Previous posts in this discussion:
PostOn Patriotism, or, Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry (David Duggan, USA, 11/17/20 5:49 am)
John Eipper asked (November 13th= that I defend my proposition that "love of country is an exclusive value of the US Right." Respectfully, I never said that it is. I said: "unlike the divisions of 1968 (race and Vietnam), the divisions of today are class and cultural. One side loves our country, respects its traditions and values our rights (including the right to conscience and to be let alone); the other sees a history of racism, sexism, homophobia, white-male privilege, Christian ascendance and economic and environmental exploitation."
The cultural and class differences are not Left-Right, Democrat-Republican. They are based on two different views of the United States and its role in the world.
First, let me suggest that "love of country" means loving the country as it is, not as it may become or should be. Anyone who has loved another knows that love means unconditional. It is not an intensive form of "like." Put another way, to love our country means being willing to die for it, for "greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life..." John 15:13. If Zogby or some other pollster asked Trump and Biden voters whether they'd be willing to die for the USA, I'd bet that the break would be 90% for Trump and 10% if that for Biden. That says a lot. If all you see is the 1619 Project propaganda that the US was designed to protect slavery and white-male [Christian] superiority, then you are not going to be willing to write that check to the government, payable with your life. The differences do not hinge on socio-economic status: the Silicon Valley plutocrats are overwhelmingly "progressive" and vote Democratic. Nor do the differences divide along racial lines. As Sgt Joe Louis said in 1943: "Lots of things wrong with America, but Hitler ain't going to fix them." Nor will Kamala Harris.
Those on the other side of this class and cultural divide have listened too much to Bobby Kennedy's pablum: "Some see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask, ‘Why not?'." Even overlooking that he cribbed this from George Bernard Shaw, Bobby's never-neverland thinking will always be dashed on the hard reality of human fallibility. That is why I added: "No number of black, female, transsexual, first generation persons in power can cure America from its perceived ills." If you live solely by expectations you are going to be perpetually disappointed.
John also asked that I defend my thesis that the Obama years "drifted on a sea of Islamophilia." How quickly we forget 2009's "Muslim Apology Tour" where Obama speechified to Turkey and Egypt stating to the "Muslim world that ... the Americans are not your enemy," attributing American actions to "fear," "arrogance," "dismissive[ness]," and "derisi[on]." Admittedly he was an equal-opportunity apologizer, repeating the same contritionis Americanus to Europeans, Latin Americans and others. But when you combine his early speeches to the Muslim world with the Bengazi fiasco (aided and abetted by Susan Rice, probably the next Secretary of State), the Syrian red-line crossed and ignored, the Iran deal, the terrorists-for-deserter Bowe Bergdahl exchange, and the fact that he waited until he was "safely re-elected" to visit Israel during his presidency, it is unmistakable that BHO trimmed the sails of American foreign policy to the star and crescent.
I'll leave to others the debate whether Obama was a "closet Muslim," hiding his true beliefs behind a veneer of social gospel Christianity greased by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America" diatribe. But facts are facts. People are free to draw their own conclusions.
JE comments: David Duggan is probably correct on the "who would die for America" litmus test. But I'm more Bobby Kennedyesque on one's love for country. Look at a family analogy: is it better to "tough love" your addicted and abusive spouse, or act the role of the enabler or co-dependent? "My country right or wrong" is the kind of thinking that starts wars. And such a defense didn't work at Nuremberg.
On Dying for Your Country, Nuremberg
(Eugenio Battaglia, Italy
11/18/20 3:03 AM)
If David Duggan is right (and I am afraid that he may have some good points) about the 90%-10 % ratio of followers of Trump versus followers of Biden ready to die for their country, this means that the Empire is really doomed, as is the US.
For all its allies and colonies, it is time to keep a good distance from such a decadent agglomerate of people (no nation, no country, no state).
Please, John, do not mention the Nuremberg Trials. These trials were mostly the "justice" of the winners. When it was presented that the winners did the same things, it was replied, "We are here to judge these people," meaning that no matter what the victors have done or will do in the future does not matter. The only reality is vae victis as 2410 years ago.
What has been learned from these trials? Very simple. As confirmed in the past 74 years, as long as you are the winner you can do whatever you want. Of course, if you accompany your bloody actions with nice words like democracy, freedom, equality, etc. it helps.
JE comments: Whenever Nuremberg comes up, I am reminded of what a treasure we had in our friend Siegfried Ramler, who was there. I miss him. Eugenio, Nuremberg was not solely victors' justice. It set many powerful precedents on international law, human rights, and the fundamental principle that "obeying orders" is no excuse for committing genocide.
I was thinking yesterday about David Duggan's litmus test. While I do not doubt that more Trump voters would willingly die for their country than those who voted against him, I can also name one person who would never join that patriotic 90%: Donald J Trump.
Nuremberg, Geneva, The Hague
(Eugenio Battaglia, Italy
11/19/20 8:35 AM)
When commenting on my post of November 18th, John E cited Nuremberg as setting powerful precedents for human rights and international law. The various Geneva and The Hague International Conferences were much more effective in these regards, but they were not respected by both the winners and the losers.
We have to concentrate on them and not on the "justice" of the winners, which never is real justice.
JE comments: Eugenio cited vae victis (woe to the defeated) in his suggestion that Nuremberg was little (or nothing) more than a kangaroo court set up by the winners of WWII. There's probably some truth to this, especially if we consider the heavy hand of Soviet "justice." But does this mean we have to dismiss Nuremberg? The "moral relativism" argument only goes so far, and overlooks the unfathomable horrors of Axis atrocities.
- Nuremberg, Geneva, The Hague (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 11/19/20 8:35 AM)