posted on a previous thread on patriotism. Settle in. It's fairly long.

=====

Patriotism. Tricky subject. I can understand it in a sense—a sort of affinity with the area in which random chance determined that one would be born, especially if one lived in that location for a time. But I have never understood the fanatical adherence some people have to a plot of land.

I have lived in Seattle off and on almost all my life, but I spent my first nine years in Southern California—Pasadena, to be exact. In the mid-1980s, my wife and I flew to Long Beach (which, like Pasadena, could be regarded as a suburb of the sprawling Los Angeles megalopolis) to visit friends for a week or two. When we stepped off the plane at the Long Beach airport, suddenly the feel of the air, the temperature, the smells, the sight of tall palm trees—I had this strange feeling that I had "returned home." My reaction when I got off the plane was immediate and visceral. Yet, during the many decades that I have lived in the Pacific Northwest, I can't say that I really missed Southern California. And when I got off the plane a week or so later at the Seattle-Tacoma airport, I had that same feeling I'd felt in Long Beach. I had "returned home."

During my grade school years in California, along with the usual curriculum (readin', writin', 'rithmetic), I was also instructed in a number of patriotic practices, such as the flag code (proper and respectful handling of the flag, when to display it, etc.), and was required to memorize such things as the Pledge of Allegiance and the words to "The Star-Spangled Banner." I received an extra credit gold star for drawing the American flag with colored pencils, with the Pledge of Allegiance carefully printed beneath it.

The flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem, are the external trappings—the ritual—of what we refer to as patriotism. Some folks regard these ritualistic aspects as sacrosanct and never seem to get beyond them to what those ritual practices are supposed to represent (a not uncommon in other areas as well). I began to learn what these things meant some years later in high school. My American history teacher was excellent. Along with the usual high points, he did not shy away from such things as slavery and what led up to the Civil War, and treatment of Native Americans. He also taught civics classes, in which we studied the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One important lesson that came across was that when the country went wrong, it was generally because it failed to observe the principles stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If one is well-acquainted with the Constitution, a little gimlet-eyed observation reveals that some of our elected national leaders, despite taking an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution upon entering office, did not and do not always abide by that oath. This was (is) generally in order to benefit some private interests with which they were associated or to which they felt some obligation. In fact, it often appears to be something of a game. How far can they depart from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights before the citizens noticed and protested?

Well—quite a distance, it appears. Lobbying has become a commonly accepted practice in American politics. For "lobbying," read "bribery." Why is this tolerated?

I kept hearing that "America is the greatest country in the world." And, indeed, it has some fine achievements in its history. The stated principles on which the country was founded are admirable—and were indeed ground-breaking at the time they were adopted. But if one examines aspects of the country's history that most high school teachers are reluctant to talk about, and if one is aware of the continuing revelations from "whistle-blowers" about how some of our elected officials and our government agencies really operate, it more than establishes that "the greatest country in the world" has a very dark side. That dark side, motivated by greed and power-lust, callously disregards the plight of the country's weakest and neediest citizens in order to pander to the richest and most powerful. And it engages in bullying and exploitive behavior toward other countries around the world, and then either conceals it or wraps it in the flag in order to hoodwink American citizens into accepting it, usually in the name of "national security."

This emotional mantra, "America is the greatest country in the world," blinds many people to the fact that there are older and wiser countries from whom we could learn much. For example, a comparison of the allocation of tax revenues that the United States government spends on such things as education, health, the military, etc., with what other countries spend is very revealing, especially if one also compares rates of infant mortality, longevity, the availability of quality health care to all citizens, quality of education, standard of living—and satisfaction with life in general (last I heard, Denmark leads here), reveals the uncomfortable fact that, by almost every index, America can hardly be considered as "the greatest country in the world."

If we feel that other countries should embrace the "American way of life," trying to cram it down their throats with the butt of a rifle is not the way to go about it. First of all, we need to abandon that jingoistic mantra and do an agonizing reappraisal of just what our "American way of life" amounts to, and see how it compares with that in the U. K., in France, in Germany, Norway, Sweden, the rest of Europe, in other parts of the world such as Japan, Australia. . . .

There is a simple principle:   if we think other countries should embrace our way of life, then our way of life needs to be admirable and desirable enough so they want to embrace it. We should lead, not by force, not by admonition, but by example. If our hubris as Americans is so great that we feel like we need to be parents to the rest of the world, then there is a valuable lesson in parenting in a work of fiction:   To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee. Atticus Finch knew that if his children were to grow up to be moral persons, then he had to be that kind of person himself.

I recently heard of a small Central American country (one of the countries usually characterized as a "banana republic" ruled by a petty military dictator) where the democratically elected president and governing body determined that their relations with both their citizens and their neighbors were sufficiently stable and friendly that they had no need of military forces, so they disbanded their military and applied the money saved to improving their educational system.

"But we need our military!" you say. "Why?" say I. "Because of the terrorists! Because of the people in the world who hate America!" you answer. But I then respond:   "Perhaps we should ask the terrorists, 'Why do you hate us so much?' And then we should listen carefully to their answer."

The true patriot is often labeled by others as being unpatriotic. The true patriot is often confronted by the exasperated remark, "Well, if you don't like it here in America, why don't you go somewhere else?" Well, maybe that's not such a bad question. A lot of Americans are descendants of people who emigrated from countries that were tyrannical or oppressive. Many people emigrated from Germany in the 1930s. So that's always an option. But of course that means there would be one less person who sees what's wrong and can help attempt to set things right.

The true patriot is loyal to the moral principles and the stated ideals upon which the country was founded. Not to the elected officials. Especially when those elected officials stray from those principles and ideals. Elected officials, upon entering office, take an oath to uphold those principles and ideals, and it is the moral obligation of the true patriot to call them on it if they depart from their oath. And to keep calling them on it, in the company of other patriots, until they are either shamed into returning to those principles or are replaced by other elected officials who will.

On a travel program on the radio a few days ago, the interviewer asked a travel writer why it is that a particular European country's government seems to be especially responsive to the needs of its citizens. "Because," said the travel writer, "they have a long history of throwing out corrupt or unresponsive leaders. Elected officials are afraid of what the citizens might do if they don't toe the line."

A true patriot is not someone who is rooted to a particular plot of land. A true patriot is one who adheres to a set of principles and ideals. And when and if the country fails to live up to those principles and ideals, the true patriot takes a stand, cries "foul!" and demands that its elected officials either return to those principles or be replaced.

Don Firth