What Is Patriotism, Anyway? How Much Should It Matter?

I'll give Tucker Carlson this: He's consistent.

He was critical of Senator Tammy Duckworth the other day, perhaps in possible anticipation of her being named Joe Biden's running mate. He said she criticized the U.S. so much that she wasn't being patriotic. Now he's saying she's a coward and a moron. Nice.

The issue was whether any statue of George Washington should be taken down because he owned slaves. Duckworth was noncommittal, saying that it was worth a discussion.

This drove Carlson into a tizzy. The very idea that Duckworth wouldn't absolutely reject the notion was, to him, unpatriotic.

Not a bad way to slide that in right around July 4, when patriotism is carted out and worshipped. And the general attitude fits Fox News very well: If we're going to Keep America Great Again, being critical of it just won't do.

If you just keep saying that America is great, that will do for the present moment. We'll move along in the superficial assumption that all is well. But you and I both know that isn't so.

Now, I happen to disagree with Duckworth, but not with the vehemence of Carlson. I think the father of our country should be off-limits. That was a different time in our history, and after all, he founded our country, not betray it. Besides, he arranged to have the slaves freed upon his wife's death, which is cheesy, true, but at least a glimpse of soul was evident. But okay, let's have the conversation.

We have serious problems, said Michael Douglas's presidential character in "The American President." That film was made in 1995. A quarter-century later, we probably have more problems, or perhaps they have become larger, than they already were.

Is it wrong to point them out? Is it less than patriotic? Is this undiscussible? Should we just wave the flag, say the country's fine, warts and all, and move on?

I don't think so. The basic, won't-go-away problem, is that the country was founded on a pair of documents that didn't live up to their expectations. The Declaration of Independence, the adaption of which we celebrate each July 4, made a bold declaration of the equality of people, and that government should support and even guarantee it.

That statement was hypocritical the moment it hit that page. What would become some four million slaves wouldn't see anything close to equality for nearly another ninety years, not to mention Natives, women and later Asians. Slavery was left alone in the Declaration, with a version to mention its unfairness rejected by some state delegations.

It's vital, then, that we see the Declaration for what it was: A hope and a goal conceptually, but a separation from colonial rule in fact. That's all it was, as momentous as it turned out to be. Capitalizing on the opportunity, the British offered escaped slave men their freedom via service. A considerable number took them up on it. Others, and sometimes their families, escaped to British Canada.

Some of the Natives also helped the British, which is reasonable seeing as how the Americans kept impinging on their land--an inclination they certainly weren't ready to reconsider. In fact, the Declaration even mentioned the "merciless Indian savages," forgetting for the moment that the colonists were pretty merciless themselves.

So during the Revolution, patriotism was fiercely stated and ferociously defended with human lives, mostly by white men against other white men who came to restore order. They, too, came in the name of patriotism, though directed at the British Empire. Since both were patriots, patriotism is a point of view, not an absolute.

The Constitution arranged for a new structure of government for the country, but with several damaging caveats so that enough states would approve in unanimity. Again, slavery was guaranteed with weasel words designed to mention it but not define it, since everybody knew what it was and where it existed. Natives were "not taxed," putting them in kind of a netherland to be dealt with later, residents but not citizens. The one who were left would finally become citizens in 1924--never mind how long they'd been here--even after women could finally vote.

All this is true. Merely stating it might get me accused of being unpatriotic by Tucker Carlson. But the Constitution, again, is given a bit too much credit at times. It created a structure for another try at self-government, the Articles of Confederation being woefully inadequate. It put boundaries to buttress power from getting carried away, boundaries respected by all presidents except the one we presently have. But it points out a truth we've taken for granted for too long: That these boundaries are subject to specific acts by opposing institutions, which, if they are not applied, puts the whole document at risk. As we have seen, 45 doesn't care about that.

You don't think so? Consider impeachment. 45 was unquestionably guilty of jeopardizing our foreign policy, which is his specific Constitutional responsibility. But politics, and undeserved fear, got in the way, and Republican Senators (except one) refused to step outside of their dictated boundaries and use common sense. Now, to be perfectly honest, impeachment has lost its swagger. It is a dead letter. It has to be fixed, perhaps by an amendment requiring 60 Senate votes, or even 51, not 67.

Try the Electoral College. Twice in this century already, the winner of the popular vote didn't become president. In a country with this many citizens, this is the basest unfairness. Never mind the two disastrous presidents it has led to--which the country did not deserve--there has to be a change in the Constitution to remove it.

Is it unpatriotic to think so, much less say so? I don't think so. Do I love my country less because I think this? Absurd. I want to make it better. It's my country. I get to look at it with a critical eye. I don't have to accept someone's snake oil.

We have, at times, come down on people pretty hard for saying unorthodox things. Way back in the 1790s, the Federalist Party in Congress passed an absurd set of laws called the Alien and Sedition Acts, because they were jumpy that another revolution was about to begin, inspired by anti-British (and thus anti-Federalist) speeches given by French visitors. People were arrested, for instance, for saying that the president should be shot in his ass (The case was dismissed.). The laws were later declared unconstitutional.

But the Sedition Act of 1917, designed to thwart criticism of the president, Congress, and other representative institutions, is still on the books. Back then, it was enforced against someone passing out literature in New York City, trying to keep men from enlisting for the draft. The Supreme Court backed it up.

The flyer in question said that "democracy cannot be shot into a country," a notion later proven through the disastrous Treaty of Versailles. But the war was on in 1917, and the Wilson Administration created its own Committee on Public Information, with which this flyer seriously disagreed. Paranoia won the day.

We got enough people over to Europe to defeat the Central Powers. There was never much doubt about that. The importance of the flyer was blown way out of proportion by oppressive government--our own. The notion that it could get in the way of a nationwide recruitment program was ridiculous. It wasn't preventing anyone physically from signing up, it just advised them not to do it. And it didn't advocate burning draft cards.

Am I a non-patriot for saying so? Is the threat of strangling the First Amendment more important than fighting a war overseas? I think such discussion should happen. I think my country would do well to have it.

Tucker Carlson, you can tell your faithful on Fox News that criticism of the country is unpatriotic, but it doesn't hold up. The country was created because of criticism, and resistance was organized when it was ignored. It's our birthright. And it's our duty to change government that takes away people's rights. Where does it say that? In the Declaration of Independence.

Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark