Patriotism: Blind Allegiance or Critical Thought?


Articles Dante Alighieri Arthur Dent Jesus Jones Thomas Paine Other Authors Contact Us! Letter to the Editor Dante Alighieri Arthur Dent Jesus Jones Thomas Paine	Patriotism: Blind Allegiance or Critical Thought? Mao Sinclair In times of trouble and conflict, the United States is known for pulling together. After September 11th, the general public united in mourning instead of cowering in fear as the terrorists had planned. At the same time, we rallied behind our leader, President Bush, unquestioningly believing everything he said. His popularity rose to new heights, and he began his new "War on Terrorism," invading Afghanistan and passing legislation to ensure the safety of each and every American. Unfortunately, that safety came at a price: our civil liberties. Some people, at this point, began to question the President's actions, but the critics were swiftly lumped in with the terrorists, accused of working against the man who was trying to single-handedly protect democracy. Deemed coldhearted because they could not see the atrocities that had been committed, many decided the wisest course of action was to keep their opinions to themselves. With Bush's current invasion of Iraq, most of those who had formerly been silent decided that they could remain silent no longer and have taken a passionate stand in condemning this war. Those trapped in constant fear of another terrorist attack, however, are still blindly following the Bush administration; they believe that the war against Iraq will provide the safety and security they crave. Confronted with arguments for a change in the government's current policy, they react by either dismissing the contention or waving an American flag in the face of independent thought, questioning the patriotism of those daring to challenge the Bush Administration. Didn't you know? It's blasphemy to speak ill of one's government. Love it or *leave it. From the very instant that the European settlers set foot on what would eventually become American soil, they believed in one's right to overthrow a non-responsive government. Indeed, this nation was founded on these principles, which gave its citizens a systematic and peaceful way to stage a revolution. We call it "democracy." As citizens of the United States, we are guaranteed the right to vote, to peaceably assemble, and to speak our minds. Why, then, is it that when we exercise these Constitutional rights, our patriotism is questioned? Speaking up is patriotic; to remain silent, to stand idly by while your government fails to represent you, is what is truly unpatriotic. A common, but mistaken, argument for supporting the President is that we have to support our leader, even if we don't like him, because we are at war. "It is our duty to our nation." The truth of the matter is that following a leader into hell does not show support for one's nation. Creating a better place for the inhabitants of one's nation is the most patriotic thing one can do. That is, unless ignorance really is bliss, unless it really is a sin to question one's surroundings... People often argue that men and women are giving their lives for our safety and that the protests are undermining their efforts. However, protestors are questioning the motives behind the war, not* the actions of military personnel. Speaking out against the causes of the war is not betrayal of the soldiers themselves. While many war-supporters wrap themselves in flags and state that we need to intensify the fight to bring our boys home in a safe and timely fashion, the protesters want the same thing: to bring our soldiers home unharmed. They just don't see continuing the war as the best way to do it. As individuals, we must evaluate the actions of the government representing us and judge whether they serve in the best interest of our nation. To do so is the most patriotic act of all.	Archive Back Issues Why? Cartoons Poetry Random Rants Disclaimers Losers and Kudos of the Week Letters to the Editor Editor's Notes Picture of the Week
Back		Top

Patriotism: Blind Allegiance
or Critical Thought?

Mao Sinclair

In times of trouble and conflict, the United States is known for pulling together. After September 11th, the general public united in mourning instead of cowering in fear as the terrorists had planned. At the same time, we rallied behind our leader, President Bush, unquestioningly believing everything he said. His popularity rose to new heights, and he began his new "War on Terrorism," invading Afghanistan and passing legislation to ensure the safety of each and every American. Unfortunately, that safety came at a price: our civil liberties. Some people, at this point, began to question the President's actions, but the critics were swiftly lumped in with the terrorists, accused of working against the man who was trying to single-handedly protect democracy. Deemed coldhearted because they could not see the atrocities that had been committed, many decided the wisest course of action was to keep their opinions to themselves.

With Bush's current invasion of Iraq, most of those who had formerly been silent decided that they could remain silent no longer and have taken a passionate stand in condemning this war. Those trapped in constant fear of another terrorist attack, however, are still blindly following the Bush administration; they believe that the war against Iraq will provide the safety and security they crave. Confronted with arguments for a change in the government's current policy, they react by either dismissing the contention or waving an American flag in the face of independent thought, questioning the patriotism of those daring to challenge the Bush Administration. Didn't you know? It's blasphemy to speak ill of one's government. Love it or leave it.

From the very instant that the European settlers set foot on what would eventually become American soil, they believed in one's right to overthrow a non-responsive government. Indeed, this nation was founded on these principles, which gave its citizens a systematic and peaceful way to stage a revolution. We call it "democracy." As citizens of the United States, we are guaranteed the right to vote, to peaceably assemble, and to speak our minds. Why, then, is it that when we exercise these Constitutional rights, our patriotism is questioned? Speaking up is patriotic; to remain silent, to stand idly by while your government fails to represent you, is what is truly unpatriotic.

A common, but mistaken, argument for supporting the President is that we have to support our leader, even if we don't like him, because we are at war. "It is our duty to our nation." The truth of the matter is that following a leader into hell does not show support for one's nation. Creating a better place for the inhabitants of one's nation is the most patriotic thing one can do. That is, unless ignorance really is bliss, unless it really is a sin to question one's surroundings...

People often argue that men and women are giving their lives for our safety and that the protests are undermining their efforts. However, protestors are questioning the motives behind the war, not the actions of military personnel. Speaking out against the causes of the war is not betrayal of the soldiers themselves. While many war-supporters wrap themselves in flags and state that we need to intensify the fight to bring our boys home in a safe and timely fashion, the protesters want the same thing: to bring our soldiers home unharmed. They just don't see continuing the war as the best way to do it.

As individuals, we must evaluate the actions of the government representing us and judge whether they serve in the best interest of our nation. To do so is the most patriotic act of all.