True Patriotism

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country."

-Theodore Roosevelt

Many of those beating the war drums have not yet gone so far as to equate all dissent with treason, but they appear to be only a millimeter or two from that position. For the moment, at least, they are content merely to question the patriotism or rationality of those refusing to march in lock-step behind the Bush banner. And they conveniently dispose of principled opponents by disingenuously lumping them together with the motley menagerie of misfits and malcontents who have flocked to the phony "peace" standard held aloft by the Hollywood Left.

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him in so far as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth ?- whether about the President or about any one else ?- save in the rare cases where this would make known to the enemy information of military value which would otherwise be unknown to him.

Whatever faults critics may find with Teddy Roosevelt, he was certainly a patriot. And who would question the patriotic credentials of George Washington, the patriot nonpareil? Yet, in his wise and eloquent Farewell Address, President Washington warned his countrymen against "the mischiefs of foreign intrigue" and "the impostures of pretended patriotism." Those cautions are especially apropos to this moment, when pretended patriotism is being called into service of the most mischievous foreign intrigues.

But how is one to judge who is "standing by the country" when those on opposing sides both claim to be doing so? President Washington provided the answer, in the same address, in his exhortation "that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained."

In proposing that these United States go to war and send troops into battle on the other side of the world, President Bush must satisfy two important requirements:1)demonstrate that this is being done to defend the United States of America; and 2) obtain a congressional declaration of war. He has done neither.

All reasonable people will concede President Bush's repeated charge that Saddam Hussein is a horrible tyrant. If the president were to produce evidence showing that his regime was responsible for the September 11th attacks ?- which obviously qualify as an act of war ?- there would be ample cause for retaliation, and virtually zero opposition. But he has not done that. Instead Mr. Bush has repeatedly invoked United Nations resolutions and United Nations objectives ?- not the U.S. Constitution, not American security and American national interests ?- to justify this war.

In his State of the Union speech on January 28, 2003, President Bush said: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make." But the president neglected to point out that neither he nor any other man occupying the White House can claim the constitutional authority to "send" any Americans into battle. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) grants only to Congress the power "To declare war." Bush has not obtained a declaration of war from Congress. It is completely illegal and completely unconstitutional to evade this requirement. He cannot legitimize this illegal course by citing similarly unconstitutional precedents. It is, of course, true that President Truman sent troops to war in Korea, that Presidents Eisenhower through Nixon carried out war in Southeast Asia, and that Presidents Bush and Clinton also launched wars ?- all without the congressional authorization mandated by the Constitution. But past usurpations of congressional power do not justify still another gross violation of the "law of the land."

When the legislative branch is unwilling to defend its constitutional check on unlimited executive authority, it becomes the American citizenry's obligation to compel Congress to preserve this "necessary" (Washington's word) protection.

However, principled resistance by mainstream, patriotic Americans to the president's war plans is melting, as moderates and conservatives run to the bugle call to avoid being labeled "traitors." That is not the way for wise and courageous patriots ?- principled constitutionalists ?- to behave. Now, especially, is the time to heed Washington's admonition that the "free Constitution" be "sacredly maintained."