Reflections Approaching Independence Day

Patriotism. The word has come to have all kinds of connotations, many of them negative. Ask ten different people what they think of when they hear patriotism, and you'll get ten different answers. Ask a hundred people, and you'll likely get ninety different answers.



It has become fashionable amongst many who want to be considered intellectual elite to disparage patriotism. Yet Isaac Asimov, the quintessential intellectual's intellectual, author of more than 300 books varying from science fiction classics to mysteries to scholarly works and popularizations in multiple disciplines, had a, well I'd say routine except that it most certainly was not. It concerned our national anthem, and he gave it repeatedly, not just once, explaining the history behind it and actually singing "All Four Verses". I never heard it live, but I heard a recording once. I couldn't find a recording on-line, but if you haven't seen it before, it's well worth reading - you're in for a treat if you click it.



If you've never heard the other verses, and thanks to political correctness and a failed educational system, many have never heard of them, you can be excused for not understanding what patriotism, particularly American Patriotism, is all about. "The Star Spangled Banner" tells a story, of a British invasion that could have crushed the United States, but failed. The first verse tells of uncertainty, the second of triumph. The third may be considered boastful and over the the top by some, but not by me. It does not name the British, perpetrators of that particular invasion, and it does convey a vital sentiment, necessary for any nation to survive. But the real crux of the anthem, the point of the story, is in the fourth verse:

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land

Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.



Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,

And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Many have disparaged this as symptomatic of a war-mad America, centering their scorn and their case upon one word - "conquer" - in the fifth line. They only betray their astounding ignorance of history, particularly the history of the time when the Anthem was written. Read a military history of Napoleon, whose shadow looms over the entire era, sometime. Conquer was used in the battlefield sense, of one side or another going down in crushing defeat, and the other holding - conquering - the battlefield. Most military histories barely touch upon the aftermath of battle for the losing side, but the term "sacking" should give you an idea. Placing all that was of value - and I do mean all - in a sack and carrying it off home was a time-honored victor's tradition. Many military men throughout history have become wealthy through the act of sacking. Not to mention the "little items" like raping and enslaving the population and burning whatever was left. This practice did not miraculously cease sometime around the Peace of Westphalia; it carries through to today in many militaries. The British did it to Washington in 1814, albeit in watered down form. Haven't really researched it, I'm not familiar with any raping or widespread murder they did. Washington was at the time a very new city - only about twenty years. It hadn't had time to accumulate much in the way of artwork or municipal treasure. The British did, however, set it ablaze as they left. Despite the damage that was done, this basically makes their behavior a marvel of decorum by all but the most recent and westernized of criteria.



Patriotism, to me, is a product of love. If you cannot love, you cannot feel patriotism. It isn't an unthinking unwavering unquestioning sort of love, and our country has certainly done many things in its history for which we ought to be ashamed. But well-founded patriotism, like the love between husband and wife in a strong marriage, becomes stronger from a sense of perspective, not weaker. I may say my wife is perfect, but I am well aware that this is a convenient fiction to make our marriage stronger, and, even if I were given the opportunity, I wouldn't trade her for the world's hottest sex kitten with the wealth of Midas and enthusiasms for doing exactly what I want every time I want exactly when I want, and I feel nothing but pity for those poor souls who would make such a trade for their spouse. Better to have no partner. That's the nature of love. It is always possible to find it, but the path to it can be blocked by your current alliance of convenience.



Similarly, a strong sense of perspective makes my patriotism deeper. One of the most maligned and misquoted lines of all time is Stephen Decatur's, "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong." Particularly in these latter benighted days when we have no perspective upon the progress of government. At the time when he said it (1816) there literally were no other democracies or representative republics in the world, not as we understand the term today. The United Kingdom came closest, and even there, Parliament was controlled by the great nobles and their houses. There had not been a reapportionment in centuries. This doesn't sound so bad until you consider that in far less time, we have gone from a place where our two biggest states, population-wise, weren't even a part of the system to one where they form roughly 20% of the electorate. How representative do you think our government would be if the electorate was limited to our original thirteen states, in proportions existing in 1787? That was England in 1816.



The tyranny of the majority has been rightly denigrated, using phrases such as "least common denominator," and I admit to occasionally indulging in it myself. However horrible the decisions of majorities may be, however awful the atrocities they may commit, when you contrast them with the things done by rulers and ruling classes who were not majorities, one word leaps out to describe the misdeeds of majorities: limited. They were limited in scope and limited in time. When the worst single event that we can point to is the Moro Crater Massacre, the United States positively shines by comparison with every other major power in the history of the world. The westward expansion of the United States, while suffering any number of shame inducing incidents ranging from the Trail of Tears to Wounded Knee (where a not inconsiderable amount of evidence paints a picture of the Sioux sharing a large part of the responsibility). By comparison with the Russian drive eastward, our westward expansion was a model of enlightened concern. Yet the very fact that such items are a part of national consciousness at all says something overwhelmingly positive about Americans, that we are willing to face responsibility for the misdeeds of our past. Indeed, our bloodiest conflict to date, the Civil War, springs from the fact that our ancestors, collectively, grew this national consciousness and that the majority were becoming increasingly willing to rectify an injustice that was being done to human beings who had the misfortune to be born to the wrong set of parents. The first seeds of the civil war were yet to be sown when Decatur said those words, and yet he, indeed, most Americans from the time of independence onward, was able to recognize that the mechanism for error checking existed in the United States, as it existed nowhere else in the world at the time. The United States was - is - a global pioneer in the process of error checking government. To desire perfection is natural, to demand it as a condition of loyalty is self-defeating. John Quincy Adams made a famous retort to Decatur, "I can never join with my voice in the toast which I see in the papers attributed to one of our gallant naval heroes. I cannot ask of heaven success, even for my country, in a cause where she should be in the wrong. Fiat justitia, pereat coelum. My toast would be, may our country always be successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always right." It is, in the abstract, a seductive vision. Unfortunately we do not and it is unlikely that our descendants ever will live in a world wherein Adams' retort makes sense. Countries that are just but not successful, down throughout human history, have not typically had the opportunity to change become right. There are few enough of them throughout history. Athens, for all her glory under Pericles, was not just, even by its own standards. Countries that are successful but not just, however, have the opportunity to become more just, and the United States has done precisely this any number of times. Better to be both successful and just in the first place, but if you must choose, successful is the critical element, much as it may gall persons of conscience.



But the real kicker is just the every day fact of the nature of being human. Remember that gorgeous wealthy sex kitten I talked about a while back? The one that makes every heterosexual male into a drooling idiot, and incites the green eyed monster within the heart of every communist? How long do you think she's going to put up with Joe Average, to whom the term "six pack abs" means they slosh like the contents of one? And do you think, that in the course of doing whatever it is that she does to earn and maintain her fabulous fortune, that she's going to tolerate you wasting several hours per day in front of the TV or surfing the internet? Unless the male concerned is one of that percentage whose predilections naturally fall exactly into the same boat, that marriage is going to turn into hell very soon, when she tells him to "shape up!" and "Start earning some real money!", and indeed, countries where they pretend their leadership or the country itself is perfection have an extremely strong tendency to turn into the worst hellholes on the planet. For examples, see the communist government of your choice. Pre-1945 Japan. Imperial China. Any number of religiously based states, not the least of which are most modern Islamic governments. When I want to find a good country, I look for one with a solid record of confronting its history and making good upon past injustice, not one where they sweep such events under the rug as nonhistory, or, almost as bad, admit that they happened but shrug them off as part of the overall injustice of the universe, as Mexico and France both make a habit of doing. At the very least, the country must consider the causes of the injustice and take steps such that it is less likely to be repeated. There really is nothing we can do within the framework of a just society to recompense descendants of slaves for the misdeeds against their forefathers, nor is there anything within the framework of a just society that we can do for those who suffered from decades of discrimination. Every such proposal I have heard perpetuates the injustice, rather than removing it. But we have taken steps to rectify the situation, and to prevent it from happening in the future. Those who were discriminated against are now part of the power structure, a power structure that will not allow a return to those days, no matter who is the proposed victim class.



This, then, is why I embrace our country so strongly, why I love it so much I have difficulty communicating the depths of my feelings. Not that it's perfect; it's not, and it is not reasonable to expect or demand it to be. But that we have this error checking mechanism, the ability of every adult citizen to look metaphorically look in the mirror and decide they don't like what they see, the ability of even those who are not adult citizens to convince us of the error of our ways, and a governmental system that responds to the desires of the people to reform themselves and it for the better. Certainly, Plato's philosopher-king might provide better, more just decisions more quickly, but then again, they might not. How do we pick a philosopher king? Looking back over the entire sad history of the human race, I see many examples that claimed to be for the benefit of the governed and those around them; those who lived up to that promise are pitifully few. Furthermore, once they have their hands upon the levers of the state, it is typically hideously expensive, in all senses of the term, to replace, demote, or even restrain a philosopher king.



Who do I credit with the development of this profoundly important country that I love. Well, it rests upon a foundation of each and every citizen. Pat yourself on the back, or better yet, pat your fellow citizen, especially if you disagree with them politically. Much as I might rail against political excesses in the opposition, the fact that the political opposition exists and is unafraid to exercise political opposition is essential, not to mention the fact that we expect the party in opposition to become the party in power periodically, and for the party that has fallen to eventually regain its fortunes. You may hear me calling upon the opposition for discretion in their opposition, never to cease their opposition. Interrelated with this is the fact that our military, both officers and non-officers, is drawn from the entire population. Oh, there are definitely parts with heavier representation than others, and parts with lesser representation than others. But those are freely chosen, based upon who tries and how hard they try, not part of the system of selection. As a result of which, the US military is better integrated with the society it defends than any other military I can name. The thought of using the American military to control Americans (beyond stabilization in the wake of disasters) is ludicrous beyond belief. Indeed, the fact that American service personnel are American citizens first has brought any amount of misconduct you'd care to name into the limelight of our public discussion, where it could be remedied. The American military is the American citizen, brought together under military discipline for the purpose of doing what those same American citizens have decided to do, and anyone who disparages the owners of these websites here, here, here here, and here, should first take a moment and ask whether their preferred organization has participated in the liberation of concentration camps? Has their preferred organization risked life and limb and horrible death against an enemy convinced of their right to conquer the world, and pushed those subhuman scum back into their territorial base and removed them from power so they can never again threaten the rest of the world? Has your preferred organization broken centuries old slavery and piracy organizations? Stood up to and removed mass-murdering dictators? Stopped cold two systems that wanted to enslave the world in the last century, and is it currently locked in a struggle with a third, where their own humanity and restraint towards their enemies means a much higher casualty list among their own ranks than would otherwise be the case? Remember the old Bugs Bunny cartoon where he gets super carrots and becomes Super Rabbit and goes out to face the most anti-rabbit character of them all, and when he runs out of super carrots and faces an opposition that has obtained them, he says, "This calls for a REAL hero!" rushes into the phone booth and comes out dressed as a Marine and singing the Marine Hymn? I've never loved or identified so strongly with Bugs Bunny, that most quintessential of American heroes, as in the moment I understood that cartoon. These men and women don't have super-powers, they aren't perfect little gentlemen and ladies, and they don't serve a system that is perfect, but they do such an awe-inspiring job of advancing the human condition when they are needed, that tears flow every time I think about their contribution to the world, and the advancement of those within it, whether they are Americans or not.



Finally, if you're saying blessings, add one in there for George Washington. One of the better generals of his age, he had the opportunity for power and turned his back on it. Forget Jefferson, and Madison, and Patrick Henry, and all of the other founding fathers and their noble words, and those magnificent founding documents the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Any number of successful revolutions in this sad sorry world have had high rhetoric. The vast majority fell from within, to the successful revolutionary who led the battles and then decided to retain that power through their control of the military. Washington stands almost alone among those who had or could have taken that power, and declined to abuse it beyond the natural and intended span when it was given. Two centuries on, his example stands not only as a beacon to follow, but as a stark statement of the fact that there is no irreplaceable leader, and any president who failed to follow in his footsteps of relinquishing power would never be able to hold onto it, being displaced from power by the very military they would have relied upon to maintain it.



This, then, is my reflection upon patriotism. It comes from a desire for a just society, requires the mechanism of a country whose power structure confronts not only current events, but past deeds with an eye as to the errors that might have been made and avoiding them in the future. I love this country, not because of the happy accident that I was born here, but because of what it is and what it has done and what it stands for. Because it knows it makes mistakes, and makes the best possible effort to rectify them and prevent them from happening again. Because of this, we do the best we can with what we have when we have it. It isn't elitism, it's simply the desire of the common person to make the situation as good as it can be made right now. It's not to be afraid of war or conflict, although anyone who is rational is. But there's a little bit of Rodger Young in anyone that can understand his story and why he undertook the series of actions that ended up costing him his life.



For those who cannot, you have my most sincere pity.