|
 Provocations
Michael
LaBossiere
Number
Sixteen: Patriot Games
The
recent war in Iraq, revelations of Presidential dishonesty and the
ongoing battle against terrorism have once again brought the topic
of patriotism into the public consciousness. In democratic countries
like the United States and Great Britain, the nature of patriotism
has been a matter of great controversy. Fortunately for the confused
masses, Britney Spears provided CNN with her views on patriotism:
"I think we should just trust the president in every decision
he makes and we should just support that, and be faithful in what
happens."
While
Ms. Spears is not generally regarded as a profound thinker, her
view of patriotism has a certain merit. If patriotism is taken to
be a love of and dedication to one's country, then this love and
dedication would seem to obligate the patriotic citizens of a democracy
to trust and support the leaders they elected. After all, even a
liberal thinker like John Locke argued that citizens are obligated
to go along with the decision of the majority, even if they disagree
with that decision. On practical grounds, dissent and disobedience
could prove harmful to a country, especially in troubled times when
a unified effort is needed. Thus, it might be concluded that Ms.
Spears' view of patriotism is correct and good citizens should fall
behind their leaders like obedient sheep.
However,
this is not the case. A fairly neutral view of patriotism, and hence
a proper starting point, is that it is the love of and dedication
to one's country. Using this definition as a starting point, two
arguments will be presented to show that being truly patriotic in
a democratic country does not mean giving the leaders the degree
of trust and obedience Ms. Spears endorses.
First,
there is the matter of the nature of country. It seems reasonable
to accept that a country is not simply the land, government or people-it
also refers to the ideals of the nation. While a fascist state would
hold such unquestioning trust and complete obedience as ideals,
this is not the case in democracies like the United State and Great
Britain. The right to dissent and the right to be skeptical of leaders
are part of the ideals of such democracies. After all, a key foundation
of the modern democracy is the individuality and independence of
each citizen as well as her freedom of thought and expression. The
notion that citizens should simply believe and obey goes against
these ideals; hence the proper patriotism in such democracies cannot
be the sort of patriotism Ms. Spears had in mind.
Second,
there is the matter of love and dedication. While there are a variety
of philosophies of love, it is generally accepted that if a person
truly loves something, then she wants what is best for it or at
the very least desires that it should not be harmed. This view of
love is supported by the fact that it would be rather odd for someone
to claim they loved something, yet also claim that they wished the
thing ill. In terms of dedication, one who is dedicated to his country
would act upon this love and hence attempt to bring about what is
good and prevent what is bad for his country.
What
remains to be determined is what is whether the sort of trust and
support advocated by Ms. Spears is good for the United States (or
any country).
History
shows that terrible things tend to happen when citizens chose to
provide (or are coerced into providing) such unquestioning support.
While the examples of Hitler and Stalin are certainly overused,
they provide two clear cases of the all too common results of such
unquestioning obedience: ruined nations and multitudes of corpses.
Unless ruin and death are good, it seems clear that such unquestioning
support is not consistent with the love of one's country.
An
objection is that rulers like Hitler, Stalin, and other such dictators
are exceptional cases and, of course, democratic rulers would certainly
never do such terrible things. Thus, obedience would be consistent
with patriotism.
While
this objection is certainly reasonable, history has shown that even
democratic rulers are prone to lying and supporting harmful, evil
activities. Looking back, for example, at American history one can
see democratic rulers lying about important matters and, far worse,
supporting such things as slavery, racial segregation and wars of
conquest. Obviously, slavery alone did terrible harm to America
and her people.
In
light of these facts, one must accept that trusting and obeying
even a democrat ruler without question would be a terrible risk.
While the leader might act well, it seems more likely that they
would also act badly-even more so if he knew he would not be questioned.
Thus,
to be a patriot is not to give unthinking support to one's leader.
The true patriot should always ask "is this leader doing what
is best for the country?" If she is, then the patriot should
lend his support. If not, the patriot should be prepared to defend
his country against this enemy.
Provocations
will next be updated mid January 2004
Join
Our Café mailing list
To
receive *very* short messages, letting you know when the Café
has been updated, just fill in your email address below - and press
submit.
[If
you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, simply fill in your
subscriber email address, select "Unsubscribe", and press Submit.]
Previous
Provocations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
|
