On
Loving the Country
by
Anthony Gregory
by Anthony Gregory
DIGG THIS
Neglected in
most discussions of patriotism is any stipulated or even clearly
proposed definition of what it really means to love one's country.
The Right is
loath to admit it, but what it usually means when it speaks of loving
one’s country is loyalty to the president of the United States,
the wars he chooses to wage and his other impeachable crimes. This
is especially true now that the president is a Republican. Under
George W. Bush in particular, this Rightwing devotion to executive
supremacy has blossomed into a virtual membership requirement for
the conservative movement.
The Right did
oppose President Bill Clinton, and may have even disagreed when
he said, "You can't say you love your country and hate your government."
Even though this was uttered in the emotional aftermath of the Oklahoma
City bombing, many conservatives rejected its literal meaning and
broad implications. For the Right back then, loving America was
completely consistent with despising the state and ridiculing the
president. But nowadays, they think that "Bush-bashing" is out of
control and a threat to American security.
"America: Love
it or leave it," the president's defenders say. Some liberals said
it when it was their president and their government. When today’s
conservatives say it, however, they actually sound like they mean
it. Sometimes they even sound like they mean it when they say, "Those
who refuse to give a loyalty oath should be deported."
It’s a cliché
that you can, contra Clinton and today's conservatives, love your
country while hating your government. And it is true. Or are we
supposed to believe that every subject of any government ever to
exist – every victim of Pol Pot, Mussolini, Andrew Jackson or Napoleon
– who hated the government that oppressed him must have not loved
his country?
You can certainly
disagree with what the government does and still love your country
enough not to want to leave. Almost all habitable land in the world
is ruled by governments, after all, and every single one of them
is an agency of organized plunder, at a minimum, and extortion and
murder in most cases. It is not as though a reasonable person, who
is capable of loving the place of his birth and the home of his
compatriots, is logically barred from detesting the nearest criminal
gang that calls itself a state and lays claim to his region. It
is not as though moving from one location, out of hatred of the
goons who rule it, will likely take you anywhere totally free of
thugs in uniforms and flagged buildings.
Many people
have fled their country, despite loving it, to escape tyranny and
even to protect their lives from the states that disgraced their
homeland. There were Jews who loved Germany who fled from the Nazis.
There were Russians who loved Russia who fled from Stalin.
You can love
a country and yet leave it, so it’s not exactly a mutually
exclusive choice between loving or leaving. Or, you can decide to
stay, despite hating the government. Or, in some rare cases, you
can successfully secede from the government, leaving it behind,
while maintaining the country you love, as the American revolutionaries
did more than two centuries ago when they overthrew the British
state that was smothering their beloved country. If only we could
all leave our governments and do so in peace!
And even if
you don’t love your country, why should you feel you must leave?
Why is it considered such a threat if some people don’t love the
country? Affection is not demanded of people as a condition of staying
at a private club, or a restaurant, or a job. You don’t hear people
say, “You had better love this hotel, or you can’t stay here.”
Appeals to love, even when they are appropriate, are rarely coupled
with such intimidation and ultimatums, except when it concerns so-called
patriotism.
The reason,
of course, is that most people who insist that you love the country
or leave don’t have any clue what it means to love a country. If
you love a friend or family member or close companion, does that
mean never being critical when you think the person is doing something
wrong? If you think a brother or mother is not reaching his or her
full potential, are you supposed to look the other way, and just
think, “My family, right or wrong”?
If your country,
which you love, is acting, insofar as it is possible for such a
collective entity to act, in a disappointing, unacceptable, or downright
evil manner, is it really love and devotion to that country to look
the other way or cheer on the egregious behavior?
I love America,
and I don’t intend to leave. The last several years, the government
has done some disappointing, unacceptable and evil things. I am
even disappointed in my many fellow Americans who apparently have
no jealousy of their liberties and no reticence about killing foreigners.
But I think even many of them are mostly misguided and don’t necessarily
hate America. I don’t think they are acting in a loving way toward
the country, but I don’t insist they leave.
However, if
we do want to examine who most loves the country, let’s consider
what it has gone through lately. Congress has just recently essentially
voted to suspend habeas corpus, a principle in English common law
that goes back to the days of the Magna Carta. This latest outrage
is after half a decade of horrifying government expansion, the introduction
of totalitarian police powers and aggressive warfare, and after
more than two hundred years of administrations virtually none of
which was worthy of the love deserving of a great country.
To keep our
sights high, to condemn evil where we see it and show the way toward
a freer, more peaceful future for the country and its people – isn’t
this the stuff of true love?
October
18, 2006
Anthony
Gregory [send him mail]
is a writer and musician who lives in Berkeley, California. He is
a research analyst at the Independent
Institute. See
his webpage for more
articles and personal information.
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
Anthony
Gregory Archives
|