Peggy Noonan on the Patriotism Question

[TheresNoMoney]

Republicans have to rely on the most trivial sh**t to try to win elections.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it has meaning to me. I get a tear in my eye watching and/or participating in these public rituals, and incantations of patriotism and admiration for our country, and what it has achieved, and its ideals. I always have, and always will, and I am no uber patriotic right wing nutter. Trust me. Moreover, I don't think it is "stupid" - at all. It is part of the glue that hold this diverse nation together.  But maybe this old fossil is just not "hip" to what is "cool" now.

[exopolitician]

I think its ridiculous that there is a race going on against who is most patriotic and who isnt. Everyone in America is patriotic to somepoint, if they werent then they obviously would not be chosing to live in America to begin with. Nobodies patriotism is bigger or better than anyone elses...and its always been that way.

If this is all the Republicans can dig up then its going to be a long election season this year.

[Beet]

Obama talks about bringing America down to the level of other nations--stating that we shouldn't be able to do things that other nations cannot. He definitely possesses that academia definition of patriotism that only the far-left elite believe in that America is not necessarily the greatest country in the world, and we should not act like it. This bothers me about Obama.

I will only say that those who believe America is inherently the greatest country in the world are phenomenally stupid. And it's terrible diplomacy to talk to other countries as if this were the case.

That's not the point. The point is that the perspective of an American President should be America first, because he is the head of our nation.

That's not what AHDuke posted. He said that America was the greatest nation, and that the President must remember that in diplomacy.

The United States is the greatest nation by most objective measures. We are the world's only superpower, and spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. AHDuke99 was saying that a President should not be afraid to recognize the fact that because of those things, the U.S. is able to do things other nations cannot. For example, what would France have done vis-a-vis Iraq had it been in America's place? There is no telling. He was saying the American President should not artificially attempt to impose an equality between America and other nations where none exists.

You then argued that it is stupid to believe that America is 'inherently' the greatest nation in the world. That suggests a subjective evaluation of America's essence. The American President, should have a positive subjective evaluation of America's essence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because you think America is better does not mean you are uncritical or think nothing can be changed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are mixing subjective evaluation and objective facts. The objective facts are that America is the best. The subjective evaluation of the President should be the same. For Obama to say that we 'must' lower ourselves to the level of the Cubas of the world by having our President meet with them unconditionally is as naive as it is gracious. I wonder what Obama hopes to accomplish out of these meetings? Those other leaders- those enemies, will be looking out for their own good, not for ours.

The examples of Nixon in China and Reagan in the USSR are completely off-base. First of all, Nixon went to China for strategic reasons, not for ideological reasons. He did have a precondition for meeting with the Chinese: that precondition was the Sino-Soviet split. Had there been no Sino-Soviet split there would have been no meeting. Secondly, Reagan had a precondition for meeting with the Soviets: glasnost and perestroika. Had there been no Gorbachev and the reform direction, again no meeting. He would never have stooped to going to Moscow for a fun fest when Brezhnev or Andropov was up there.

[Torie]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion sir. I sincerely hope Obama disagrees with you. If he does not, I don't think he is fit for office. That is my opinion.

Blind patriotism has never done anything for America. I hope you know this.

Sure "blind" is bad. I don't think respecting the pubic rituals of patriotism, or having a deep love of our country, and deep respect for all that it has achieved, and will achieve, is "blind." I just don't. Or course, part of the process is the first amendment, and certainly participating in the process to make our nation even better, as we see the "better."  Can you fathom the difference?

[War on Want]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion sir. I sincerely hope Obama disagrees with you. If he does not, I don't think he is fit for office. That is my opinion.

Blind patriotism has never done anything for America. I hope you know this.

Sure "blind" is bad. I don't think respecting the pubic rituals of patriotism, or have a deep love of our country, and all it has achieved, and will achieve, is "blind." I just don't. Or course, part of the process is the first amendment, and certainly participating in the process to make our nation even better, as we see the "better."  Can you fathom the difference?

Yeah I can. I love American Democracy, its just I don't exactly love America. I guess some people like patriotic stuff more than others, even if they recognize America's faults as much as those who think doing patriotic stuff is pointless.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

The picture was taken during the Star Spangled Banner, where putting the hand over the heart is a spotty convention at best.

You will see a lot more of this picture. Obama thinks wearing a flag pin is infra dig too. Hewing to the public rituals of patriotism is embarrassing for  some. They think it lacks "nuance" or something.

It's mindless, and it promotes exactly the attitude AHDuke is presenting in this thread: that America is the greatest, and we should be uncritical of ourselves and ignore outside innovation.

One can be critical of some US policies without thinking it is beneath one to respect the public rituals of patriotism as a public official. America is the greatest nation on earth going away in so many ways by the way. It is beyond per adventure in my opinion.  i doubt Obama would disagree - publically.

By the way, America and its system has been most generous to both Obama and his wife - very generous. They would not have had the success and opportunities that they have had anywhere else.

I always laugh whenever I hear  that last bit or a variation of it.

I can think of at least about 20-30 countries of the top of my head where they would have the same, if not better, opportunities. Your country is great, but it's not unique by any means. Don't be so insular.

[patrick1]

I think its ridiculous that there is a race going on against who is most patriotic and who isnt. Everyone in America is patriotic to somepoint, if they werent then they obviously would not be chosing to live in America to begin with. Nobodies patriotism is bigger or better than anyone elses...and its always been that way.

If this is all the Republicans can dig up then its going to be a long election season this year.

Poorly thought out sentence #2. and #3.  M. Atta and his boys were not very patriotic whilst in the US taking flights lessons and hitting up strip joints. There are many people on the left, right and middle who don't give a rats' about this country's future.  There are citizens who are indifferent, parasitic or actively work against the United States.  Granted that politics can trivialize the issue of patriotism but there varying degrees of patriotism.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This was always the thing I found so strange about America - both living there and away.

Bush foreign policy has always had this whiff of a child jumping up and down "saying look how big and strong I am - see I can lift it with one hand!!" And the rest of the world is looking on saying "yes that's very nice...ok, anyway". Every leader the responsibility of putting the concerns of their country first... but not only. What has been so stark about US Policy is the utter lack of humility. It's a bit like someone spending money to make sure everyone knows they have it. Everyone knows the US is rich and powerful, it doesn't have to be constantly shoved down everyone's throats... which is what pisses so many people off it's not jealousy, it's frustration.

America seems to have a mixed up idea of the definition of patriotism vs nationalism. Patirotism is about having pride in your country and it's achievements and values - nationalism is that plus taking it further to the conclusion that you country occupies a higher place in the world.

[Franzl]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion sir. I sincerely hope Obama disagrees with you. If he does not, I don't think he is fit for office. That is my opinion.

Blind patriotism has never done anything for America. I hope you know this.

Yes, it has. It got us into a stupid war, and doubled our national debt.

[opebo]

Obviously this won't have any negative effect in the primary as a goodly majority of Democrats have long rejected this jingoistic nationalism.  In the general it could hurt but I do believe we are at a historical moment what with the embarrassment caused by all the failed wars and the obvious failures of the american economic system that even the dumb people will reject nationalism (for the moment).

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

I generally agree with Peggy Noonan.  However, she is taking her "cookie cutter" stamp out of the issue of patriotism measured by candidates glowing words about the shining city on the hill.

Unless we restrict the Presidency to the "elite" for the next 100 years, we will one day elect a President who has lived in this "shining" city but also has lived in some neighborhoods that have been less than shining.  Is this wrong for us to have a President who has actually lived in areas of our shining city that do not blind us with their magnificence?  Maybe, we should continue the American Presidency to be restricted to a few families; Bushes ( for those of you who don't know this Barbara Bush is a direct descendant of President Franklin Pierce ), Kennedy's, Clinton's, Dole's, Roosevelt's etc.   We can continue to elect members of these fine families.  They may recognize that some areas of our city need repair but they haven't lived on those streets.  If you have lived on those streets, maybe you see the shining city differently, I suspect you do.  Heaven forbid, we elect somebody who has actually lived on these streets.  They may be a threat to our shining city because they understand it has some streets that are dark. dim, and cold.   

The "romanticism" of the shining city is not how the world sees us.  It is not the reality of 100% of our streets.  I certainly do not accept John Edwards notion of 2 America's, it is far too extreme.  However, to try and find in Barack and Michelle's experience that they do not fit the shining city mold and seek to demean America into world equality with nations like Cuba is a false argument.  It's the argument the American Presidency belonging to the "elite" who know best.  Did their professors teach them....at Harvard?  I think this says it all.  In Peggy's view of America, the Presidency is for the elite.  At least Michelle and Barack come from the "right" schools even if their live experience may be tainted by the fact that they have lived on some colder, dimmer streets.

It's time for an American President who understands the reality of our city and leads us to fix the problems so that every block shines

 

 

[Democratic Hawk]

Id like to point out to the Republicans on this forum who are whining about Obama meeting with our enemies, that it was President Ronald Reagan who successfully met and negotiated with the Soviet Leader [our ENEMY at the time] and basically mantained good relations with the USSR until its downfall in 1989/90...some may even go as far to say that Reagan himself helped bring down the Soviet Union.

Also were Richard Nixon who established ties with China, our communist enemy at the time as well during the Vietnam and Korean War [I think...i might be wrong].

If my point isnt getting across to anyone then I'll shut up, but I think these are perfect examples of how Republicans negotiated with our enemies in the past....why cant they do it now?

Republicans conveniently forget that

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Clutching at straws

[Saxwsylvania]

The issue isn't that Obama wants to meet with our enemies.  The issue is that he wants to have tea with Hugo Chavez and bomb our allies.

[Democratic Hawk]

Republicans have to rely on the most trivial sh**t to try to win elections.

Not to mention the politics of deceit, distortions, lies, smears and spin

Dave

[opebo]

The issue isn't that Obama wants to meet with our enemies.  The issue is that he wants to have tea with Hugo Chavez and bomb our allies.

Actually no, the issue was some silly sound-byte from his wife.  The voters don't think he wants to bomb our allies, nor do they know who are our allies (beyond 'england').  But they know america as it is is an embarrassment.

[Saxwsylvania]

Republicans have to rely on the most trivial sh**t to try to win elections.

Not to mention the politics of deceit, distortions, lies, smears and spin

Dave

This is not an unfair attack.  The burden of proof is on Obama.  When the lovely Mrs. Obama said that this was the first time she was proud of her country in her lifetime, obviously then she was not proud for the rest of it.  She probably will still be ashamed of her country if the voters rightfully reject her husband in November.

[Democratic Hawk]

The issue isn't that Obama wants to meet with our enemies.  The issue is that he wants to have tea with Hugo Chavez and bomb our allies.

If there was conclusive evidence that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan, why shouldn't US forces aligned with Pakistan take him out?

The truth is that it suits Republicans that Osama Bin Laden's still out there and very much a threat so that you can use this to great electoral effect. Hell, McCain sure needs it given the abject failure of the George W Bush presidency, who has failed abysmally in providing effective global leadership

National security as an issue should be working against Republicans now

See whether you like it or not, the USA is the leader of the Free World and to be any good at it you need a president who is going to elicit much more than ridicule and contempt. And that has been Bush's greatest accomplishment. Not exactly something to boast about, is it?

Given that McCain lost the GOP nomination to Bush in 2000, I really don't hold out much hope for McCain should he be elected now, he is tainted goods, which is why I'm supporting the Democratic presidential nominee because I see either Clinton or Obama as being better positioned to who can restore American prestige and greatness back to where it belongs . As Democrats, they haven't aided and abetted Bush's incompetence anywhere to the extent McCain has, who, at least, to his credit has differentiated on certain issues with Bush, unlike most servile Republicans in Congress

As a staunch Americophile, this matters to me more than anything else. McCain is eight years too late, Bush has done his damage

Dave

[Saxwsylvania]

Osama Bin Laden is on the run now.  He is not dangerous, he is not in charge of Al-Qaeda, he is most likely hiding in a cave somewhere, having sex with goats.  This is why back in 2003 Bush said he wasn't concerned about him.  We should be against Al-Qaeda the institution, not the man most associated with it. 

If Osama were captured, not much would change.  It would be a morale boost for the US, but little else.  The terrorists will keep fighting on anyway.

I still don't understand why you think McCain is 'tainted goods' because he lost to Bush (as if losing to Bush is some sort of indignity).  By that standard Gore and Kerry are tainted as well.

But if you are looking for better 'foreign relations' - as if that would really improve anything - then I suppose Obama is your man.  After all, Obama is so foreign that he might as well be from another country, and I'm sure Europeans everywhere feels it's high time we elect a black man to become President, since we need to absolve our past racism like other countries have.

It is better to be loved than feared.  That is why we will be more respected as the bully on the playground than the wimp who wants to play nice with terrorists.

[Democratic Hawk]

Republicans have to rely on the most trivial sh**t to try to win elections.

Not to mention the politics of deceit, distortions, lies, smears and spin

Dave

This is not an unfair attack.  The burden of proof is on Obama.  When the lovely Mrs. Obama said that this was the first time she was proud of her country in her lifetime, obviously then she was not proud for the rest of it.  She probably will still be ashamed of her country if the voters rightfully reject her husband in November.

Picking up on what the wife of a prospective candidate said and making an issue of it sounds all too desparate to me . I don't think Michelle Obama, unlike Hillary Clinton, has any intention of being something of an 'executive' First Lady, who harbors any personal political ambitions of her own

But it comes as no surprise to see the forces of reaction jumping all over her comments, however, taken out of context, in an attempt to bring a good man down

Dave

[Alcon]

That was during the Star-Spangled Banner, not the Pledge of Allegiance.  I too was taught that you stand respectively, not necessarily put your hand over your heart.

"Silly season" indeed.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

pollwatch: Barbara Bush is not a descendant of Franklin Pierce.

I stand slightly corrected.  Not a direct descendant just in her family background.


From Wikipedia

"Her ancestor Thomas Pierce, an early New England colonist, was also an ancestor of Franklin Pierce, the 14th president of the United States. She is a direct descendant, great-great-granddaughter, of James Pierce, Jr. who was a fourth cousin of President Pierce.[2

[Franzl]

The issue isn't that Obama wants to meet with our enemies.  The issue is that he wants to have tea with Hugo Chavez and bomb our allies.

oh sure, Pakistan is a great friend....

[Franzl]

Osama Bin Laden is on the run now.  He is not dangerous, he is not in charge of Al-Qaeda, he is most likely hiding in a cave somewhere, having sex with goats.  This is why back in 2003 Bush said he wasn't concerned about him.  We should be against Al-Qaeda the institution, not the man most associated with it. 

If Osama were captured, not much would change.  It would be a morale boost for the US, but little else.  The terrorists will keep fighting on anyway.

I still don't understand why you think McCain is 'tainted goods' because he lost to Bush (as if losing to Bush is some sort of indignity).  By that standard Gore and Kerry are tainted as well.

But if you are looking for better 'foreign relations' - as if that would really improve anything - then I suppose Obama is your man.  After all, Obama is so foreign that he might as well be from another country, and I'm sure Europeans everywhere feels it's high time we elect a black man to become President, since we need to absolve our past racism like other countries have.

It is better to be loved than feared.  That is why we will be more respected as the bully on the playground than the wimp who wants to play nice with terrorists.

I find republicans soooo amusing