Questioning patriotism

By

Rabbi Aryeh Sperro, writing in Human Events Online, is not afraid to question the patriotism of some liberals. It is another article I wish I had written. Some highlights:

...dissent is not service. Dissent is simply personal gratification, a right guaranteed. Though I have a right to eat, my eating is not an act of patriotism. Patriotism is service; and the act of denouncing one's country simply serves one's personal need to be heard. [snip]

In today's politically—correct milieu, the truly courageous are those willing to buck the salon mentality by being pro—American.

One would have hoped the sophisticates could at least have given the military its due, a grateful recognition. Instead, this clique of 'patriots' does whatever it can to stymie the military and even denigrates our soldiers' backgrounds. New York City media elites and their neighbors tell us that our soldiers are uneducated, rednecks, that they come from the poorer regions of the country and enlist, therefore, not out of a sense of duty and honor but out of a need to have a job and make some money. [snip]

That many seem indifferent to our soldiers is a consequence of their not having, today, family, friends or neighbors in the military. Many do not personally know an active marine or army gunner. It is true that soldiers do not pass the 'interesting' test that has now become the standard for admiration within fashionable social circles. After all, it is not as if a soldier were a wealthy anti—American novelist, or an engaged gay couple, or Tookie Williams.

Yet, to have such rage at those things military and at our soldiers implies more than simply ignorance or a difference in opinion. It has to be personal. The antagonism is so emotional! What is behind, as one famous liberal said, this loathing of the military?

It is jealousy and bitterness. Jealous that with all their education and sense of betterness, they do not have the courage to do what the soldier does. Though not afraid of the courtroom, they are afraid of the battlefield. They are better at appeasement and words than hand—to—hand physical combat. They could not live the Spartan soldier life, nor rely on a gun for survival.

Many of us cannot soldier, but we have the grace and humility to be grateful to those who can. There is, however, a certain type of liberal that will not abide in others the masculinity he can not muster —— a masculinity that he was taught, early on, to fear and, therefore, despise.

It is a meanness: 'I will not credit that which I've chosen —— out of fear —— not to do. I will not acknowledge that which reflects, deep down, my weakness.' They deny their weakness by depicting the army as an evil war machine unworthy of them and conceal their selfishness by claiming those who serve do so not out of honor and duty but as a means for temporary employment.

Jack Jemp (not the politician)  1 09 06

Rabbi Aryeh Sperro, writing in Human Events Online, is not afraid to question the patriotism of some liberals. It is another article I wish I had written. Some highlights:

...dissent is not service. Dissent is simply personal gratification, a right guaranteed. Though I have a right to eat, my eating is not an act of patriotism. Patriotism is service; and the act of denouncing one's country simply serves one's personal need to be heard. [snip]

In today's politically—correct milieu, the truly courageous are those willing to buck the salon mentality by being pro—American.

One would have hoped the sophisticates could at least have given the military its due, a grateful recognition. Instead, this clique of 'patriots' does whatever it can to stymie the military and even denigrates our soldiers' backgrounds. New York City media elites and their neighbors tell us that our soldiers are uneducated, rednecks, that they come from the poorer regions of the country and enlist, therefore, not out of a sense of duty and honor but out of a need to have a job and make some money. [snip]

That many seem indifferent to our soldiers is a consequence of their not having, today, family, friends or neighbors in the military. Many do not personally know an active marine or army gunner. It is true that soldiers do not pass the 'interesting' test that has now become the standard for admiration within fashionable social circles. After all, it is not as if a soldier were a wealthy anti—American novelist, or an engaged gay couple, or Tookie Williams.

Yet, to have such rage at those things military and at our soldiers implies more than simply ignorance or a difference in opinion. It has to be personal. The antagonism is so emotional! What is behind, as one famous liberal said, this loathing of the military?

It is jealousy and bitterness. Jealous that with all their education and sense of betterness, they do not have the courage to do what the soldier does. Though not afraid of the courtroom, they are afraid of the battlefield. They are better at appeasement and words than hand—to—hand physical combat. They could not live the Spartan soldier life, nor rely on a gun for survival.

Many of us cannot soldier, but we have the grace and humility to be grateful to those who can. There is, however, a certain type of liberal that will not abide in others the masculinity he can not muster —— a masculinity that he was taught, early on, to fear and, therefore, despise.

It is a meanness: 'I will not credit that which I've chosen —— out of fear —— not to do. I will not acknowledge that which reflects, deep down, my weakness.' They deny their weakness by depicting the army as an evil war machine unworthy of them and conceal their selfishness by claiming those who serve do so not out of honor and duty but as a means for temporary employment.

Jack Jemp (not the politician)  1 09 06