i-sako.com

This blog has gone without an update for a while for a number of reasons, but perhaps foremost among them is the fact that I have been struggling to limit the number of bitchy political entries I post here. I never intended for this blog to be dominated by political issues (well, not entirely), but the Bush administration has done so many things that infuriate me that it has been difficult to focus on the other things that I would rather be writing about. I’ve been trying to show restraint, but it is difficult in light of all the amazingly bad things going on at the administration’s insistence.

I would like to get back to a discussion of matters that are more interesting than the subtle ways in which the Bush administration is hijacking the American political process, but I cannot help but feel obligated to expose this lying half-wit for the scoundrel he is. One might argue that it would be unpatriotic to do otherwise.

In fact, Alon Ben-Meir does just that in a recent article at UPI, “The Academic View: Patriotism and war”. (Hat tip: John McCreery, chair of DAJ.) In the article, Ben-Meir makes many good points, but of particular interest to me were two quotes, ones that should really grab the attention of the American people.

The first was from our first president, George Washington, in his 1796 Farewell Address:

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.

Our current president is nothing less than the result of our failure to guard against precisely the “impostures of pretended patriotism” that Washington warned us about so long ago.

The other is from the philosopher Ralph Barton Perry, who said:

If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, it is not merely because evil deeds may be performed in the name of patriotism … but because patriotic fervor can obliterate moral distinction altogether.

We certainly have seen a lot of moral distinctions obliterated recently:

• When France leads the Security Council in principled opposition to Bush’s insistence upon automatic triggers for war, it is vilified in the White House and in both chambers of Congress. Whatever the arguments leveled against France, surely it has the right to vote against a proposal, but the Bush administration would cast this exercise of a basic right as a betrayal.



• When Senator Daschle correctly criticizes the president’s diplomatic failures, he is accused of coming “mighty close” to undermining the president and giving comfort our adversaries, which—lest we take this statement lightly—is tantamount to an accusation of treason. That’s a pretty powerful statement, but here we see it bandied about lightly, as if it were a matter of course. If that is not a blurring of moral distinctions, nothing is. (It is also well worth pointing out that the Republicans had no qualms about criticizing Clinton’s handling of Kosovo. This ”screw-you-I’m-right smugness” is the most appalling thing about this whole affair. )



• In seeking to ram huge tax cuts through a spineless Congress, the administration is creating an atmosphere that suggests that it is unpatriotic to vote against the president in any circumstances when the country is at war. This was bad enough when the administration rammed the wholly unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act through a shocked Congress just after September 11th, but it is completely unacceptable to even suggest that voting against the president on tax cuts is unpatriotic. If opposing the president on tax cuts is unpatriotic, then patriotism is not as desirable as people think. (By this logic, it would be to the president’s advantage to keep the United States in a perpetual state of war, so that no one could ever disagree with him for fear of being branded “unpatriotic”. Oh, gosh, wait a minute, that’s exactly what is happening now with this war on terror…)

Bush is no patriot, but he pretends to be one with great aplomb. And the American people seem to love him for it. The only reason I can think of for this is simply that the American people are unaccustomed to being wrong, so the enormity of his actions are something that Americans seem willing to overlook on good faith, which is precisely what we must not do. (I wrote a bit about this the other day at Antipixel.)

George Washington warned against it; Alon Ben-Meir reminds us to heed that warning:

No, we cannot afford to take this administration’s word for granted
either. For now it may be a good idea for every American patriot to
adopt the state of Missouri’s motto: “Show Me.”

In my opinion, given his record of producing flimsy evidence in support of both war and tax cuts, the Bush administration should be required to provide more substantial proof that it is right—on all issues, all the time. Nothing it does or wants should be accepted on trust, not even in a time of war. Bush is cheerfully marching us down the path of fascism; I, for one, submit that it would be unpatriotic to play along.

Here is a definition of patriotism with which I particularly agree in our current situation (although I’m sure Dick Cheney wouldn’t). It comes from The Devil’s Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce:

PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.



In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Bierce is right, patriotism is the first resort of a scoundrel, an imposture of pretended patriotism: George W. Bush.

History is replete with warnings to guard against precisely this kind of behavior. Please, my fellow Americans, listen to the wisdom of history and resist any appeals to yield on patriotic grounds. To do so would be manifestly unpatriotic—and a betrayal of the principles our country was founded on. Take this “whip of patriotism” away from the Dicks who wield it against the better judgment of our elected leaders in Congress.

I have attempted to show warnings from the truest American patriots in the material above, but I fear that this may not be enough to sway people who truly want to believe that Bush is a force for good. Let me now close with warnings of another kind, pronouncements from leaders of a sinister past, ones whose words find an eerie echo in the Bush administration of today. (Note: This is why some protesters compare Bush to Hitler—it’s not an asinine comparison, but an apt one!)

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda:

“By simplifying the thoughts of the masses and reducing them to primitive patterns, propaganda was able to present the complex process of political and economic life in the simplest terms. We have taken matters previously available only to experts and a small number of specialists, and have carried them into the street and hammered them into the brain of the little man.”

What can be more simplistic than reducing the entire realm of foreign affairs to “good vs. evil” or “with us or against us”? In the mind of the little man in the street, however, this has proven to be a very effective tactic for Bush. He has hammered these messages into our brains to the fullest of his ability, and he allows no dissent. To the extent that the media do not question him openly (or are not allowed to question him, as we saw at his scripted press conference), they too share some complicity in this hypocritical and unpatriotic undermining of American principles.

Hermann Göring, Hitler’s Reichsmarschall, at the Nuremberg Trials:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Indeed it does work the same in any country—even the United States of America, I’m afraid.

At this juncture in our history, I think there are only two things that can be called patriotic:

1. Thinking for yourself instead of accepting views that are spoon-fed by a jingoistic media, with the blessing of the administration (and the implicit threat of denied access to those who do not comply with the administration’s wishes); and



2. Demanding substantial justification for and ample debate about every major decision, at every opportunity, by the branch of government appointed to handle such matters in our Constitution (which in this case would mean Congress, not the White House).

I look forward to the Bush team’s adoption of an honest label for its policies in the 2004 elections: They should pitch themselves as the “compassionate fascists”.