The True Patriot

[Gary_Yngve]

Has anyone else here read it?

It's pretty short and available online for free

http://www.truepat.org/read.php#0

as well as on Amazon for really cheap.

 

I was really impressed by both the quality of the prose and the underlying message.

 

We are the authors of a pamphlet called “The True Patriot.” We wrote this little book to wrest patriotism back from those on the far right who have hijacked it, to awaken those on the far left who have ceded it, and to remind those of every stripe what being American calls on us to be.

 

Our frustration was that politics now is all tactics and not first principles. Our contention is that when you unpack true American patriotism — the idea of “country above self” — what you discover is a moral framework that goes back to the founding, and that is inherently progressive. Our challenge to you is to join us — or do us one better. On this website you can read our book, comment on any part of any page, start debates, and get plugged into civic action.

 

Whatever your party, faction or faith, we hope you will agree that we owe our country and the next generation a more purposeful politics. Let’s engage.

 

Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer

 

[builder206]

Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush

[Dechristo]

[builder206]

Regrettably, only a movie.

 

Reality: http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=17432 (2006)

[Gary_Yngve]

i guess you guys haven't read it.

 

I'd be really curious what FW and KK think of it, as the authors are certainly left-leaning, but they send plenty of criticism to both the left and right.

[Gary_Yngve]

poke.

 

here's a great quote from Carl Schurz in 1899:

 

I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves ... too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’

[sexual_chocolate]

the problem here as far as i see it is that it still demonizes "the right".

 

The implicit assumption is that "the right" has done all these bad bad things and the "true patriots" must now come out in defense of what is noble and pure.

 

i think one of the problems of both parties is that they cannot see the other side's aims as being aims that the other side truly believes in (rightly or wrongly); this leads to a tremendous amount of paranoia, since then every act is seen as part of a larger machination.

 

it's very unfortunate. and it's tremendously unfortunate that there is so much historical justification for this paranoia. difficult position....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

the problem here as far as i see it is that it still demonizes "the right".

 

The implicit assumption is that "the right" has done all these bad bad things and the "true patriots" must now come out in defense of what is noble and pure.

 

i think one of the problems of both parties is that they cannot see the other side's aims as being aims that the other side truly believes in (rightly or wrongly); this leads to a tremendous amount of paranoia, since then every act is seen as part of a larger machination.

 

it's very unfortunate. and it's tremendously unfortunate that there is so much historical justification for this paranoia. difficult position....

 

I don't have time to read the whole thing. What I protest about the piece the most is the use of the term "true patriot". This is alienating, and attacks everyone who has already defined or thought about what patriotism means to them.

 

A better title might have been "Rethinking Patriotism" or "Revisiting Patriotism" or something like that.

[Gary_Yngve]

I'm not sure I'd call it alienating. Certainly provocative.

 

I can't see how it's attacking, because the authors make it very clear that this is their OWN view of patriotism, and they encourage other people to define for themselves what patriotism, their beliefs, and their views of public morality are.

 

Anyway, I hope you don't judge the book just by its title.

[chucK]

You don't think accusing the "far" right of "hijacking" is attacking?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'm not sure I'd call it alienating. Certainly provocative.

 

I can't see how it's attacking, because the authors make it very clear that this is their OWN view of patriotism, and they encourage other people to define for themselves what patriotism, their beliefs, and their views of public morality are.

 

Anyway, I hope you don't judge the book just by its title.

 

Using the word "True" was a bad choice.

 

I read part of it. A bit long winded. What I read was interesting.

[Gary_Yngve]

the problem here as far as i see it is that it still demonizes "the right".

 

The implicit assumption is that "the right" has done all these bad bad things and the "true patriots" must now come out in defense of what is noble and pure.

 

Some of the things coming out of extreme sectors of the right are things that probably even FW and KK would say are bad things.

 

But here's a couple statements that FW/KK may disagree with:

-Every child deserves a reasonably equal chance of becoming successful through seizing opportunities through talent and determination. Corollary: taxes are essential to fund transportation, education, health care so that children have the chance to realize the American dream.

 

-We must not screw over our children due to current greed, self-indulgence, and environmental harm.

 

-Absolute capitalism and wholesome Christian values are inconsistent.

 

-What people do in their bedroom is none of the public's business.

 

-People need to work together to solve hard problems. People working together is called government.

 

-It is patriotic to serve and give back to your country. Hence if you benefited greatly from prior government (blessed by successful ancestors, publicly funded education, etc., you should give back proportionally to your success (i.e. progressive income tax).

 

i think one of the problems of both parties is that they cannot see the other side's aims as being aims that the other side truly believes in (rightly or wrongly); this leads to a tremendous amount of paranoia, since then every act is seen as part of a larger machination.

 

The Democrats especially have been really bad about just defining tactics and how'd they vote, rather than defining their underlying beliefs, values, and morals. The Republicans have been much better on this front, though I disagree with them on many issues. It would be good for all parties to be open about their underlying foundations, rather than talk about superficial tactics that are strictly to get them elected.

[Gary_Yngve]

You don't think accusing the "far" right of "hijacking" is attacking?

 

fair enough. then they are also attacking the far left for being whiny little bitches who passively let the far right get away with it and can't look at an American flag without feeling nauseous.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Some of the things coming out of extreme sectors of the right are things that probably even FW and KK would say are bad things.

 

But here's a couple statements that FW/KK may disagree with:

-Every child deserves a reasonably equal chance of becoming successful through seizing opportunities through talent and determination.

 

I agree with this statement.

 

Corollary: taxes are essential to fund transportation, education, health care so that children have the chance to realize the American dream.

 

I don't believe it's the government's job to fund health care. Transportation and education are a mixed bag. Effective, appropriate spending, I agree with; social engineering I disagree with.

 

-We must not screw over our children due to current greed, self-indulgence, and environmental harm.

 

I disagree with the term "greed". It's inflammatory and unnecessary. What exactly is this greed, anyways? Class warfare has become tiresome and ridiculous. I don't think many CEO's are motivated by greed as much as by other measures of success (performance in the market, growth, market share, etc). Driven people living in a competitive environment trying to excel according to the measures they are given.

 

I agree that we should not fuck the future over for the next generation through huge deficits and destruction of the environment.

 

I'll stop here on the point by point. The deal here is that lefties constantly broad-brush stroke the right, and manufacture positions that we/they currently hold, and use language that is bound to divide and bring conflict rather than find common ground. And few are willing to compromise. I can agree with some points above. So can many "conservatives", so instead of attacking them, think of a way to work together.

 

[sexual_chocolate]

Some of the things coming out of extreme sectors of the right are things that probably even FW and KK would say are bad things.

 

i agree with your points; i am also curious as to what you view as examples of the extreme sectors' influence?

[Gary_Yngve]

Greed is pretty well defined as one of the seven deadly sins.

But fine, we can replace greed with "being a dick," e.g. being Dick.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Greed is pretty well defined as one of the seven deadly sins.

But fine, we can replace greed with "being a dick," e.g. being Dick.

 

You are attributing a motive and characterization of individuals rather than identifying concrete problems and how you desire they be redressed.

 

When you say "greed" I can interpret that many ways. Wanting a good life? Wanting a good salary? What exactly is this "greed"? One could view the left as greedy - greedy for power. Or those who desire handouts as "greedy" - give me more, for doing nothing. Bad choice of words. Not productive.

 

 

 

[Gary_Yngve]

Here are some bad influences:

-the notion of looking patriotic vs. acting patriotic, much analagous to those who look Christian but do not act Christian

 

-the destruction of privacy, e.g. the patriot act. the unchecked invasions allowed there are entirely unnecessary due to the secret courts that allow after-the-fact warrants. if you want to talk about alienating and attacking, let's look at the name "Patriot Act."

 

-on 9/12, everyone in the world felt sorry for us and was on our side. we totally sullied our reputation since then. we went into iraq based on lies, refused to admit mistakes, and let al qaeda escape in Afghan/Pakistan. Furthermore our refusal of Kyoto protocols was an embarrassment.

 

-In many cases, the right twists arguments into "you're with us or you're not." Everyone needs to accept that change and questioning is essential to survival in a dynamic world.

 

-Tax cuts in combo w/ higher spending and a war is silly. Furthermore I feel the tax cuts focused on the wrong people.

 

-Don't even get me started on Enron. For that matter I find it sickening that gas is as expensive as it is while simultaneously the gas companies are making record profits. What else can you call that but greed?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Here are some bad influences:

-the notion of looking patriotic vs. acting patriotic

 

People have a different notion of what it means to be patriotic and how to manifest it. I will not second guess them.

 

The only point I concede is when politicians and news "analysts" use patriotism to achieve their ends.

 

-the destruction of privacy, e.g. the patriot act. the unchecked invasions allowed there are entirely unnecessary due to the secret courts that allow after-the-fact warrants. if you want to talk about alienating and attacking, let's look at the name "Patriot Act."

 

Naming of bills and wars/military operations has indeed become very Machiavellian. BOTH SIDES DO IT. I agree that the "Patriot Act" is a ridiculous, manipulative name for this legislation, but I think some like the "Patient's Bill of Rights" is JUST AS ridiculous and manipulative. No Child Left Behind, Operation Enduring Freedom - the list goes on.

 

-In many cases, the right twists arguments into "you're with us or you're not."

 

Both sides do this. From the left it is "you support this legislation or you hate children, want to kill the elderly, are cruel greed bastards, are racist, etc etc etc". There is no room from either side to disagree without heaping accusations on the other.

 

-Tax cuts in combo w/ higher spending and a war is silly.

 

We needed the initial tax cuts and military spending (say first 2-3 years). At this point, I agree with you. It's well past time to think about how to pay for this and not continue ridiculous deficits.

 

Furthermore I feel the tax cuts focused on the wrong people.

 

There was a 1% cut in the marginal rate for everyone who PAYS taxes. It benefited me and I am nowhere near the 99 %-ile. Sorry, but I disagree with this.

 

 

[Gary_Yngve]

When you say "greed" ... Bad choice of words. Not productive.

 

Ok, let's leave it as being a dick, i.e. considering yourself entirely over the common good.

 

The book does a good job of defining what the authors feel American patriotism is:

 

True American patriotism means freedom, with responsibility.

-Opportunity, with personal initiative.

-Purpose, through sacrifice and service.

-Community above self.

-Contribution over consumption.

-Stewardship, not exploitation.

-Leadership by example.

-Pragmatism tied to principle.

-A fair shot for all.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

When you say "greed" ... Bad choice of words. Not productive.

 

Ok, let's leave it as being a dick, i.e. considering yourself entirely over the common good.

 

The book does a good job of defining what the authors feel American patriotism is:

 

True American patriotism means freedom, with responsibility.

-Opportunity, with personal initiative.

-Purpose, through sacrifice and service.

-Community above self.

-Contribution over consumption.

-Stewardship, not exploitation.

-Leadership by example.

-Pragmatism tied to principle.

-A fair shot for all.

 

I agree with the goals above; it's the means to achieve them, especially when government becomes overly involved that I will disagree with.

 

[Gary_Yngve]

Both sides do this. From the left it is "you support this legislation or you hate children, want to kill the elderly, are cruel greed bastards, are racist, etc etc etc". There is no room from either side to disagree without heaping accusations on the other.

 

I do agree with you here.

 

There was a 1% cut in the marginal rate for everyone who PAYS taxes. It benefited me and I am nowhere near the 99 %-ile. Sorry, but I disagree with this.

 

We're rat-holing, but what do think of:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

[ivan]

True American patriotism means freedom, with responsibility.

-Opportunity, with personal initiative.

-Purpose, through sacrifice and service.

-Community above self.

-Contribution over consumption.

-Stewardship, not exploitation.

-Leadership by example.

-Pragmatism tied to principle.

-A fair shot for all.

 

uh, doesn't that sound exactly like "mao zedong thought" it you just strike out the "american" and replace it with "chinese?"

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Well, yes, if you cut marginal rates by 1%, then those who make 10 times as much, can get 10 times the "cut".

 

I'd like to see us all agree on what is a fair rate, and not exceed it - force the government to actually budget, which involves tough decisions and cuts.

 

In times of prosperity it'd be nice to see accumulation of some surplus for use in harder times. yeah, like that ever happens.

[No. 13 Baby]

My supercilious homeboy is wrong yet again...

 

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 is a cutesy acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." I'm sure some Rove acolyte gets paid lots of money coming up with this sort of pap (freedom fries, anybody?) to stir up the yahoos.

 

A Patient's Bill of Rights has no cornball underlying appeal to armchair patriotism.