Patriotism or Nationalism

Patriotism is a good thing for any country. The pride of being a part of a country and believing in that country enough to put your own life in danger to protect it, or even to lay down your life to preserve that country's government. It is an amazing and wonderful thing. If it were not for outstanding patriots in our past, there would be no United States of America now. When I say outstanding patriots, I mean those you know by name and those everyday heroes that you may never know. They are all outstanding.

Much has been said about patriotism since 9/11/2001. There has been great emphasis on this notion, and some overzealous and misguided rhetoric on who and what is patriotic. I think we need to take a closer look at patriotism and what it means. I believe there is a difference between Patriotism and Nationalism. Patriotism is very good and necessary for a country's long term survival. Nationalism is such an extreme case of patriotism that it begins to overlook the common good that is the benchmark of a country. A lot of people like to use this quote from remarks Senator Carl Schurz made to the Senate on Feb. 29, 1872, "My country right or wrong." However, they need to remember the entire quote, "My country right or wrong; when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be set right." There is a huge difference between the two, and a difference that those patriots who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to create this republic would say is critical.

It would be helpful to give some objective definitions of the two main words being discussed here, along with definitions of a couple of other words that relate. Webster's New World Dictionary defines Patriotism as "love and loyal or zealous support of one's own country". Their definition of Nationalism is: "1. a) devotion to one's nation; patriotism b) excessive, narrow, or jingoist patriotism; chauvinism. 2. the doctrine that national interest, security, etc. are more important than international considerations". The definition of Jingo (jingoist) is "a person who boasts of his patriotism and favors an agressive, threatening, warlike foreign policy; chauvinist". Finally the definition of Chauvinism is: "1. militant, unreasoning, and boastful devotion to one's own country; fanatical patriotism; jingoism. 2. unreasoning devotion to one's race, sex, etc. with contempt to other races, the opposite sex, etc."

The initial reaction to the events of Sept. 11, 2001 was to come together as one nation. We declared to ourselves and to the world that we were committed to protecting our country and we would stand shoulder to shoulder, no matter our other differences, in that endeavor. This was a wonderful outpouring of unashamed patriotism. Something we should all be proud of. If only that spirit could have continued.

Unfortunately, it quickly deteriorated into something very different, something very divisive and damaging to us as a country and something that has weakened our standing in the world. It depends on where you stand politically, where you will point to identify the culprit that caused this change. You already know where I stand. Though I will admit that there have been some on both sides that have misused information to create this division. However, the republicans have been more organized and effective in pushing their version. Divide and conquer seems to be the motto of the current administration.

It is beyond me that they can, with straight faces, accuse democrats of being weak on defense when the democrats voted almost unanimously with the republicans in backing their initial responses to the attacks of 2001. Historically, democrats have vigorously defended this nation - militarily and deplomatically. In fact, if you look at the military records of the leaders of the republican party and those of the democratic party you will see about 5 to 1 more democrats with military service and experience than their republican counterparts. I have often said that it seems that a lot of men go to war as republicans and come out as democrats. Democrats are not weak on defense, they simply go at it differently, and with a much different rhetoric. They believe in protecting our country and our rights.

Some of the tactics of this administration remind me a lot of the tactics used in Germany in the late 1930's and early 1940's to gain, consolidate, and keep power. Before you jump on me, I am not comparing this administration of being anything like the Nazi's. I am only saying they have used those political tactics to their advantage. The German people were convinced they were being the most patriotic by supporting their leader. He had brought back the national pride and took it to a new level. The level that I see as nationalism.

Hermann Goering at the Nuremburg Trials famously said, "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...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 to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hitler did not gain power all at once or by force initially. He did little things that made everything seem to be the best for the country. Things that created patriotic pride and brought people together. There were little restrictions in rights at first, all in the name of security and protection. An erosion of rights that was slow and only affected a few people or group of people at a time. Most went along believing this was good for the country, until they realized it was too late.

I believe that it would be prudent for me to once again assert that I am NOT trying to compare the republicans or this administration with the Nazi's. I am only trying to point out that they have used some of the political tactics that brought that group into power in Germany during the 1930's. Even religion was used extensively to bring this about. Some SS belt buckles had written on them "God is with us".

Nationalism is a term that brings to my mind the prevailing attitude in Germany during that time. The concept of the Fatherland and it's protection. We are now using the term Homeland to refer to our country. Words can be powerful tools and should be used to relate the truth, not to distort it.

I found a paragraph while searching information for this article from George Orwell in his 'Essay: Notes on Nationalism' written in 1945. “By ‘nationalism’... I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

There has been a concerted effort over the last five years to label people as patriotic or unpatriotic based on their support or lack of support for the policies of the current administration. This is a very unfair and un-american way to act. The idea of being either for everything a president does or to be siding with the enemy of our country is completely wrong and a reprehensible protrayal of our fellow citizens.

I find that I am having to constantly remind myself to look beyond the words and study what is being done. Since I am one of those that disagree with this administration's policies far more often than I agree with them, I must be careful to not just summarily dismiss everything they do as being wrong. When you try to demand all or nothing in your support, you will often get the non support being voiced loudly and vehemently - sometimes when a particular policy really should be supported. These demands, by their very nature, isolate a leader from consensus support.

This concept of completely supporting the president is not a party issue, it is an issue used and promoted by this administration. If you look through history you will find examples of people from both parties, and those with no revealed party affiliation, who have made stands that run opposite of this opinion. One of the most well known is Theodore Roosevelt. Two of his recorded opinions are shown below. The first from an article he wrote in the Kansas Star during World War I (1918) and another a little later. The sentiment he expresses in both is basically the same.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." Theodore Roosevelt

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." Theodore Roosevelt

Dissent in and of itself is neither unpatriotic nor unamerican. If there were not righteous dissent in our history, we would still be a colony of England.

Here are a few other quotes about patriotism that have been uttered through the years:

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government. Thomas Paine

"A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution". President James Madison

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither." Ben Franklin

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Samuel Adams

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce and brave man, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain

Be Patriotic. Support our country. Don't just wrap yourself in the flag and say, I am a patriot. Defend our country and pledge allegiance to the flag that represents it. Demand that liberty and justice for all be preserved. Join with our fellow citizens in protecting our country, it's freedoms, it's rights, and it's compassion for our fellow man. Be always vigilant for threats from without and from within. Remember why and how this country was founded and be willing to stand firm. We are all in this together.

Protecting the Ballot Box

It would be safe to say that no election, however well intentioned, has ever been completely clear of all impropriety. There have always been those who are so zealous in their desire to elect their candidate that they will resort to all sorts of tactics to try and insure that victory. Whether their zeal comes from a heartfelt belief that their candidate is truly the best for the country or from a desire for the power and money that can be had if their candidate is elected, the resulting attempt to alter the outcome of the election is wrong. They may pass out false information to discredit the opposing candidate, they may buy votes, they may illegally stuff a ballot box with votes, they may suppress the votes in certain areas, they may destroy or otherwise lose ballots that were cast in an area known to be strong for the opponent, or a myriad of other methods. These things have happened, and there will most likely always be those who try to subvert the integrity of our elections to their own benefit.

I believe it is our duty as Americans to preserve the sanctity of the ballot box to the best of our ability. We are the greatest example to the world of democracy and how it operates. We travel the world to help others with their elections and admonish them to hold fair and open elections. Then we come back here and run the risk of having our own subverted by those with political agendas that they fear will not stand the test of a fair election. These people have the idea that the end justifies the means. We should set a higher standard as the only current superpower in the world and as the premier example of a democratic government.

We must strive to higher ideals, as we always have. Certainly, I want to win as deeply and as passionately as anyone. However, I believe the voice of the people should be the foremost factor. And it should be the voice of an honestly informed people. Our ballot box should not have even the appearance of being able to be manipulated.

Technology has increased to allow us the opportunity to prevent almost all fraud in the ballot box. Unfortunately, it is also at a point that will allow even greater fraud if it is not dealt with honestly and openly. Our ballot box should be above reproach. Our citizens should and must have confidence that their vote is counted and counted correctly - as they intended to cast it. With the advent of all electronic ballots and the problems associated with them in the last few years, that confidence is very low in some places. It is getting worse as more news is reported of the test results on this equipment and of the real problems that have happened during its actual use.

I use a computer daily and I know their importance in our world. They are able to store and configure large amounts of information in seconds as opposed to hours of doing it by hand. I know that is the way that almost everything is handled in this world now. I also know that my computer has crashed. It has lost important information, and it can be hijacked to provide wrong information. This is both the good news and the bad news of the new electronic voting machines.
Touch screen voting is easy and quick. I really have no problem with it at it's core. However, I do have a problem when all information is electronic. I believe it should be required that all balloting machines print a paper ballot that can be read by the person casting it. It can then roll into the machine or be removed and placed in a separate ballot box, either way would be fine. But there must be a paper ballot that can be used in a final recount, if one is required. I also have a problem when the company making the machines say they own the raw data, as they did in Ohio after the 2004 race, and refuse to provide it to the election officials. I believe all voting data is the property of the governing officials in the area the votes were placed. It is there it should remain - locked and protected. There may never be a way to make the system completely foolproof, but we must keep trying. We already have the ability to improve greatly on what has been done. We just have to show the resolve to require it.

There is also the issue of who makes the decision on what equipment is to be used. It has historically been the option of the local election officials to make that determination. I actually liked the system we had locally before the touch screen system was mandated by our state. It was basically 3x8 cards with a place to mark in pencil beside the candidate or resolution. Then they were counted electronically. If there was a recount required, it was easy to do. It could first be run through the scanner again to check against the first count. It could then be counted by hand. The ballots were marked in pencil so you could tell the intent of the voter, without any 'hanging' or 'pregnant' chads or confusing 'butterfly' ballots. Then the state mandated identical touch screen systems, without a paper trail, to be installed in every voting precinct in the entire state. My confidence in the results of our elections in this state has continued to go down since that time.

One concern with a system being mandated statewide or nationwide is that the larger the area using exactly the same equipment, the larger the opportunity for widescale fraud. I believe we need to have standards required from above, but our local election officials should be allowed to determine the exact make and type of machines to use. Whatever system is used, I believe a paper ballot, or paper trail, that can be verified by the voter should be mandatory. These paper ballots must be saved in a secure location and be the final word in a disputed election requiring a recount.

This is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue and should be just as important to those of any party affiliation, or those with no party affiliation. This is how our democracy operates. We must make sure it is handled properly. Without the integrity and sanctity of the ballot box, we cannot truly claim to be a democracy.