Too bad occupying Iraq turned out to be more than an exercise in rhetoric.
Yesterday, Gerson put some poetry into the Fourth of July with his Washington Post editorial about "Why We Keep This Creed" that from the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. For Gerson, the beauty of our "Creed" does not lie in the American Revolution, George Washington, the Battle of New Orleans, Henry Clay the Great Compromiser, Teddy Roosevelt, or even Franklin Roosevelt. All of this was degraded by the fact that the United States was first a slave society and then a viciously segregated society.
That was the meaning of William Lloyd Garrison's Fourth of July speech in 1829 when he proclaimed that he was "sick of our unmeaning declamation in praise of liberty and equality; of our hypocritical cant about the unalienable rights of man." To think that Americans believed in liberty and equality while serving as a "prison" (Gerson's term) for the slave population was too sickening to be stomached by the young abolitionist Garrison and he demanded that "Americans should "spike every cannon and haul down every banner" because of the "glaring contradiction" between the Declaration of Independence and the practice of slavery. "
Gerson could have made the same point in reference to Frederick Douglass' 1852 Fourth of July speech as well.
What salvages the Declaration of Independence and this country as a whole is the fact that Martin Luther King was able to use phrases like "all men are created equal" to give his campaign against segregation some ideological leverage. It's the association of the American creed with the overcoming of racial hierarchy that validates the creed and validates the country.
Which is why some of us love this holiday so much. It is the day when cynicism is silent. It is the day when Americans recall that "all men are created equal" somehow applies to the Mexican migrant and the Iraqi shopkeeper and the inner-city teenager. And it is the day we honor those who take this fact seriously. Those in our military who fight for the liberty of strangers are noble. Those dissidents who risk much in Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and China are heroic. Those who work against poverty and injustice in America are patriots -- because patriotism does not require us to live in denial, only to live in hope.
There are some ways in which I accept Gerson's formulation. In fact, "all men are created equal" meant only white men until the civil rights movement overcame segregation; only meant men until the feminist movement established more in the way of real equality for women, and only meant straight men as long as gay people were forced to either live on the margins or remain closeted. The Declaration of Independence only has meaning in the world because black activists, feminists, and gay rights activists and their supporters have given it meaning through their activism. Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence would be as hypocritical and meaningless as it was in 1829, 1852, or 1952.
With that said, I'm surprised that conservatives celebrate the Fourth of July at all.
The reasons are obvious. Conservatives opposed the idea that "all men are created equal" right from the beginning. American conservatives of the 1830's were bitter opponents of the abolitionists. Conservatives of the 1950's and 1960's were bitter opponents of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement and conservatives today still justify job discrimination, racial profiling, and police brutality directed against African-Americans. The fact that the racism of conservatives is expressed in "color-blind" language doesn't make it any less a product of white supremacy or any less a rejection of the Declaration of Independence.
Conservatives are keeping up the fight against women's rights and gay rights as well. Just as George Wallace "segged" his way to his first term of governor of Alabama, George Bush and conservatives all over the country ran against gay marriage in 2004.
Given their hostility to "the American creed," the decent thing for conservatives to do on the Fourth of July was stay home.
Posts
3 comments:
I have friends, good friends who are loyal patriotic people who love our country and who are registered Republicans. I have no clue why they make this choice but they have. And these are good folks.
I make room for an enourmous difference between my friends who are registered Republicans and the people who lead the Republican party.
Those who lead the Republican party at the national and state level do not know the meaning of the word patriotism. They claim to love America but their every action indicates that they hate Americans. They are hostile to real Americans and assuredly, on the day Americans celebrate independence, those who lead the GOP should indeed stay home. In addition to those things Ric mentioned above, let me mention some other reasons why they don't need to pretend to love our country.
It's hard to know where to start. We have a Republican administration who seem incapable of telling anybody the truth about anything. Whether it is weapons of mass destruction, where we have heard every story in the whole world, yet everywhere you look people do not believe the President of the United States, they do not believe our Vice President as he maintains that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and that the non-existant weapons of mass destruction. Or we could talk about Medicare, or we could talk about their tax policies.
This crowd is creating catastrophe right under our noses. The truly criminal thing about this is that the President knows the outcome of his poisonous policies but he doesn’t care and he hides them from us. This is patriotism? Our government should stand for basic fairness and justice. That is why I do not understand why families earning between $10,000 and $26,000 per year were excluded from receiving the $400 per child tax refund that the wealthier families received three summers ago just so millionaires could have bigger tax cuts. This is love of country? And if Mr. Bush and his followers, (or is it Mr Cheney and his followers), whoever it is, when will he/she/they come out of hiding and explain to the American people why millionaires need more tax cuts but poor kids don’t need after-school care. From day one, this President and his lackeys in Congress have taken money away from the people at the bottom and given it to the people at the top. There is nothing patriotic about starving people. Republican tax plans have all been designed to exclude poor families including 12 million children living in hopeless poverty. What kind of leadership is this for people who claim such great affection for the American people. Perhaps I am too harsh. How could we expect George W. Bush, a man, as former Texas Governor Ann Richards described him, who was “born with a silver spoon up his nose”, to look somebody in the eye who is working full time, has a wife and two children, the wife is staying home taking care of the kids, and say, “I am not going to give you one thin dime.” I mean, that takes a real heart of steel or rock or cowardice. I’m betting on option three. Because he’ll never meet those folks. He has met a good many millionaires. He has met his share of billionaires. And he has given and intends again to give those people more and more of our public funds to which they contribute less and less with each passing year. Now, think about the unfairness of that. People on the right call what I am writing here,” class warfare”. What about the Republican war on working people who are trying hard just to maintain. That is what we are seeing in 2007. A right-wing White House waging war on the most vulnerable in our society all the while calling everyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic.
So deep is their disdain for our democracy that they nullify the constitution with laws such as the USA PATRIOT act and warrantless wiretapping. They have so little regard for America and our great institutions that despite the fact that we now know the Iraq war was based on nothing but lies and not worth fighting...and that the President deliberately misled us into this war, he still continues to pursue the same failed course in Iraq as the casualties continue to mount. What kind of love does that display for our country?
This past May marked the fourth anniversary of Bush's speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. That day he performed his “fearless leader” routine and proclaimed our “mission accomplished,” stating that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” What? Fast-forward three years later. 133,000 troops remain on the ground, and Mr. Bush has signaled that the U.S. military occupation in Iraq is open-ended and of indefinite duration. Is this love of country and those who signed up to protect it? “Stay the course” is a slogan, just like "surge". Neither is a strategy for success whatever success might be at this point. “Stay the course”, it seems, really means “stay forever.” The White House's blathering idiocy on this issue has inflamed the insurgents, who have known for some time what Americans are only beginning to learn. That Bush/Cheney, et.al want a permanent military presence in Iraq. And it takes away any incentive for the Iraqi government to resolve its internal divisions and stand on its own feet.
Now I didn’t serve in the military like the President did protecting Alabama from the Vietcong but I do listen to what U.S. commanders in Iraq are saying. They have acknowledged that Iraq’s remaining challenges cannot be resolved militarily, but will require a political solution worked out by the Iraqis themselves. However, the ongoing presence of U.S. forces without a clear end date, has delayed progress on the political front. Moreover, the insurgents are strengthened by the overwhelming perception among Iraqis that the U.S. military is an occupying force. They can see that the bases your people are building over there are permanent bases, and that continuing presence in Iraq is about oil.
All this from a party and an Administration who wrap themselves so tightly in the American flag, I'm not sure how they can breath.And they continue this policy making our nation, once beloved, a source of the most extreme hatred. And they call it patriotic. If these people truly loved America and Americans they would give us what we deserve, a government at least as fair and as honest as we the people are. Over the last several years, we have been given anything but. I submit that this President and his party are a complete wash-out when it comes to love of country. What distinguishes an inspiring patriotic vision from a laundry list of policies and four-point plans? I ask any who read or hear these words, take Lyndon Johnson's passionate devotion to finding solutions to the problems of poverty and constrast that with Bush's phony “compassionate conservatism.” In 1964, Johnson announced that, "...This administration here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America." He went on to say that,” we shall not rest until that war is won.” He called on the entire Cabinet and the Congress to work hours upon hours, days upon days discussing and investigating all the options of how to best address the issues of poverty in America. And after his 1964 election, he embarked on a tour of this country’s most impoverished areas. The resulting television pictures of hungry children in his arms shocked the conscience of the nation. That was patriotism on the part of a great President that helped galvanize and inspire patriotism on the part of the American people. By contrast, Americans are not impressed watching Republican leaders shake hands with billionaire contributors. They are not inspired by Bush's references to the wealthy as his “base.” The last Texan in the White house didn’t retreat from a truly patriotic values-based campaign; he seized that fundamental belief,’ I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, that sense of community that moved America forward, for a while. That sense of community is what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. That is something the modern leaders of the Republican party will never understand or value. They will never know the greatness of truly embracing the American Community. So every Independence Day, the best thing they can do is just stay home and wonder what all the fuss is about.
Dear Prof Cancer
You really ARE ignorant of American history, arent' you?
For instance, it was those godbotherers behind the abolitionist movement, LBJ could only count on the Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in Dr. King's march on Washington you'd have found such "liberals" Charlton Heston and Bob Dornan walking alongside of him.
But do keep writing. It's a hoot to see such a caricature of left cultism such as yourself.
Oh... todd?
LBJ's policies, while good intended, failed. Miserably and utterly and left us with almost two generations filled with people who are "entitlement" oriented and believe they have "rights" to "things".
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
The Republicans LBJ counted on were people like Kenneth Keating of New York and Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, both of whom were liberals. Even Everett Dirkson was very liberal by current Republican standards. Those kinds of people are no longer welcome in the Republican Party.
Conversely, the kinds of Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Southern Conservatives. Those people and their political heirs switched to the Republican Party. That's a big reason why the Republicans are the party of white racism, homophobia, and anti-immigrant bigogtry today.
A good example would be John Stennis of Mississippi, a die-hard segregationist. Trent Lott was on Stennis' staff before he switched to the Republican. As Lott indicated, he would much rather live in a country where someone like Strom Thurmond could get elected on a segregation ticket.
Of course, Ann Coulter is a lot more funny and charming than Trent Lott. She refers to this country as a "roach motel" in one of her articles on the immigration bill.
Good comment on the marchers with MLK. I thought there that you were going to be the first right-winger to claim that Jesse Helms marched with King. I've been waiting for that for a long time.
Of course, Charlton Heston was a liberal when he marched with King and was associated with Bobby Kennedy.
Now, I want to stop for a second and think about what Martin Luther King would say about the NRA and Heston's leadership of the NRA. I don't want to overclaim here, but I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't approve.
Whew! That gave me a good laugh.
I don't know about Dornan, but it figures that you would be a Bob Dornan kind of woman.
As you probably know, I've been tooling around protein wisdom a little. It's a very well done; it reminds me of "Gutfeld and Friends," that show on Fox where Greg Gutfeld (formerly of Maxim and a sleazeball stereotype if there ever was one) and his friends get together in his very nice Manhattan apartment and share an evening of saying funny things about the left. It's all so unstereotypical of the right-wing--so upscale, fashionable, college-educated, and devoid of all that crude god talk, prudery, racism, and traditionalism so "dirty" to everyone else. See boys and girls, being conservative is like smoking camels. It's a way to be "cool" and "ironic."
I understand that. I know a lot of people in Kentucky who are left-wingers in the same way. But it's just a pose. From what I see so far, you people are unwilling to name what you believe in and certainly unwilling to fight for it. Someday, your gang isn't going to be so cool and then you've going to look a lot like the right-wing version of John Kerry and all the Democrats who also decided that being cool was a better tactic than fighting for what they believe in. Now that will be an irony.
Post a Comment