catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

Is being critical of the US, its Presidential administration

Default

ddiggler
Apr 29 2003
07:56 am

I thought this was a good question in light of other discussions.

I think it is a very good thing to be critical of what we are a part of. But where should it stop? Should there even be a stopping point? Where does criticism start becoming anti-American sentiment?

Default

dan
Apr 29 2003
09:48 am

Another question to ask would be what anti-American sentiment is. If (hypothetically of course) I oppose the US government’s foreign policy with all my heart, is that anti-American? If I love all the Americans on cino very much but refuse to support the troops, does that make me anti-American? Couldn’t I love the American landscape, love my American friends, love the opportunities and freedoms of America — while at the same time loathing current foreign policy, fearing that Americans will be put at increased risk because of it?

Default

dan
Apr 29 2003
09:48 am

hi ddiggler! we gotta talk sometime.

Default

laryn
Apr 30 2003
05:42 am

You need to look at things critically (which doesn’t mean you don’t see anything good) if you want to reform them, and I think we should be always reforming things. So I guess I don’t think it’s appropriate to try and find a magic line where criticism on one side is okay, and criticism on the other side is wrong.

Dan raises good questions regarding the phrase “anti-American sentiment.” It sounds like it’s another way to say “unpatriotic” (which is another phrase that has a meaning that is unclear).

Did anyone read Wendell Berry’s essay in the last issue of Orion? (http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/03-2om/Berry.html) In it he talk a bit about patriotism:


FOR A NATION TO BE, in the truest sense, patriotic, its citizens must love their land with a knowing, intelligent, sustaining, and protective love. They must not, for any price, destroy its health, its beauty, or its productivity. And they must not allow their patriotism to be degraded to a mere loyalty to symbols or any present set of officials.

Default

Adam
May 04 2003
11:48 pm

Which brings up the inevitable question: What loyalty/respect is due the President simply because he’s President? The Man in the Iron Mask is a movie that deals with the question a bit (I remember thinking, "Leo and John Malkovich in the same movie? Weird.) I think that the day that I cannot give the President even the token respect that he is due is the day that the problem is deep enough that the democracy has failed. In other words, I don’t wish that Dubya would fall over dead, and while I will protest his actions and vote against him, I’ll obey him.

A friend of mine made a great point the other day. He said that as Americans, we are quickly losing the privelige of democracy by not involving ourselves in it; protesting is not democracy, letter-writing and voting is. Any thoughts on that?

Default

BBC
May 05 2003
02:40 am

The other day one of my students wrote an essay in which she argued that very same thing — that protesting against the war, because it could hurt the morale of the troops, is unamerican and unChristian. I asked her whether it was okay, then for Christians to participate in anti-abortion rallies. She thought about that and ended up changing her attitude.

I can think of nothing better for democracy than a frank exchange of views — but maybe the problem is that many people in the US seem to never have learned the rules of arguing. Our nation was founded on the principle that people can disagree with each other but work out their differences. The trick is to avoid using faulty logic and to stick to the subject at hand. I think we get defensive about our troops because of the VietNam protests, in which, sometimes, people were attacked for serving in the armed forces. This is argumentum ad hominem — attacking the person rather than the idea. I can be completely opposed to a war, and the administration that instigated it, yet still support the troops and even, I would argue, serve in the army myself,

I love the country I live in because it is one in which I can hold and express an opinion without fear of reprisal. Incidentally, that also allows me the freedom to be a Christian and to protest in favor of Christian causes.

Default

Adam
May 05 2003
11:28 pm

Great point. Just to clarify, my statement was not that protesting is un-democratic, but rather that anyone who thinks that protesting is what makes a democracy work is mistaken. Protesting is great, but it’s like the dessert in democracy. Things like letter-writing, voting, and debating are the meat and potatoes. Protest marches are more a sign of solidarity than they are a tool for changing policy. Because a big, like-minded, fired-up crowd is like a rock concert: energizing and unifying, but exclusive to the fans in the room and not a great place for dialogue. And a protest is like the closing arguments in a court case—it can be effective, but without a carefully and conscientiously constructed case, it won’t amount to much.

In other words, if you think marching in a parade and getting your picture in the paper for holding up a sign that says, “Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot” means you’re “doing your part for democracy,” I’d disagree. It is at least doing something, and so I shouldn’t get down on it too much, but let’s not fool ourselves.

Default

dan
May 06 2003
09:24 pm

What’s so democratic about writing a letter to a politician who never reads it? At best it gets tallied into pro and con statistics that aren’t so different from pro and con numbers from rallies. Maybe one letter means more than one protester on the street, but most leaders take big crowds seriously.