Patriotism?

Remove all ads!

Patriotism: A good point of reference is JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." These were probably stirring words in 1961, at least they seem so in the old newsreels. Kennedy inspired a generation with his notion of civic pride, virtue and responsibility. The idea that a patriot didn't need to pick up a rifle and shoot someone, but instead could do something helpful, like join the Peace Corps, helped to fashion a different way of thinking about partiotism.

Normally, one would only need to turn to the Founding Brothers and the Revolutionary generation to see the best examples of patriotism. Or perhaps what has been dubbed in our modern electronic age as the "Greatest Generation." That those who fought in WWII were certainly great patriots is without question. But the greatest? IMO, that title goes to the Founders and the Revolution. But that's my thinking because of that generation's combination of courage, brilliance, virtue and abosolute devotion of their energies to craft the foundation on which this nation rests. Still, a case can be made for the heroic stature of those of the Civil War generation also.

But JFK had it right. Anyone who is willing to make his/her counrty a better place for all its citizens, rather than just himself, can wear the mantel of "patriot." Civic virtue then is as good a definitin, and starting place as any.

But everyone has been thinking about Ronald Reagan a lot this week, and his passing. Ronald Reagan never fought in any war that I know of. Yet, he is considered a great patriot by many. Of course, a lot of this is propagada. But there is a real Reagan Patriot, IMO. I still remember seeing those pictures of him on TV newsreels as a fairly young man, sunning himself by a pool in Beverly Hills, while thousands of Americans were fighting their way across Europe and the Pacific. Yes, he stayed home to make movies, along with another "blood and guts" patriot, John Wayne. His army service consisted of filming "war" movies. Well, Shrub's was going to the dentist. He has the pictures to prove it.

Then Reagan got to be Prez, and Commander and Chief, and many thought he would become the military "hawk of all hawks." But that was never really the case. His record shows someone who was devoted to advancing the American Cause, but with a minimium of bloodletting. Unless one wants to count a few excursions into the military giants in central America and dropping a few bombs on Lybia as great military feats. Oh, yes, I forgot that military powerhouse, Grenada. But he did give the Russians a mighty "tongue lashing" at the Berlin Wall.

Then there was the shooting down of the South Korean airliner. A real act of provocation. Some fifty Americans were killed by the Russians. Everyone thought Reagan's reponse would be swift and mighty. But instead, he stayed calm and he mobilized public opinion in such a way that he may as well have dropped the bomb on Red Square. Then there was Lebanon. Two hunderd and forty marines were murdered by terrorists. Again, everyone expected "Big Dutch" to go ballistic (one only wonders what Shrub would have done). But instead, he did the smart thing - he turned-tail and ran. Israel would only find out later what a disaster Lebanon could be. We won't spend anytime on Reagan's economic or domestic disasters at this point.

But in the end Reagan used his skills as best he knew how to serve his country in unexpected ways. He kept his head in high-pressure situations and utilized his exceptional personality skills to mobilize public and world opinion. Can anyone really picture Reagan stabbing anyone with a bayonet anyway? So in a few respects he was very much like JFK, which takes us back to where we started. In answer to JFK's challenge, many Americans have brought their best skills to bear in the service of their country. And this, is at least what I think, JFK had in mind that cold day in 1961.

 

Good post Chandos I really did like it.

Only one thing.

But do these people in number compare to the people who joined the army (I'm thinking Gulf war here) because they wanted to have a gun in their hands and shoot some Iraqis. These people do it because they think they are patriots, which in my opinion isn't patriotism at all.

 

Apeman -- In my opinion, you're twisting things around. There's a host of reasons why people join armies, and I say we'd better hope that patriotism is top on that list. Would you really want an army filled with people that weren't?? When most countries put out a "call to arms", people join because of patriotic feelings -- it's a question of wanting to SERVE in time of need, not because they are secretly evil assasins, frothing at the mouth to get at those dastardly Iraqis (or whoever else you care to link to this). Does the military whip up emotion and pride of country as part of their training? -- Of course. But you seem to forget, these "unpatriotic killers" are in risk of losing their OWN lives as well -- they'd better feel ok with having a gun in their hands, ready to kill or be killed.

 

Good point, Apeman, and that is the critical question. America is at the crossroads, given the agressive stance of its current leadership. And I agree with your point that those who behave in such a manner are not good patriots. But the American public seems to be rebuking the current leadership's agressive schemes. That rebuke, IMO, is a very good thing for the long term interests of America.

Politics does not always equal patriotism. Some would put the good of the "party," or the dogma of ideology, before the greater good of the country. This is what Washington warned us against in his "Farewell Address." And why he despised the "politics of party." It is a very real, and serious problem, that the country is facing.

Spellbound - Yes, I agree with your point also. But to Apeman's point, would we consider those who tortured the Iraqi prisoners to be good patriots? I know you despise them for it as much as anyone. But they probably see themselves as "patriots" because of their military service. But you and I would see their "service" as a betrayal of core American values. Yet, they could have been carrying out orders. The issue on military service is not so cut-and-dry.

BTW, Spelly, I have been trying to PM you, but your mailbox is full.

[ June 13, 2004, 17:46: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos -- True...and I was waiting for that incident to be brought up. Of course there are cases of such behavior -- but, as you implied, is that the fault of their inherent patriotism that caused them to join up to begin with?....or how the military machine warped and twisted it into something different, something tainted. Point is, I don't' think that most people started out with the desire to join the military for the joy of killing.

 

Chandos and Spelly, I agree with the both of you and respect your opinion. Mine is slightly different and (hopefully) with some valid points.

I hope so too.

I would very much like to see what the statistics are on both our opinions because I cannot believe that all people serve out of true patritism and I'm afraid that you wouldn't like the odds. Of course I can't prove that and I guess neither could you so it's a bit of a moot point.

You'd also have to consider how much influence their parents had on a 'patriotic' feeling, both positive and negative.

 

Here's food for thought:
To be called "unamerican" is practically the same as being accused of treason in the USA, but to be called "unswedish" (osvensk) in Sweden means that you dare to be different and is a positive comment.