Human being or patriot?

The New York Newsday published a letter to the editor today in response to an article by Robert Jensen, published on May 29, 2002, called Journalism Should Never Yield to ‘Patriotism’ (reprinted here at Common Dreams). The letter is excerpted below:

“To be an American is the height of being a human being. This does not mean we are better than other people, it does not mean we have no humility. It means that we have led the way. Through our economic system, we have shown others how to live free and prosper.”

“But [Jensen] really missed the boat. After Sept. 11, how can he find himself on the other side of the fence? This is not the Vietnam War, when the country was divided. What President George W. Bush said is right: You are either with us or against us. From what I read, Jensen is definitely not with us. In fact, he is downright treasonous, saying that we overthrow democracies, support brutal dictatorships and attack civilians during war.”

“This country has been attacked, and we are at war. We should be Americans first and always.”

Creepy, right? This guy knows nothing of the U.S. economic system and the sham of ‘capitalism’. Capitalism works as well in pure form as communism does. Any attempt at it has always been backed by state power, either militarily or through market control. Do you think the U.S. economy would be nearly as efficient if it wasn’t built on the backs of Southeast Asia and South America, with its cheap labor markets? Is that how we “show… others how to live free and prosper”?

Jensen’s description of U.S. foreign policy is not treasonous, it’s the truth. If that happens to be treasonous in the U.S., then that’s a reflection of freedoms within the country, not a reflection of Jensen. Jensen argues that “[n]ations − including ours − are not benevolent institutions, and U.S. history is replete with inhumane acts. If patriotism requires we support such acts, then patriotism becomes inhumane.” The respondent above simply jams his fingers in his ears and calls Jensen a traitor for this logical reasoning.

Jensen goes on to suggest a form of “patriotism not as reflexive support for a policy or leader, but allegiance to American ideals of freedom and democracy.” Now, you’re talking. That makes even more sense. Shouldn’t thinking human beings support this? If you examine the current administration’s policies and find they are in line with these ideals, then you can lend your support for the administration. If the administration veers from this course, then you should withhold support. Simple. But perhaps ‘thinking’ and ‘human being’ are an incorrect description for the respondent above.

In fact, there is nothing uniquely American about freedom or democracy, is there? Only the most brain-dead patriot would think so. “Are not people around the world − including those who live in countries that do not guarantee freedom − capable of understanding and acting on those ideals?” In fact, the rest of the world has had harsh lessons that show the U.S. understanding of freedom and democracy is extremely narrow; U.S. foreign policy has almost exclusively suppressed freedom and democracy in most of South America, Southeast Asia and even countries in Europe. Freedom and democracy are tolerated within U.S. borders because that gives a nicely cowed populace that will generate a lot of tax revenue that, in turn, is used power a military that subjugates the rest of the world into providing cheap labor and resources for the U.S. economy, and, coincidentally, large corporations. But, I digress.

So the answer is quite simple. The best patriot, the best American, the best world citizen is one who always questions and makes sure that policy is in line with his/her beliefs and that his/her beliefs are fair to all humans, not just what is best for Americans.

“At its worst, patriotism can lead people to support brutal policies. At its best, it is self-indulgently arrogant in its assumptions about our uniqueness. But rejecting patriotism isn’t moral relativism. We should not be afraid to judge systems and societies, using principles we can articulate and defend − so long as they truly are principles, applied honestly and uniformly, including to ourselves. ”