[This is crossposted from Open Salon; I need to get that blog added to the little widget over there on the sidebar. I'm having a hard time deciding what belongs here, and what belongs there — but since I've had nothing here for quite awhile, I'm porting…]
What does it mean to love one's country? Don't most of us love our country?
John McCain says that he loves this country, not just as a place, but as an idea.
In this, we agree. I'm sure there's some amount of academic writing out
there about this, but for the moment, I want to begin my exploration
where I am — that is, with my own love of my own country, and how I
obtained it. As I grew, I learned what I was supposed to love about my
country; and later, what I was supposed to turn away from, in order to
love my country.
From The Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
When this was written, men
did not include women; it did not include slaves; it did not include
indentured servants; it did not include freed slaves; it did not
include the native peoples who were here when Europeans arrived. Still,
the ideas, and the language, were powerful; and by the time I was born,
it had been expanded, at least in theory, to mean human people (though we still find some we try to exclude.)
I don't mean to minimize this, but I suspect that, as I love my
country, I would have most likely loved any country I was born into,
since I have the capacity to do so. I suspect that we are hard-wired to
love our country; that it has to do with some territorial and tribal
impulse.
I saw a piece on NOW/PBS about a Rwandan woman, quite safely working out of the country during the genocide,
who returned afterward to do what she could to rebuild, to reconcile,
to contribute to her country. But why? How could she still love her
country?
I love my country. I love the landscapes, and the
cities. But some of this, too, must come from animal instinct. I need
mountains, though I love the beauty of the prairie. But in wide open
spaces, I feel ungrounded, scattered. I can tolerate months of
Southeast Alaskan rain, but not the burning cold and heavy heat of
Minnesota seasons. I love the jangle of languages in San Francisco and
New York, the sounds colliding and weaving together. I love Santa Fe,
but I can't live there; I feel, beneath it, ancient peoples to whom I
do not belong.
I want to live in towns, towns with mountains
(even though I do not climb them) and towns some friction in them.
University vs. loggers. Fishermen vs. state workers. College students
vs. ranchers. That rubbing up of different worlds, and differing world
views, between people who live closely enough to be familiar with each
other.
All of that, I love.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among [people], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Beautiful, powerful, world-changing.
From The Constitution:
The Preamble states:
“
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America. ”
Again (in honor of Joe Biden, stealing his debate technique):
…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…
Our founders were pragmatists. They knew that human
nature is unsound; that we can be seduced and corrupted. They knew that
what they were making was not — could not be — perfect, but hoped for
it to be good enough. They believed in — they practiced — compromise.
They built in checks and balances; they tried to anticipate and
discourage too soon or too drastic failure. They thought ahead; one
might suspect they shared the perspective of the cultures they
displaced: Unto the seventh generation.
Thus the Executive (President and Vice President), Legislative (Senate
and House of Representatives) and Judicial Branches have separate
powers, each balanced by the others. They wanted representative
government, by the people, and devised the House of Representatives.
They wanted to protect the minority voices, to assure that they would
not be over-shouted, and devised the Senate. They wanted the
Legislative Branch to not be hasty, to take its time, and so we
complain of its slowness.
Our founders were wise and educated
people. They read, they studied, they wrote, and they debated with each
other the policies and politics of governance. They believed in
governance. These are qualities that some of our polity no longer value.
During this election, we again see parties and pundits and candidates questioning each others' patriotism, each other's love of country. I've seen this most of my life. When I was very young, I watched some of the McCarthy Hearings with my grandfather. I do believe I even saw the famous, final exchange: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" — but perhaps not; perhaps this rings in my memory from later viewings.
But it was during that period of hate-filled accusations that I learned about the the Bill of Rights, and its importance to us as Americans. I've seen studies that indicate most Americans don't know what's in the Bill of Rights, and when asked if they would support some specific, are inclined to say no.
So I post it here, entirely, to remind us. These are the rights we have (or had, before some were lost by executive fiat, with congressional collaboration) as Americans:
Bill of Rights
Preamble:
Congress
of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty
nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the
time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order
to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further
declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending
the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the
beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress
assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following
Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as
amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of
which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said
Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the
said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by
Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States,
pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.[44]Amendments
- First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
- Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner
to be prescribed by law.
- Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
- Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
- Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of
the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
- Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
- Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.
The
United States of America is the only country that I know of (except
perhaps Australia?) made up almost entirely of fairly recent
immigrants, the first few waves of which drove many of the original
people and cultures into extinction. We built a country on stolen land
with the labor of stolen and enslaved people. Now we hope that those
who survived might help the rest of us to do so as well. Must we
pretend this is not so, in order to love our country?
Some say that any notice of our country's failings is an indication of disloyalty, lack of patriotism, insufficient love.
But I think that love which can exist only if one ignores the flaws and
the failures of the beloved is a weak love indeed, and not a true one.
If one claims to love another person, but can do so only by denying the
whole person, is that person really loved? Is it not possible to love a
person, while disliking some behavior, and hoping for — encouraging —
improvement in others?
I'm not talking about I love you; now change.
I'm talking about I
love you; I know where you have failed, and still I love you; I love
what you aspire to; I will help you meet your aspirations.
Quite young, I believed that we had fought WWII to stop the Holocaust, to try to save Anne Frank,
and that this was a fine and noble effort. Only later did I connect the
bombing of Pearl Harbor to our entry into the war; the end of our long
turning away from genocide. Must I ignore that long pause, and our internment of our own citizens, in order to love my country?
I suspect that my identifying the Germans, the Nazis, as the enemy, had
to do with my father's internment in a German prisoner of war camp,
which I knew of, but little about. Enough, though, to know that
America's commitment to treat P.O.W.'s well was important, and moral.
My father came out of that camp weighing 91 pounds, and in my mind, his
suffering and that of the Jews was woven together. In his mind, too, I
believe.
Thus, my love of my country's promise to support and comply with the Geneva Conventions;
to treat those enemies in our hands well; to refuse torment and torture
— not only for the safety of our own soldiers in the hands of enemies,
but because torment and torture are wrong, are immoral.
I love my country, this country, the United States of America, for its
best aspirations, for its beauty and challenges, for its diversity and
hopes. I love it for the grand gift from the French that stands at our port:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Can I love my country, and, at once, be
sickened by its current political climate, by the appeals some make to
the worst of our character?
Yes, I can.
Yes, I do.
Leave a Reply