Because he probably won’t read anything that YOU suggest to him, Art, I’ll point out that Neibuhr wrote extensively on the concept of “just war.” I don’t necessarily know if “just war” is necessary in order to quantify the depth of one’s patriotism, but Neibuhr’s arguments are fascinating in and of themselves.
T.
**Because he probably won’t read anything that YOU suggest to him, Art, I’ll point out that Neibuhr wrote extensively on the concept of “just war.” I don’t necessarily know if “just war” is necessary in order to quantify the depth of one’s patriotism, but Neibuhr’s arguments are fascinating in and of themselves. **
Well, I guess it is a good thing that I am not ART!!! I would lay money that Casey knows and has read some of Neibuhr. At least enough to be familiar with his writings of “just war” theory. Neibuhr is fascinating. I was also quite intrigued by McCain’s thoughts on him. This chapter in the book alone started making me like McCain a little more.
Bernie
Sorry, Bern. I’m carrying on a couple of different conversations, and for some reason I got the two of you mixed up, horror of horrors. It’ll never happen again and I promise not to do it at least until the Detroit Tigers win a game this year 
T.
Interesting. If my take on the limited information given here is correct, I kind of see where he is going with this. There are symbols of patriotism, and then there is the actual definition of what patriotism is. Obama is trying to decouple the concepts, and with certain validity, IMHO. The latter is going to be profoundly affected by your vision of what your country is about, and where it should be going. It is very easy to wrap yourself in the symbols of patriotism without ever giving consideration to the meaning of what being a patriot is. Also, the overuse of symbols eventually negates the importance of the symbol itself.
So, if we can accept to a certain extent that Obama feels that the direction of the US needs to change, as does the role the US plays on the international stage, then there is a valid argument for looking at what those changes would imply in what is deemed a patriotic act/action. This would be particularly critical to his arguments regarding diplomatic appraches with countries such as Iran and Syria for example. The current trend is to view anything that involves discussion as weak, “giving in” etc, and thus becomes associated with “unpatriotic”. However, if it is his belief that the US needs to re-establish itself as a political broker to achieve its aims then the he needs to re-frame the discussion of patriotism within a broader view of the US role in the world. Then the question of negotiating with your adversaries, and, heavan forbid, possibly negotiating with consensus of your allies, becomes “patriotic” - in other words, performing service to the benefit of your country. Note - I am not trying to debate the validity of this policy, but rather using it as an example to differentiate views of what would constitute a vision for the direction the country should be taking.
It is a bold, if possibly stupid move. What I think this gets at is sort of a “don’t judge me by my appearance - listen to what I have to say”. And if the electorate was inclined ot actaully listen, reason and judge, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately, my gut tells me that the superficial appearance will weigh more heavily in many voters minds.
His quote from one article - *You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That’s what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.” *I think that is a very valid statement. Now what really matters is the articulation of those values and ideals, and framing the definition of patriotism within those. I have not seen where that has been done yet. So in that sense I don’t know that we have a “new patriotism” per se, only that simply covering one’s self in symbols of patriotism is not sufficient to define one as a patriot.
FWIW - I do tend to agree with him that there was a tendancy after 9/11 to overdo the symbolism, especially at the cost of rational discourse. But that may be another discussion into national zeitgeist.
Apparently its all Cindy’s money where that mouth is. She has an iron clad pre nup.
It is not a speech or a quote, but staying with a minister for 20 years that preaches “God Damn America” is more along the lines of an action that speaks more clearly.
Same for the attitude of his wife towards this country.
Wanting to immediately lose in Iraq, shaft our allies on free trade agreements, while wanting to meet with the likes of Chaves and Ahmadinejad is definitely a new kind of patriotism. Maybe he should start with Columbia’s president first, since the Democratic campaign has royally pissed him off.
Repeatedly misrepresenting McCain’s statement by saying he wants 100 years of war in Iraq is a new way to look at patriotism, given that McCain has certainly earned the right, as few have, to be honestly represented.
Obama has quoted from JFK’s inaugural address, but for some reason he always leaves this line out:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Personally, I like the old kind of patriotism better. Maybe that is just me.
**Apparently its all Cindy’s money where that mouth is. She has an iron clad pre nup. **
Predictable, if ultimately tedious and tendentious, Matt. The prenup was at his insistence, and executed for a number of reasons. You being an attorney would know why, in many cases, they may decide to maintain - especially as a family involved in politics - separation of estates.
Let me ask you question, and I promise that you’ll eventually see where I’m going with all this, either in the next post or a little further down the road:
Who’s the more courageous and heroic: The Medal of Honor winner, or the university academic, say a professor of the humanities?
T.
I agree, it’s a bold move. I read somewhere that patriotism often resembles love for your mother (‘you can’t say that about my mother’). I’ve seen the following Obama quote before but it was posted on Sullivan’s blog, I think it’s a good one…
“I love this country not because it’s perfect, but because we’ve always been able to move it closer to perfection. Because through revolution and slavery; war and depression; great battles for civil rights and women’s rights and worker’s rights, generations of Americans have shown their love of country by struggling and sacrificing and risking their lives to bring us that much closer to our founding promise. And as long as I live, I will never forget that I am only standing here because they did… That is the country I love. That is the promise of America.”
FWIW I admire McCain and he’s most certainly proud of his children (what a huge amount of restraint he must have needed when Romney talked about his children’s service in their dad’s campaign as equivalent to those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan). It’s sort of hachneyed but Obama praising McCain’s service before he starts criticizing strikes me as well mannered and appropriate.
"McCain has certainly earned the right, as few have, to be honestly represented. "
Not to stray to far from this engrossing discussion, but no one has to “earn” the right to be honestly represented. I know that’s a foreign concept in the LR, but nonetheless,…
Fair enough. It is one thing to slime a slime ball. It is another to slime a guy like McCain. Neither are good, but the latter is far worse.
lighten up dude.
Those are really good words, and I take Obama at face value that he means them.
Words are just that – words. Obama is yet another slick lawyer that is really, really good with them. It is his deeds and his proposed actions that give me pause.
Sliming the character of a guy like McCain, like Obama does and MattinSF loves to do, is an action that says nothing about McCain but a great deal about the speaker, none of it good. I am no McCain supporter by any means, but I am a McCain respecter. He has earned my and every American’s respect many times over.
Those are really good words, and I take Obama at face value that he means them.
Words are just that – words. Obama is yet another slick lawyer that is really, really good with them. It is his deeds and his proposed actions that give me pause.
Sliming the character of a guy like McCain, like Obama does and MattinSF loves to do, is an action that says nothing about McCain but a great deal about the speaker, none of it good. I am no McCain supporter by any means, but I am a McCain respecter. He has earned my and every American’s respect many times over.
Notable people who have slimed John McCain;
Mrs McCain #1 George W. Bush Karl Rove Rush Limbaugh Ann Coulter Sean Hannity Glenn Beck James Dobson Pat Robertson Jerry Falwell
I’m sure there are many more.
I think I see that Obama, as you say, is trying mightily to redefine the meaning of “patriotism” to suit his worldview rather than accommodate his worldview to what patriotism, in the vernacular, has stood for in the past. Whether he’s ultimately successful at this remains to be seen, and I doubt, outside of university and higher-earning white liberal and African American circles, he will be. Much hay will be made out his decision to forego the flag pin (though I don’t often wear one, myself, except on special occasions) or to place his hand over his heart at the playing of the anthem. We may one day be at the point where such a demonstration will not be jangly or discordant, but I don’t think we’ve arrived, as yet.
And I could buy off on the supposition put forth in your second paragraph if I were more certain that his belief in this “new path” for elevating our stature in the eyes of the international community is indeed wise or even correct, given his lack of real foreign policy experience, or any experience in dealing with the rougher men, and their version of justice, that we are confronting.
As to its wisdom, I would have to say that it wants for validation, especially given the fact of both France and Germany electing leaders who seem to want not only closer relations with the United States (where Chirac and Schroeder had a hard time disguising their antipathy for us and our policy decisions) but have also given approval, at the most recent NATO meetings, to a ballistic missile shield system. Recent missteps by Obama, in which he’s angered Canada, our allies in South Korea, our closest ally in South America (Columbia, which Hillary’s also done), has threatened to invade tribal regions in Pakistan and has promised talks, without precondition, with Iran and Syria doesn’t seem to portend well for his ability to “consult” with our allies. This is not a defense of the Bush administration, but rather an attempt to point out that Obama’s version of this “new patriotism” has at its heart a series of untested conclusions.
I agree that it’s a bold move. I don’t know about stupid, though it may possibly prove to be naive. I give more credit to the electorate, though, than most. It wants to be reassured by a man who says, though he hasn’t demonstrated in the classical sense, that his country has pride of place in his heart, rather than to have to hear that his wife, for the first time in her adult life, was “proud” of her country almost solely because her husband had a chance of becoming the next president.
I disagree with Obama that he knows exclusively what our “values and ideals” are, for they are not static and cemented in stone, as any civil rights activist, or one who lived through the Jim Crow laws of the Old South, knows. Rather, it seems that he attempts to deflect criticism of his stance on the trappings of patriotism - or what truly he believes the country has stood and currently stands for - by repeating that one can be patriotic, and by extension, “heroic” by standing up for these new ideals. This is jangly, also, to many people, who have equated patriotism and heroism in another manner since the founding of the Republic. Many also seem to know that this new ideal for patriotism doesn’t require any real sacrifice in our civil society, where civil discourse is truly possible (unlike in say, Tibet, where patriotism requires a bit more sacrifice and peril than here in the United States).
I agree with you on the overemphasis of symbolism. Both sides are guilty of this, Obama as much as McCain. Obama gave more than a few people pause with his use of at least six U.S. flags, placed behind him, when he gave his speech calling for a national conversation on race after the Jeremiah Wright flap. To many, it seemed as if he draped himself in the symbolic when it became apparent that he was in danger of suffering symbolic harm (in the form of a diminution of his popular support), himself.
I think that a lot of people give McCain the benefit of the doubt on this, though, because he’s given blood, sweat and tears, literally, for this country, while Obama asks us to believe of him that he’s equally as capable, yet cannot provide that proof through past accomplishment or grace under fire.
T.
"McCain has certainly earned the right, as few have, to be honestly represented. "
Not to stray to far from this engrossing discussion, but no one has to “earn” the right to be honestly represented. I know that’s a foreign concept in the LR, but nonetheless,…
You mean the way John Kerry was honestly represented or some other way?
Keep rationalizing your disgusting comments, MattinSF. And please, please keep them up from you and your like minded friends right through November. They speak volumes, just not the volumes you think.
Words are just that – words
I have to disagree with you here. Words are far more powerful than that, and every politician out there knows it. Words create the images and symbols that people will believe in and unite behind. Unfortunately, in this day and age, that now comes down tothe 20 second sound bite, rather than taking the time to explore all the ideas behind the words. We now think in terms of “us or them” and that is as far as words go. Really kind of sad.
Much like your quote from JFK - great quote. But when you get down to it, what is not stated there is the “how” any of what he proposes would be done. Supporting friends - what dows that mean - military, financial, nice gestures at the UN? And in that sense, back to BK’s argrument - how exactly do they define patriotism? We really don’t know, becasue they really aren’t clear enough to say.
Although I may diagree with your particular spin on Obama’s platform, you really do illustrate the issue I was stating earlier. You do not agree with his idea of where the country should be going and what it’s role should be vis a vis the rest of the world, and that is fine. Therefore, you do not agree with whatever the “new patriotism” would be, though I still maintain that has not really been defined yet. But the point is, the judgment is made not on symbology and the surround demagogury, but rather on concept. That ultimately to me is a good thing.
Notable people who have slimed John McCain;
**Mrs McCain #1 ** **George W. Bush ** **Karl Rove ** **Rush Limbaugh ** **Ann Coulter ** **Sean Hannity ** **Glenn Beck ** **James Dobson ** **Pat Robertson ** Jerry Falwell
Who cares about those people, Matt? I might as well say that Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, Jeaneane Garofalo and all those potty mouths on the Left represent you exclusively. Your weak attempts at conflation only make you seem small and easily excitable. I give you more credit than that.
Last I looked, I formed my opinions based off of what I know and have learned about McCain and the rest of the candidates this year. You should do the same instead of trying to deflect examination of your stands by shining a spotlight on people who I’m sure McCain is quite capable of defending himself against. Rove et al don’t speak for me, nor for Art, I’d imagine.
T.
I agree words are powerful, but they are particularly powerful when backed up by, rather than undercut by the speaker’s actions.
Obama’s actions undercut his many fine words. McCain’s actions reinforce them.
Obama’s words also advocate throwing our many small country allies like Columbia under the bus economically. I have a real problem with that, especially when combined with his wanting to placate Chavez and the like. I don’t consider that patriotic, by my definition. Indeed JFK’s next words seem to address exactly that point:
" To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder."
Patriotism in book includes the concept of countries not fearing to be our friends and instead fearing to be our enemies. Nothing subtle there. It is right out of the Marines handbook, no better friend, no worse enemy. Obama has that exactly backwards, in my opinion.
When I encounter someone whose words and actions are in conflict, it is a pretty easy call which to rely upon. Picking the actions over the words has worked for me every time.
Notable people who have slimed John McCain;
**Mrs McCain #1 ** **George W. Bush ** **Karl Rove ** **Rush Limbaugh ** **Ann Coulter ** **Sean Hannity ** **Glenn Beck ** **James Dobson ** **Pat Robertson ** Jerry Falwell
Who cares about those people, Matt?
Well one of those people is the President, should we not care what he says or does? Am I understanding you correctly?