Doubts about the new American patriotism

BY STEPHEN VIDER

In the weeks since Sept. 11, a visible wave of patriotism has spread across the country, but I have consistently felt like an outsider looking in. I've mourned for the victims, I've attended midnight vigils and panel discussions, and I've tried my best to process an event beyond comprehension. But I've also grown suspicious of this new American patriotism. It is strange to see our national cynicism suddenly dissolve, to watch our country reborn in only a matter of days.

I don't have much of an issue with the proliferation of flags. When I was offered a small American flag patch to pin to my marching-band blazer, I did it. To me, it was simply another way to say I was with my fellow Americans in woe.

I recognize patriotism as a type of group therapy, both noble and heartwarming—but for many, patriotism has also meant solidarity in support of the government. Still, I worry about where this sudden solidarity will lead us. I don't fear patriotism; I fear zealotry.

There are many signs of this growing trend. President George W. Bush's, DC '68, approval ratings skyrocketed after his speech to Congress on Fri., Sept. 21. I admit that I missed the president's speech when it first aired. Had I seen it in full, and not just read about it in retrospect, maybe I too would have been swept up in the tide of patriotism. Maybe I would not be so skeptical when I hear that he has suddenly found his real voice beneath the rhetoric.

A New York Times/CBS news poll reveals that 92 percent of Americans think we should take military action against the responsible party, and you can sense the country gearing up for war. Our patriotism has become our armor. And while I agree that we must take military action, I'm not ready to say in what form—at least not until all the facts are in.

When Congress authorized a resolution granting President Bush a virtual blank check to use force against the terrorists, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) was the single dissenting vote. She was not against mili-tary action; she simply thought that those decisions were better made by our representatives than by our president. Regardless of whether Lee was right or wrong, it worries me when a nation of this size, of so many races, and of so many views is suddenly in near-unanimous agreement—not necessarily because I disagree, but because debate and disagreement, checks and balances, are what this country is founded on. And it worries me when a representative receives death threats for voting on her democratic principles.

In one of the most public acts of dissension, Politically Incorrect host Bill Maher stated, "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." In response, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, "The reminder is to all Americans, that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and that this is not a time for remarks like that."

Looking back, Bill Maher's comments do seem callous and poorly timed, even reductionist in their argument—but he has a right to say them. Ari Fleischer's comments, on the other hand, scare me much more, even if he did try and recant the "watch what you say" line. When the White House spokesman warns the American media and public against questioning and criticizing authority, now or ever, we have moved into dangerous territory.

When Lee must insist, "I'm just as American and just as patriotic as anybody else," we must reconsider our definition of patriotism. Patriotism does not mean silence.

Even the Bush administration's frequent use of the term "war" for what is better called an anti-terrorist campaign seems destined to silence debate. It does not seem quite as unpatriotic to question a campaign as it does a war. In the end, we may all agree that military action is necessary while still disagreeing on the specific course of military action. As America is slowly learning, this war, as I am hesitant to call it, will be unlike any we have ever fought, with more options than we initially expected.

At least for now, I'm happy to say that President Bush is acting cautiously and trying to work with anti-Taliban groups within Afghanistan. He authorized $100 million in aid to Afghan refugees who are fleeing their country in fear of an American strike.

But we should not be afraid to question even this conservative course. If nothing else, the political split in Afghanistan should alert us to at least one surface similarity to Vietnam: we may try to work with the Afghans only to find that the line between friend and enemy is less than clear.

Now may indeed be the time for action, but we cannot allow our solidarity to turn into blind support. To do so only devalues patriotism. We should move ahead as planned, but, in the coming months, keep an open ear to dissenting views.

In all wars, there are many potential plans of action. We cannot allow patriotism to come in the way of reason or our right to disagree.

Back to Opinion...