has been a mountain of rulings on just about every word in the
document.
And so
the logic also extends to the abortion argument and the writer who claims that
because the word “abortion” is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution,
no such right can possibly exist as stated by the justice. Wrong!
Again, if the Court says the right exists, then the right exists! Period!
If the justice writing the majority opinion for the court says the right
exists, then the right exists. In 1972,
the Court ruled that abortion is a right.
There have been many challenges since then but none have been able to
overcome the legal logic that served as the foundation for the original
ruling. However one may feel about the
issue personally or morally, there is currently no accepted legal argument that
the right does not exist.
(I am one who is personally and
morally opposed to abortion, but since I also support the Constitution and I
believe strongly that abortion really is a social problem rather than a legal
one, I have always chosen to pursue and support social solutions rather than
legislative ones. I believe this so
strongly that I would argue that social solutions are not only viable but are
also very much within our reach. I would
also passionately argue that any legal solution would not only fail to solve
the problem but would almost certainly make it much worse. That too would require another essay.)
The only way to change that is to
bring a case that can overcome that logic.
It hasn’t happened in 44 years. I’m
wondering if this guy really is a lawyer, or for that matter ever even went to
law school. You don’t need to be a
lawyer in order to read and understand Article III.
The
Declaration of Independence:
Finally
there is the controversy that has arisen this past week about the mysterious
comma that has been discovered on the parchment of the original document
concerning unalienable rights that has been interpreted by one or two law
professors that perhaps certain rights are not guaranteed after all. (Is this an argument that they should be
taken away from certain people?) I refer
again to Article III that states that ALL of our rights, as enumerated in the
Constitution, are determined by and ONLY by the Supreme Court. Of course, the really major flaw in this
argument is that the Declaration of Independence is not a document that in any
way codifies any rights. It was simply
our notification to King George that we were splitting from the Empire. Even if it could be conceded that these
unalienable rights that were detailed in the declaration were not specifically
worded to provide guaranteed protections, it doesn’t matter because the
document never served that purpose in the first place. That was the entire province of the
Constitutional Convention that took some seven years to figure out what kind
of government we were going to have, what kind of rights that government was
going to provide, and what kind of structure that government needed in order to
provide them.
We all
know the story about how the Bill of Rights came to be because our friends in
Rhode Island refused to join the Union without it. The Founders felt quite strongly that all
these rights were sufficiently implied in the body of the document, but that wasn’t
good enough for these upstarts who wanted them specifically and in detail
spelled out. The President of the
Convention, George Washington himself, badly wanted Rhode Island so he ordered
the ten initial amendments immediately drafted and approved. Who knows how all this might have gone down
otherwise? We can thank God for Rhode
Island.
So I am
somewhat baffled by these so-called law professors for taking such a ridiculous
position that anything in the Declaration of Independence could possibly supersede
the Constitution. Again, you don’t need
to be a lawyer to read and understand Article III and the clear authority it
extends to the Court. It would be like a
film professor arguing that George Eastman never invented celluloid, the very
thing that started the industry in the first place. Do they understand even the most basic things
about their own profession?
Conclusion:
So I hope this has been adequate to
illustrate my point. To be a true
patriot, you must be passionate about supporting and defending the
Constitution. To support and defend the
Constitution, you must understand it and to understand it you must study it,
not just the words but the real meaning and especially the clearly stated
reality that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter. So before anyone can get bent out of shape
about a misplaced comma changing basic rights, before anyone can start spouting
off about words like “a well regulated militia” or “shall not be infringed”
changing basic rights, it is well advised to be a responsible citizen, hit the
books and study some case law.
I think
the best summation can come from one of the best television series in history,
“The West Wing.” In one of its most
notable episodes, Martin Sheen’s President Bartlet gives a speech at a local
university in which his parting thought is, “Government belongs to those who
show up.” Freedom is hard. It must be fought for through active
citizenship and defending it is harder still.
Active citizenship is the hardest yet since it means responsibility. Understanding how the government works and
keeping informed requires taking on that responsibility. How many who pride themselves as patriots
have done so? When random surveys reveal
that 9 out of 10 people cannot name the three branches of government, cannot
identify the President of the Senate, cannot list even one Supreme Court
justice, cannot say who their own senator is, this is not taking
responsibility. Simply being angry in
the belief that the government is incapable of doing anything right is not
taking responsibility. It is not being a
patriot. Waving the flag alone does not
make one a patriot. I lamented earlier
the sacrilege that less than 20 percent of our citizens vote. Perhaps instead I should take comfort in
that dismal statistic.
To
conclude and summarize my new definition of patriotism, I will co-opt the line
from President Bartlet, “A true patriot is someone who shows up.” Happy belated 4th of July. On our 240th birthday, I hope it
was special for everybody.
No comments:
Post a Comment