French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine recently accused the United States of ignoring outside viewpoints. The conclusion from many U.S.-based Internet message board users: The French don’t know anything and because they’ve challenged us, they’re terrorists, so we should bomb them, too. The irony there is rather thick.
Guardian
I cannot believe I share a country with those people. But this is America, where everyone is guaranteed the right to express his or her opinion, no matter how misguided or unpopular that opinion may be. That, in fact, is a good thing. That’s the First Amendment for you.
Unfortunately, sometime between Sept. 11, 2001 and now, a lot of people — including President Bush — seem to think that the First Amendment only allows you to say things that don’t criticize the status quo or the U.S. government.
Did I miss something? Did President Bush become the only reputable judge of America’s best interests the instant the first plane hit the World Trade Center? I thought we were supposed to be pulling his strings, not vice versa. At the rate we’re going, we won’t be able criticize his necktie next February. But maybe that’s what the president wants: unquestioned authority.
At a press conference at the Texas State House on May 21, 1999, Bush said, regarding a Web site satirizing him, that “”there ought to be limits to freedom.”” Being unable to take criticism is one thing, but wanting to silence criticism contradicts core American values.
Now more than ever, our leaders should be first in line for criticism. We place our lives in their hands, even though we haven’t trusted the government since Richard Nixon was president. I was as shaken as every other American on Sept. 11, but if we are going to trust the government, this seems like the wrong time to start.
Criticism is essential to maintaining democracy and freedom. Unified opinion belongs only in a totalitarian state. We should not support stifling domestic dissent or sacrifice freedom under the guises of “”national security”” or “”patriotism,”” especially in a so-called democracy.
The day after the terrorist attacks, Bush said that “”we will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms.””
Does that mean it’s only bad if terrorists restrict our freedom? Why are we giving our government a collective thumbs-up when it restricts freedom, as it did when it passed the USA Patriot Act? I assume it’s because we don’t ever want to wake up to horror again, like we did on Sept. 11. It’s a lousy trade, if you ask me.
The USA Patriot Act — who would vote against it with a name like that? — states that it aims to preserve freedom. But it can’t do that when it gives such broad surveillance powers to domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies by eliminating the checks and balances that previously allowed courts to police the police. Previous misuses of power by such agencies prompted those checks and balances, after a 1974 revelation that the FBI and foreign intelligence agencies spied on over 10,000 U.S. citizens.
You or I could be the next target of espionage. As a result of the act, police now only need to tell a judge that their spying could lead to information that is “”relevant”” to an ongoing criminal investigation. What’s “”relevant”” is anyone’s guess, since you don’t even have to be the target of the investigation to be spied on. The act states that in such a case, an application for espionage must be granted and that the government is not obligated to report what it has done. Forget terrorists, this scares me. I am not free if someone is spying on me.
I fear the government more than I fear terrorists, but I still like America. To paraphrase a libertarian motto, we can love our country very much but still fear our government. I don’t know why such a view is so difficult to accept in post-Sept. 11 America.
One might find an explanation from Nazi Air Force commander and war criminal Hermann Goering. At his 1946 trial in Nuremberg, he said “”Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”” Goering’s assessment is too familiar for my comfort. We have witnessed variations on that theme every day since the terrorist attacks.
The emerging black-and-white, “”you’re either with us or you’re against us”” mindset enrages me. There is a gray area in between, which I will discuss later. But many people don’t see that and so they are frighteningly quick to label others “”un-American”” if they don’t blindly support popular opinion on government policy. It is their right to call someone “”un-American,”” but that does not mean they are right in doing so.
It is every American’s basic right and responsibility to state his or her honest opinion, regardless of that opinion’s popularity. Even a flawed argument or a poorly uttered opinion creates vital debate if it is printed or vocalized instead of kept to oneself. Speak out and ask questions before it’s too late to do so. Thinking critically is not treason: Without free thought, the democracy that we claim to love cannot exist.
In case you have forgotten, our ancestors didn’t come here because they wanted to wave flags and unconditionally kiss their leaders’ asses. They came for freedom. They wanted to fight tyranny, not propagate it. A lot of Americans seem to have forgotten that.
What does America value? Liberty and justice for all, or shiny things and security at any price? America was founded on the former, but I see it heading toward the latter at the cost of the former. That scares me.
Sticking a U.S. flag to your imported sport-utility vehicle — which runs partly on Middle Eastern oil — does not necessarily mean you are a patriot. Wearing an Old Navy T-shirt with a U.S. flag on it — which, ironically, was probably made by some Muslim kid in an Indonesian sweatshop — also does not necessarily mean you are a patriot.
By itself, waving a U.S. flag doesn’t make you a patriot any more than eating a carrot makes you a rabbit.
That is not to say that patriots don’t wave flags, but if you are going to wave a flag you should be very clear about why you are waving it. Ask yourself why you support America before you become a patriot in its name.
Merriam-Webster’s definitions of “”patriot”” and “”patriotism”” are not as similar as one might think.
The former, with emphasis added, is “”one who loves his country and supports its authority and interests;”” the latter is simply “”love for or devotion to one’s country.”” Similar, but not the same.
I love freedom and I love democracy. I assume that you do, too. I hope that our renewed patriotism results in record voter turnout in the next election. Voting is patriotic because, unlike simply waving a flag, it supports a claim — that one loves American democracy — with a meaningful action.
We should expect a record turnout, but I have a nagging feeling that voter turnout will be as lousy as ever. I hope that feeling is wrong. After all, if the “”attacks on freedom”” don’t prompt more than the usual one-third of registered voters to vote, what will?
I do not support all U.S. domestic or foreign policies or the government’s habit of spying on its citizens, but I love the soil I stand on and I love the principles represented by our Constitution.
I question people who try to stand in the way of those principles. You could say I practice patriotism, but I am not necessarily a patriot. Maybe I’m just a semi-patriot.
I think there are a lot of “”semi-patriots”” out there. Feelings about America cannot be divided into just an “”I love America and all the good and bad it does”” camp and an “”I hate America and want to destroy it”” camp.
There is a third camp, to which I belong. It’s the “”I love America and think it is nice but know it is not perfect”” camp, and I suspect there are a lot of Americans who are with me.
The United States is great, but it’s not perfect. We need to realize this as soon as possible. As any decent businessman knows, a company can lead an industry without being perfect. Microsoft leads the software industry not because it makes the best software, but because it devoured its competition.
That tactic may work in business, but it’s no way to run a country.
There is always room for improvement. America and Americans should always strive to improve on the status quo. That’s the only moral way to stay on top. If we benefit from “”changing our way of life”” for the better, that hardly means that the terrorists have won.
Taking away our freedom because we are scared of terrorists is not an improvement; it’s un-American.
Bona fide patriot Patrick Henry asked in 1775, “”Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”” No one — whether it is terrorists, our own government or fellow citizens — should be allowed to stunt American liberty.
Henry’s question bears repeated asking now. Ask yourself, ask your friends and ask your leaders what Americans really want.
You will find that many Americans now want guaranteed safety at almost any expense. We want safety because we were used to thinking that we were safe before Sept. 11, 2001.
Well, we were never safe and we never will be, so suck it up already.
Our rights are guaranteed, while life is inherently risky and has a 100 percent chance of death as its result.
We should not be so willing to trade guaranteed rights for a gamble on “”safety.”” Given a choice between freedom and safety, I choose freedom. Henry phrased that more eloquently as “”Give me liberty or give me death.””
