Bush's Successes!

Rosen: Patriotism and dissent

January 16, 2004

Mike Rosen

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

- Thomas Jefferson (?)

Do a Web search and you'll find this questionable attribution heralded by every anti-war, anti-capitalist, Dean-loving, Bush-hating, left-wing blogger on the planet. This is the way false rumors are spread on the Internet. The Jefferson scholars I've checked with have no knowledge of his ever making that remark. If someone can substantiate this claim with a direct reference, i.e., a specific Jefferson writing or speech, I'd like to know about it.

We do know that Howard Zinn said, "Patriotism is the highest form of dissent" in a July 2002 interview with Sharon Basco, of the left-wing, populist Web site TomPaine.com. And we know that when he offered this simplistic, self-serving assertion he made no mention of Thomas Jefferson. Zinn, for the benefit of the unenlightened, is the leftist, America-bashing historian and author of A People's History of the United States, a 776-page "textbook" currently enjoying trendy popularity in liberal education circles. Your children may well be reading it in college or high school.

Zinn's view of the world is through the Marxist prism of class struggle. He has nothing but disdain for wealth and "private profit." He acknowledges that his book is a "biased account" and that "objectivity is impossible and undesirable" because, as he puts is, "I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be part of a social struggle." If American history were a glass, Zinn obsesses only on the portion that's empty, diminishing or finessing the full body of American goodness and achievement.

Patriotism, very simply, is love of country. This doesn't mean blind love of country or mindless fealty to government. Of course you can love your country while also disagreeing with some of the things it does and is. The point is that patriots love it on balance. There's nothing inherently unpatriotic about dissent.

And, yes, dissenters can, indeed, be patriots. But it's just as true that some dissenters aren't patriots. Throughout most of the last century, many members of the Communist Party USA were dissenters but not patriots. Their principal loyalties were to their ideology and its home, the Soviet Union. Our own Founding Fathers were dissenters to British rule. They were surely the first American patriots, but they certainly weren't patriots to the crown. Benedict Arnold expressed his dissent to the American Revolution by treasonously betraying it. That wasn't the "highest form of patriotism," it was the lowest.

Dissent is alive and well in this country. Just listen to Howard Dean, The New York Times or the Hollywood left. Dissent is fine and is scrupulously protected as a fundamental right. It would be indefensible to persecute peaceful dissenters.

But criticism and debate isn't persecution. Bush's critics seem to think that they should be above criticism themselves. While many America-hating one-worlders reflexively recoil from the very notion of patriotism, others brandish it as a mantle of immunity. By some tortured logic they argue that their dissent is patriotic but your disagreement with their arguments or uncivil behavior is not. The corollary to one's right to dissent is another's right to dissent from the substance of that dissent.

I love precisely the America that Zinn and his ilk abhor. When Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," he wasn't damning patriotism, per se; his ire was directed at false patriotism - the pretense of patriotism, a la Howard Zinn.

Like so many other lefties, Zinn hates America. Of course, he won't say that in so many words. The America he theoretically loves doesn't exist and never has. His make-believe vision is of a socialist, just, peaceful, demilitarized, environmentally pure, utopian America, subservient to an equally enlightened, collectivist world government.

What he despises is the actual history, the heroes, institutions, economics, sovereignty, values and lifestyles of bourgeois America as it is. Some patriot.

No, dissent isn't the highest form of patriotism. Brave and dedicated men and women in uniform are, right now, in Iraq and Afghanistan, serving their country and putting their lives on the line.

That's the highest form of patriotism.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA.

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

Dude, Mike Rosen writes for the Rocky Mountain News, and I get a craw-ful of him weekly. He,and his neo-nazi buddies the Coors family are beneath my contempt.

Attacking the Person ( argumentum ad hominem )
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.

Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

What about the protests in Baghdad and Najaf and Basra and other cities in the South that have each numbered in the thousands, Tarantulas?

InfraBlue wrote:

How is this statement: "Amazingly, achieved the remarkable feat of uniting Shiite and Sunni Muslims ..... in joint-hatred of America and Americans." silly? Because fifty-percent of Americans disagree with it? How is is it hateful?

It's silly because the insurgents are a small minority. Most Iraqis just want to live their lives. They don't hate anyone other than Saddam and his cronies.

The question, Tarantulas, was how is it silly and hatefull to say that, Bush "Amazingly, achieved the remarkable feat of uniting Shiite and Sunni Muslims ..... in joint-hatred of America and Americans" when that is exactly what has happened. He didn't merely unite a small minority of insurgents, he united thousands upon thousands of Sunni and Shia in joint hatred of the US.