CARROLL: Patriotism fair game
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
"I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign," Barack Obama assured the public Monday - but why such an ironclad rule? Surely not because everyone is in fact a patriot.
Obama is right, to be sure, that some Americans have been far too quick to question others' patriotism. In fact, "throughout our history, men and women of far greater significance and stature than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates," he pointed out, including several early presidents.
"Most Americans never bought into these simplistic worldviews, these caricatures of left and of right," Obama declared during a speech in Independence, Mo. "Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic."
Most Americans do indeed understand this. But most probably also understand that not all 300 million Americans are patriots, and that it's not impolite or jingoistic to say so. If everyone were a patriot, the word would have no meaning.
Some Americans do not love their country. They do not buy Mark Twain's dictum, which Obama quoted, that "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." They do not share that "gut instinct" for this nation that Obama affectionately described in his speech.
Some frankly despise this country - and freely and repeatedly say so. They believe it is a blight on the planet. Ward Churchhill is no patriot. Nor is Bill Ayres, Noam Chomsky, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright - the list could easily go on. Such people don't meet the dictionary definition of patriotism and they don't meet the far more generous definition that Obama outlined in his speech.
So by all means question their patriotism if you feel like it. It may be unpleasant to the ears of some, but it's honest and it's accurate.
The Leadville shuffle
The alarmists who insisted a few months ago that Leadville was a sitting duck for a mine-tunnel catastrophe with "elements of Bohopal (sic), India, the Teton Dam [disaster] and the Summitville Mine in Colorado all rolled into one" have nothing but praise for a detailed federal report released this week that basically confirms they were wrong from the start.
Not that anyone is of a mind to apologize.
"Even after reading this, I would not have done anything differently," declared Lake County Commission Chairman Mike Hickman.
Not anything, commissioner? How about toning down the commission news release that referenced Bhopal and the Teton Dam? How about stopping short of describing the state health department, the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (at the state Capitol in February) as "the three stooges"?
If the bureau, which wrote this week's report, is one of the stooges, then it must be Moe, since it certainly knows how to wield a mean hammer on the heads of clueless critics. Perhaps Hickman should ponder who this week has been cast in the role of Curly.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
July 2, 2008
6:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
No, Forward69, you have it wrong. The unpatriotic are the ones who say, "We support the troops but not their mission". They are the ones who regularly say the rich don't pay their fair share and/or that tax cuts only bebefit the rich when both are lies. They are the ones who want government mandated health care when the Constitution specifically forbids a direct tax upon the people. They are the ones who want to make us defenseless by banning all guns. They are the ones who want bigger federal government so the people "need" the government telling them how to live.
July 2, 2008
6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
No Mike, you're dead wrong. I'm as patriotic as the next guy, and I most definitely support our TROOPS, but I certainly don't support the MISSION of staying in Iraq! I want nothing but the best for our soldiers, and I want them to be treated with the utmost respect both overseas and when they return from duty. However, I simply cannot support the mission that the POTUS has put them on. Sorry.
If that makes me unpatriotic in your closed eyes, so be it.
July 2, 2008
6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
So do the ends justify the means or not? Or are you just saying that it is acceptable to argue with subjective hyperbole only when it can reasonably be believed? Or maybe you are just saying it's OK to make personal attacks when it's as important as the Presidency, but not when it's the safety of the populace?
Please elaborate, because I seem to think that honesty and integrity are equally important in both situations, and personal attacks are not the ethical way to achieve any end.
July 2, 2008
7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oliver2 writes:
It is very simple. Patriots are whomever Vince agrees with.
July 2, 2008
7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
It's very easy to be the kind of patriot Vincent Carroll describes. Wave the flag and cheer on US military action no matter the conflict and presto! You're a patriot.
But I believe history will remember Reverend Wright for being one of the few public Christian leaders to speak some real truths during a time when it was dangerous to do so.
Reverend Wright did exactly what Mark Twain espoused - he called out US government action on certain issues. He did NOT damn American citizens.
July 2, 2008
7:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
And as far as I'm concerned, Noam Chomsky is a national treasure. But then, Vincent Carroll is part of a mass anti-intellectual movement that seeks to discredit any learned person who speaks out against this country increasingly becoming a Corporate State.
July 2, 2008
7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oliver2 writes:
I wonder when, in Vince's history, our beloved 'Founding Fathers' went from being anti-patriot scum (attacking the good King George) to patriots? Sometime before the Boston Tea Party? Sometime after?
July 2, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Froward, why bother? I mean, look what you're working with here.
According to Mike's logic, if you support paying taxes out of your income to be used for any public service other than the military, you're not a patriot.
You seriously think you can reason with someone who assigns such verdicts against his fellow citizens?
July 2, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
ollie writes:
Lots of armchair patriots out there. Pass along emails and stick
a support the troops magnet on their car and call themselves patriots.
July 2, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
mytwosense - How do come off suggesting the jerimiah wright has made valid statements? I heard,"Ga##amn the United States!!!" This doesn't fit with any line of thinking short of sedition.
He damned the US for WWII, etc. Maybe you should move to france! Remember without the US they'd be speaking german now.
July 2, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Mytwosense,
Uncle Noam did some fine work on linguistics and his critique of the Vietnam war was powerful, but his political writings are not really very interesting. Actually, I find it rather odd that he found fame propounding a "universal grammar" strongly suggesting that language is innate, but completely ignores trends in human evolutionary science casting doubt on the Rousseauean premise.
Dr. Chomsky relies heavily on "dark forces" and intimations of arcane knowledge to explain away normal human behaviour. People don't do what they do because that's what they do; their actions can only be explained through consipiratorial manipulation - a kind of false consciousness writ large.
Disagreeing with Noam Chomsky is not, ipso facto, "anti-intellectualism." Indeed, I always thought that intellectualism, like science, was a search for the truth, wherever it may lay.
July 2, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Hey Barack, How about questioning the patriotism of Mayor Hickenlooper and his new national anthem?
July 2, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Shorter Vincent Carroll:
"Attacking someone's patriotism is fair game as long as I approve the targets."
It seems Vincent has a patriotism "compensation" issue.
Sorry Vinny, but you aren't even in the same league with Chomsky. The utter humiliation you would suffer if you ever crossed intellectual swords with him would devastate you. To paraphrase a line from a movie, it would be like "bringing a toothpick to a sword-fight".
July 2, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
We should always be proud and stick up for our troops and our country because it's the greatest one in the world. This can and should be done without wrapping ourselves in the flag or religion; those are just symbols that reflect our beliefs but often are used for unpatriotic and unchristianlike behavior that damages the very things they are supposed to glorify.
July 2, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Konyok:
You're correct that disagreeing with Chomsky is not categorically anti-intellectual.
Do you accept the premise that he is "unpatriotic"?
July 2, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Charles_B
I think that Vince and Noam are more actually pretty closely matched, at least as far as political commentary goes. They are both firmly wedded to ideological world-views revolving around narratives of *good guys* and *bad guys.* Chomsky represents the exotic "transgressive" flavor, and Vince peddles the mom-and-apple-pie "last bastion of order" brand. Both are Punch and Judy characters.
July 2, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Flyfish: "Maybe you should move to france! Remember without the US they'd be speaking german now."
Yeah, well without the French, we might still be under British rule. We wouldn't have one of our national treasures, either, the Statue of Liberty.
Anyone who scoffs at either of these two contributions from the French is either historically illiterate or just plain ungrateful.
July 2, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Charles_B,
Well, "unpatriotic" is one of those loaded words that says more than what it says. It's almost a Rohrschach test - what do you see in this inkblot?
In a general, all encompassing sense, is he "unpatriotic?" I guess that I'd have to say no. Is it "unpatriotic" to read Chomsky? I'd have to say no emphatically.
Is reading Chomsky useful or insightful in understanding recent US history? I'd have to say no. It's a naughty pleasure, a self indulgence. Chomsky has a kind of Beavis and Butthead appeal. It is offensive to many, sometimes a bit funny and mostly just empty calories.
July 2, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Konyok: "Disagreeing with Noam Chomsky is not, ipso facto, "anti-intellectualism."
Nor did I say it was.
July 2, 2008
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
the tired rhetoric about "patriotism" from the far right gets more desperate every day. this is a sadly predictable side effect of the inability to discuss policy stances and The Track Redcord.
being critical of the united states isn't being unpatriotic. quite the opposite actually. a patriot is one who has the courage to stand up and speak when his country goes astray.
konyok, i am going to wager a guess and say that you haven't read much noam.
try reading understanding power and then come back and claim that "his political writings are not really very interesting". furthermore, this is one guy talking...but i don't see noam's writing relying on the influence of "dark forces" to explain away normal human behavior.
as far as the trend towards anti-intellectualism...consider how much the right has attempted to disparage and marginalize the scientific/academic communities on a number of fronts in the past decade. it's pretty hard to make the case that such a movement doesn't exist when you consider the incessant drumbeat surrounding global warming, embryonic stem cell research, creationism, the "choice" of homosexuality, etc etc etc.
July 2, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Konyok: "Chomsky has a kind of Beavis and Butthead appeal. It is offensive to many, sometimes a bit funny and mostly just empty calories."
Can you give an example?
July 2, 2008
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
jay: "as far as the trend towards anti-intellectualism...consider how much the right has attempted to disparage and marginalize the scientific/academic communities on a number of fronts in the past decade."
And the press. In fact, any institution or individual who questions their ideologies. It's a neat trick to avoid actually defending their ideologies with any semblance of thoughtful, reasoned logic.
Of course, considering so many of their positions are indefensible, one can see why they take the tactic to shoot the messenger instead.
July 2, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Flyfishdude: "mytwosense - How do come off suggesting the jerimiah wright has made valid statements? I heard,"Ga##amn the United States!!!" This doesn't fit with any line of thinking short of sedition."
Because unlike you (probably) I watched some of his sermons in their entirety on youtube. Not just the soundbites the media featured.
I heard more than just that one statement, I heard the statements leading up to it. And he was criticizing US government actions.
July 2, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Geez.... those who KNOW that they hate the United States, sure are hyper-sensitive about having it revealed.
If the leftwing lunatic fringe doesn't like being called unpatriotic, then it should stop being unpatriotic.
Here's a few tips for the low IQ crowd on how to stop being unpatriotic....
Stop being ashamed of wearing an American flag.
Stop praising airhead singers who refuse to sing the National Anthem and insert their own warped leftwinger version of it.
Stop attacking Americans who serve in uniform, spent years being tortured in a POW camp, and return to have leftwingers say that it is less qualification to be a leader, than a non-serving coward whose only accomplishment is to participate in corrupt real estate deals with convicted felons and being funded by terrorists in his political campaigns.
Stop supporting more rights for terrorists than American soldiers receive.
Stop supporting fraudulent college professors who make up lies in their attacks on the United States.
Stop praising admitted anti-American fanatics like Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, etc, etc.
July 2, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
Noam Chomsky exemplifies the very definition of what Mark Twain defined as a patriot. Someone who loves his country, but supports his government when it deserves it. All Chomsky does is point out the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. Saying we support democracy and self-determination then aid vicious dictators around the globe. Having the CIA overthrow democractically elected governments, just because those elected leaders would use the resources of their country to benefit their own people. Instead of those resources being used to benefit American corporations. But people like Vince Carrol have a cartoon version of "patriotism". "Patriotism" to Vince and the RW'ers is waving the flag and having a support the troops sticker on their SUV. They think anyone that dares point out how our government fails to live up to it's ideals, is guilty of hating America. Far from it. The true patriot wants our country and government to practice what it preaches.
July 2, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Conservativeslayer: "But people like Vince Carrol have a cartoon version of "patriotism". "Patriotism" to Vince and the RW'ers is waving the flag and having a support the troops sticker on their SUV. They think anyone that dares point out how our government fails to live up to it's ideals, is guilty of hating America."
It's called fascism. That's almost always its first calling card: a blind and hysterical nationalism. It's amazing that some people could still fall for it, even with the glaring examples of history available for anyone with a library card to read about.
Oh yeah. I forgot. They hate libraries, too.
July 2, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
yep...this brand of fascist patriotism is a cousin to jingoism and nationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
July 2, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
uskam writes:
Let's see, we press "1" for English, the Black Anthem is sung at city affairs, politicians and media don't feel a need to wear patriotic attire (i.e. flag pins), Civics, US Government, The Constitution, etc. have been taken out of schools as mandatory classes, we are all so "politcally correct," even to the point of sacrificing our beliefs, that I'm not too surprised at this type of thinking. Perhaps, if people learned the history of this great nation, they wouldn't be so quick to make patiotism "fair game." Remember "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
July 2, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
@mytwosense You are indeed correct, the RW'ers aren't patriots but nationalists. Nationalism has started more wars and caused more deaths then any other cause, with the exception of religion.
July 2, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
uskam, no one should feel the "need" to wear "patriotic attire." Especially the media, for God's sake. As for our school curriculuum, I am all for strengthening our students' knowledge of and interest in civics and government, however, the conservatives want to throw the entire baby out with the bathwater. i.e., shut down public schools.
July 2, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Mytwosense,
Your juxtaposition of Chomsky and Carroll made that point (anti Chomsky = anti intellectual) pretty clearly.
I don't have any "Beavis and Butthead" page citations right at hand. What he consistently does is to proffer a counter-intuitive statement, ("Heh, heh. He called the U.S. a terrorist state"), and then support it with analogous reasoning. (The U.S. did wrong in Vietnam and Central America, therefore, anything the U.S. does is wrong.) On those occasions when he makes an error, he digs in his heels. He never has acknowledged the killing fields in Cambodia.
The last Chomsky book I read myself was "Manufacturing Consent." He made some very good points about the media's cheerleading the war on terror, but completely ignored the implications of his own thesis when ideologically inconvenient. The unprecedented campaign to promote fears of climate change is a perfect example of the kind of thing that escapes Chomsky's eye.
July 2, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
So, now we've escalated to "fascist?"
What difference is there between that particular form of tribal chestpounding and the jinoistic variety that you disdain so?
Pots and kettles, boys and girls ...
Jay, I can't imagine a more blatant use of the "politics of FEAR."
Mytwosense, you got some 'splanin' to do. I kinda, maybe, thought that you had some integrity.
July 2, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Patriot or Patriotism (with the explicit or implied absence thereof) is a term *most* often used in an attempt to smear or diminish someone's reputation, as Vincent Carroll does with Churchill, Ayres, Chomsky, and Wright--as if he could read their hearts and determine that they "despise" the country they live in. While the word does have meaning, one of its meanings seems to be, as others have suggested here, nothing more than "someone I disagree with".
It's my impression that those who use these terms of besmirchment ("anti-American" is another) seldom if ever attempt to tie a specific statement of the accused to some objective definition--presumably because, if they did, their case would fall apart. Someone here at least tried it with Wright ("G_D_ America") but of course, as someone else pointed out, that was taken completely out of context. Statements taken out of context can take on just about any meaning.
July 2, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
konyok, no one is saying that all republicans are fascists. why do you ask? correctly acknowledging that certain extreme forms of "patriotism" qualify as fascism isn't unpatriotic is it?
July 2, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
Speaking of flag pins, it's quite ironic that the "America-hating" Obama wears one all the time, while I never see one on "America-loving" John McCain. Of course, no one would ever accuse McCain of being unpatriotic for not wearing a flag pin. Repubilcans by definition are patriots, they never have to prove it. Democrats on the other hand must always prove their patriotism. Especially if that democrat is somewhat "exotic" like Obama.
July 2, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Konyok: "Mytwosense, you got some 'splanin' to do. I kinda, maybe, thought that you had some integrity."
Thanks, I'm flattered you thought that at one point. Although it's surprising information, considering we agree on absolutely nothing.
Anyway, I was referring to blind nationalism as a familiar hallmark of fascism. Do you disagree? Or was there something else I said you felt offended by? I'm honestly confused.
July 2, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Jay,
Twosense: "It's called fascism." 10:36 a.m.
Jay: "this brand of fascist patriotism is a cousin to jingoism and nationalism." 10:41 a.m
Your rhetoric isn't "unpatriotic," it's merely thoughtless, self-righteous, simplistic, *divisive* and hypocritical. It is intellectually and existentially dishonest.
July 2, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
MikeO writes:
I just heard General Wesley Clark talk about John Kennedy, and Clark said,
"Well, I don't think riding in a little boat and getting sunk is a qualification to be president."
July 2, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Konyok: "What he consistently does is to proffer a counter-intuitive statement, ("Heh, heh. He called the U.S. a terrorist state"), and then support it with analogous reasoning. (The U.S. did wrong in Vietnam and Central America, therefore, anything the U.S. does is wrong.)"
Chomsky's reasoning doesn't resemble anything you just described. He has certainly compared US actions to official descriptions of terrorist states, but he has never followed up with such shallow edicts as "everything the US does is wrong."
I would say, however, you just gave an interesting example of your own particular brand of reasoning, which seems quite similar to Vincent Carroll's.
July 2, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Konyok, I'm still confused on what exactly you have taken issue with. Conservativeslayer described a certain type of person in this country as "They think anyone that dares point out how our government fails to live up to it's ideals, is guilty of hating America."
I said that's called fascism.
Do you or do you not disagree that one of the hallmarks of fascism is blind nationalism?
July 2, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
MyTwosense
I remember a thread a couple of weeks back when I found myself in the odd position of defending Lyndon Johnson and you were reasonable ...
We would agree that blind nationalism is a characteristic of fascism. The operative word in that statement is "blind."
We would probably agree that "blindness" in this instance is an inability or unwillingness to acknowledge faults.
Where it becomes a bit problematic is the question of WHICH faults. If only because of the blind men and the elephant dilemma, different people will have different laundry lists of faults.
Is it the case that a person who perceives different faults than you do is "blind," and therefore suspected of being a fascist?
Fascism has other characteristics: charismatic leadership, millenial goals, nostalgia for a "golden age," militarism, collective-corporatism, populism and the replacement of traditional institutions with ideological structures. One could probably expand the list, but I think this covers the main contours. How many of these characteristics define a "fascist?" If one can select just one, then aren't we all "fascist?"
"Oh yeah. I forgot. They hate libraries, too." 10:36 a.m.
Do you really stand by that statement? Can you see that this kind of demonization fits right into that fascist rubric?
July 2, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
flimflam writes:
Eight years of dragging this country through the gutter and destroying much of what I was most proud of about America. Eight years of torture, of executive lawlessness, of shredding the constitution, and huge unaccoutable militias. Eight years of gulags, elective wars, and disappeared prisoners. Eight years of over the top politicization, of federal malfeseance, and corporate give aways. Eight years of this crap and Vince has the temerity to write this tripe. You dont have a lock on patriotism you right wing hack.
July 2, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Konyok, you gave some good characteristics of fascism. I was just noting that nationalism is one of 'em.
You ask about my comment regarding libraries: "Do you really stand by that statement?"
Let me ask you something. Do you agree with your tax money being used to fund public libraries?
July 2, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
flimflam, here here!! Well said, friend.
July 2, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Twosense,
Dr. Chomsky is always careful to state that he supports what the U.S. does right, but his definitions are very personal.
I was in complete agreement with him about the sanctions regime against Iraq. Keeping Saddam "in the box" was horrific for the Iraqi people. The sanctions were conventional wisdom on both sides of the aisle.
I supported the invasion in part because it would cut the Gordian knot. Chomsky's critique was that Saddam was the lesser of the two beasts and advocated a unilateral end of sanctions. Knowing full well that wouldn't happen, Chomsky had the luxury of dissent without responsibility with the option of criticizing any outcome.
His work is not interesting to me because it doesn't cast any light on the human dilemma in the age of globalization. He presents what is now a completely parochial and conventional analysis in a world of accelerating change.
He's become a legend in his own time, and that's part of his problem ...
July 2, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
OK,
Gulags in America.
There really, truly was an industrialized system of political repression in the Soviet Union that murdered millions of human beings. As much as you might dislike Bush, you are intellectually an existentially dishonest to attempt to equate your feelings about his presidency with the real world suffering of victims of Gulag. (Walk anywhere in downtown Kiev or Moscow, you will see lots and lots of little old ladies begging for bread on the streets. Stop and talk with any of them and the changes are good that you are speaking to a victim, or the mother, wife, sister, daughter of a victim of Gulag.)
That is facile chestbeating.
July 2, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
So, does one of a set of characteristics define "fascism?"
Is the enthusiasm generated by Senator Obama's candidacy another symptom of "fascism?"
Jeez, Louise. We've got plenty of problems to start with. Why you progressives get so warm and runny about using exagerrated rhetoric after the last tragic century is truly astounding.
July 2, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Konyok: "His work is not interesting to me because it doesn't cast any light on the human dilemma in the age of globalization. He presents what is now a completely parochial and conventional analysis in a world of accelerating change."
What??? Chomsky has spoken a great deal about globalization and especially its effects on the human condition. He certainly has a completely different viewpoint of a global economy than you do, and isn't that your real beef?
Can't you just acknowledge you disagree with him without resorting to making things up about him? This is what I mean about anti-intellectualism! Arguments are avoided by smearing the messenger, rather than rolling up one's sleeve and explaining why you disagree with their message!
July 2, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Konyok, you neglected to mention one of the primary characteristics of fascism (right up there with extreme nationalism): racism.
Fascism (like patriotism) is another favorite term of ensmearment.
July 2, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Your rhetoric isn't "unpatriotic," it's merely thoughtless, self-righteous, simplistic, *divisive* and hypocritical. It is intellectually and existentially dishonest."
well thanks for setting me straight, konyok.
now i know that correctly acknowledging that certain extreme forms of "patriotism" qualify as fascism isn't unpatriotic, it is thoughtless, self-righteous, simplistic, *divisive* and hypocritical. [Not to mention], it is intellectually and existentially dishonest."
and now for the real question...is that opinion of yours fascist in nature?
July 2, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Patriotism is holding our government accountable. And when we feel it is not acting in the best interest of the country standing up to it and voicing our displeasure. Patriotism is holding our elected officials to the oath they took no matter what party affiliation. And if they are not abiding by the constitution our job is to remove them from their duties. Not being patriotic is letting these officials off the hook just because he or she is in your party and you have to stay loyal to your party. Loyalty to your party and not to your country opens the door for a dictatorship. That is the biggest threat to this country followed by our enemies. (Terrorists)
July 2, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Anderson,
I would put racism into the specific nazi brand.
Mytwosense,
Dr. Chomsky does write at length about globalization, but only in tems of his chosen narrative of hapless victims of Western power. What he doesn't address at all is the gradual erosion of the nation state, both through subsumation into supernational groupings and through ethnic dissolution. He has some insights into the workings of multinational corporations, but he has very little to say about mass movements, like islamism, other than to vaguely blame the Western world.
Once the point is made that "yeah, our stuff stinks, too;" it is necessary to move on and discuss what is to be done.
You need to be consistent. Is *blind* nationalism a characteristic of fascism? Or is it nationalism in general?
July 2, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Dilligaf,
Totally coincidentally, somebody told me what your handle means. LOL.
July 2, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
No, Jay.
That's the problem with using perfectly good words that actually have a meaning to say whatever you want to say.
You might describe my words in any number of unflattering ways, but "fascist" is not one of them.
July 2, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Loyalty to your party and not to your country opens the door for a dictatorship."
yep, good point. i think you'd also find it hard to make the case that loving party over country makes one a patriot.
"You might describe my words in any number of unflattering ways, but "fascist" is not one of them."
i think you're a little confused, konyok...i never described your words as "fascist". i simply asked a question.
i asked if correctly acknowledging that certain extreme forms of "patriotism" qualify as fascism is unpatriotic. you said it isn't unpatriotic, but rather "thoughtless, self-righteous, simplistic, *divisive* and hypocritical. [Not to mention], it is intellectually and existentially dishonest."
now you're certainly welcome to that opinion...but i ask again...is that sentiment fascist in nature?
just a reminder...that's a question, not a statement.
"Dr. Chomsky does write at length about globalization, but only in tems of his chosen narrative of hapless victims of Western power. "
no...he doesn't. i'm still calling bs on your chomsky chops, konyok. i'm not trying to pick on you here, but it's obvious that you really don't know that much about chomsky's actual writings.
"What he doesn't address at all is the gradual erosion of the nation state, both through subsumation into supernational groupings and through ethnic dissolution."
he may not share your nationalistic viewpoints, konyok, but he does address nationalism.
"He has some insights into the workings of multinational corporations, but he has very little to say about mass movements, like islamism, other than to vaguely blame the Western world. "
also completely incorrect. he speaks volumes about the middle east and islam in general.
blind nationalism is certainly a cousin to fascism. \
July 2, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Konyok
I don't give a f---!!!! Ha Ha Ha
July 2, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
I am patriotic to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the system of government and the land we live in. That, however does not preclude me from disagreeing with who and how are sytem is being run. I do not owe any alleagiance to the president or the flag for that matter. In a sense they are both symbolic, but by no means does that dictate that I must honor them. Symbols mean different things to different people, but symbols alone are not what makes us a nation state. It is our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights.
July 2, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Jay,
You know that I have zero tolerance for "the n word." I have similar feelings for the word "fascist." It has a specific meaning and using it promiscuously nullifies its meaning. The same with "traitor" and other taglines loved by the right.
So, no, my attitude is far from "fascist."
I agree with Dilligaf that the partisan polarization is the greatest danger we face. All of this overheated rhetoric is a bad symptom.
Chomsky is just one of many authors that I have read. To be honest, I didn't learn much from him - he is polemic in nature and I find his perspective to be predictable and limited.
July 2, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
It's called thinking Gene. It's called not being subordinate to the blind ambitions of the thought police you subscribe to. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. Please explain to me where I mentioned anything about being liberal or conservative. As a matter of fact I could argue that those views could be either or. It depends on how you frame your arguement. Would it not be conservative to argue that a proposed change to the constitution upsets the integrity and original intent of the constitution? That would be conservative. However, you like your right to bear arms don't you. It could be argued that by changing the intent was liberal. All I'm saying is that we pay more attention to what our documents say than what our leaders would like us to espouse using symbolism as opposed to legaly binding documents.
July 2, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Marshdale is absolutely right.
It is our covenant as a people that makes us a people, not our bloodlines.
July 2, 2008
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"So, no, my attitude is far from "fascist.""
and yet you feel that correctly acknowledging that certain extreme forms of "patriotism" qualify as fascism to be "thoughtless, self-righteous, simplistic, *divisive* and hypocritical. [Not to mention], it is intellectually and existentially dishonest."
why do you feel that way?
is it wrong in your mind to acknowledge that fascism exists?
July 2, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
No, Gene, patriotism involves thinking and reflecting, not mindlessly wearing lapel pins and calling those who don't traitors.
I'm in total agreement with Marshdale at 1:57 and 2:21. Patriotism has nothing to do with flag pins. Patriotism is supporting the institutions and concepts that make the U.S. what it is. Patriotism is being willing to question institutions when they don't live up to their ideals. I'd say people who criticize the U.S. in hopes of making it better are patriots. People who work for government and trying to the best of their ability to do their job well are patriots. Politicians who work day in and day out following their oath to the best of their ability are patriots.
People who say "Obey this president or you're a traitor" are not.
So, Vincent reserves the right to refer to people as unpatriotic, and never mentions Obama in the positive. I wonder if he, too, would stoop to questioning Obama's patriotism. That's a total cheap shot and he knows it. Question a candidate's patriotism and other people stop thinking. As far as I'm concerned both McCain and Obama are patriots. They have served their country in different ways. They both have a vision of where they think think the country should go. They both want to make it better. I may disagree with one of them, but I would never question his patriotism.
Neither party has a lock on patriotismm, although one party desperately pretnds it does.
July 2, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Jay,
I don't see any forensic purpose in stating "extreme forms of 'patriotism' qualify as fascism." You haven't defined those extremities, you just repeat yourself.
Your promiscuous use of the word "fascist" is:
Thoughtless, because it is frivolous. If it offends, then so much the better.
Self-righteous, because you only use it to draw a moral distinction between yourself and your opponents. Jay is a good person; his opponents are fascists, or might be linked to fascists, or might have fascist tendencies, etc ...
Simplistic, because it reduces any argument to a binary pinpoint. Yes, you are! No, I'm not!!
Divisive, because it is like tossing a stink bomb. Ad hominem in its purest form.
Hypocritical, because in this context it is in response to questions of patriotism. In this case you are an exact doppelganger to the right wingers that shout "traitor!"
Intellectually dishonest, because the word has a specfic and well understood meaning. When a garden variety national chauvinist becomes a "fascist," what word do we use to describe the real thing?
Existentially dishonest, because by using it so frivolously you are nullifying its meaning and the real suffering of the victims of fascism. In effect, you become a holocaust denier by cheapening the term.
Consult your thesaurus, there a lots of perfectly good words you can use with even greater precision.
July 2, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Your promiscuous use of the word "fascist" is:"
i see you're still confused, konyok...i didn't not use the f world promiscuously....but rather just agreeing with mytwosenses's thoughts on the similarities between extreme patriotism and nationalism and jingoism.
you then said that that acknowledgement was "thoughtless, self-righteous, simplistic, *divisive* and hypocritical. [Not to mention], it is intellectually and existentially dishonest."
are you saying that you don't feel that way now?
July 2, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
No, Jay
The, uh, "acknowledgement" is a cheap and cheesy trick.
I don't use words lightly. When I see "fascist" bandied about, I want a real good reason for it. In this case you are just as weak as the rightwingers who think it only fair that they get to use the "n word," too.
Can you name me even one fascist American organization? (Probably the most salient feature of fascism is its collective-corporatist nature - it is organized.) Can you name me one fascist American?
July 2, 2008
9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
sawzallartist writes:
"Can you name me even one fascist American organization? (Probably the most salient feature of fascism is its collective-corporatist nature - it is organized.)"
The Republican Party
"Can you name me one fascist American?"
D. Cheney
Using your words
Oh and vince is a douche...not the bag but after...mucus and such
July 2, 2008
10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"When I see "fascist" bandied about, I want a real good reason for it. In this case you are just as weak as the rightwingers who think it only fair that they get to use the "n word," too."
not so much. nice try though.
again...the acknowledgement that some forms of extreme patriotism qualify as fascism isn't "just as weak as the rightwingers who think it only fair that they get to use the "n word"" you haven't even come close to making that case. you're so far from making that case that i'd have to incur international phone charges to talk to you live.
by the way...naming an american fascist organization doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the above point.
try to keep on target here.
July 3, 2008
4:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
melvinbrand writes:
I am a patriot. I love my country. I just happen to think most of the people currently residing in my country are fat, stupid, pro-wrestling fans with stupid, gas-guzzling trucks and obese, video-gaming kids with no souls. And I think most of them are useless, uneducated, bigots with meaningless lives who willingly submit to utter slavery and who are total ciphers to their satanic corporate hack employers. But I love my country. I love the mountains, the rivers, the ocean shore. I love the constitution. I love our founders. I really dislike most of the greedy, rich, smug people who cynically manipulate the fundamentalist hatreds of the poor in the Deep South to keep them voting against their own economic self-interests. And I dislike most of the brain-dead workaholics mindlessly pumping out babies and overpopulating the earth and polluting it like a cesspool. But I still love the principles of this nation and the ideas it was founded upon. Patriotism does not require me to actually like the dullards and morons currently inhabiting this continent. I don't like them, and I'm a Patriot. And to call small town people bitter and stupid gun-nuts with no lives is perhaps the most patriotic thing of all. I've traveled to several hundred of these hallowed small towns. They consist of mega rich guys posing as just average folks, and average folks who just submit to corporate slavery. No, I don't like them. So? Why should I? They're boring and they vote in ways that are destroying this country and the planet. Stop trying to force us to admire them with this abusive and boring term "patriotism."