There is absolutely nothing patriotic about meekly going along with anything our president wants
Bruce Mulkey
June 11, 2004 6:04 p.m.
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."
- Edward R. Murrow
"In this administration, you don't have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the president."
- White House aide quoted in Capitol Hill Blue, June 4
When I write a column on an issue about which folks hold passionate views, I get a lot of feedback. Most of the feedback is usually from readers who are supportive of my perspective; some is from those who disagree. And of course, I welcome both. The right to freely express our opinions is one of the things that makes America great.
After my May 29 column featuring Sgt. Jimmy Massey telling of his experiences in Iraq, in addition to the kudos and messages of support for Massey's courageous stand, I got some e-mail messages from readers ardently taking issue with my column. Several of them asked: "Would you rather fight them over there or over here?" Whether they knew it or not, these readers were setting up what is known as a "false dilemma," providing a limited number of options (usually two), when there are actually more than that, in this case dozens, perhaps hundreds more. Fighting them over there and over here for one. Fighting them neither place for another. And it would be helpful to know who "them" is. Another famous example of a false dilemma is President Bush's statement "You're either with us or with the terrorists." Again, many more possibilities exist here than the "either/or" option put forward by Bush.
Another question that was posed by a reader after my last column: "Why do you hate George Bush?" Indeed, it seems that if you disagree with any decision made by George W. Bush, you open yourself to the accusation of Bush-bashing. Former President Teddy Roosevelt had this to say about those who believe we should march lock step with the president: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Nonetheless, let me state for the record that I don't hate Bush. If you've read my columns over the past four or so years, you'd know that I endeavor to love and respect every person on this planet. Being human, I sometimes fall short of this intention. Having said that, I think Bush is a seriously misguided man completely out of his element. I think he had the perfect job when he was with the Texas Rangers - glad-handing the fans, schmoozing with the players.
Here's an excerpt from an e-mail I received a few weeks ago after I wrote about the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq:
"Mr. BM, the initials suit you well. You are full of it. And after reading your piece on the Iraqi prison abuse I have come to the conclusion, and am totally convinced you are a communist. ... I do not consider you an American citizen by conviction, only one fortunate to be born here. I believe if conflict were to rise up here in this nation you would be a turncoat. Just as I feel you are one now."
Ah, the old name-calling gambit, a propaganda technique in which the name caller does not address the issues, but attempts to link the communicator to negative symbols, in this case (quaintly) communism and (not so quaintly) turncoat, thereby endeavoring to discount whatever the communicator might have to say. Being on the receiving end of mean-spirited messages such as this one lost its sting once I realized their contents are more about how the writer regards himself than about me.
A few readers have questioned my patriotism. I can tell you that I love my country so much that I will not sit idly by and let a small group of partisans destroy the foundation on which it is built by declaring a perpetual global war, mounting pre-emptive invasions of third-rate powers on false pretenses, creating and implementing plans to evade the Geneva Convention's protective rights for those captured in combat, proposing U.S. first strikes with a new generation of nuclear weapons, chipping away at the Bill of Rights through the so-called Patriot Act, bestowing sweetheart deals to their corporate cronies, and the list goes on.
Before the horrible events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the Bush administration's subsequent descent into worldwide revenge and retribution, I was content to write about tolerance, the media, health, treading lightly on our planet and other such topics.
Only occasionally did I address what I considered the inadequacies of Democratic and Republican politicians alike. However, since the Bushies began to reveal their true intentions, I have been and continue to be compelled to write about their contentious actions. I could not regard myself as a loyal citizen of this nation if I did not.
Some might think that because I support such issues as feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and working for peace that I'm a wimp, faint-hearted or cowardly.
Some might think that calling me names, hurling abuse or ridiculing my views will shut me up or at least persuade me to moderate my views. Let me assure you that none of the above is true.
When I write, the words issue straight from my gut, from the essence of who I am, from my passionate commitment to honesty, integrity, justice, compassion and freedom.
I write as a concerned American citizen. I write to help create a world of peace, justice and sustainability. And regardless of what shows up in my inbox, the letters to the editor or anywhere else, I can guarantee that I will continue to forthrightly take my stand until someone pries my keyboard from my not-so-nimble, 30-words-a-minute hands.
cgi.citizen-times.com |
