Patriotism has many faces

Patriotism has many faces

October 4, 2001

'Smatter Of Fact
by Katharhynn Heidelberg

What is patriotism?

Patriotism is a concept, not a tangible thing. Festooning one’s home or place of business with the Stars and Stripes is a patriotic gesture that celebrates our rights and freedoms; choosing not to is patriotism that exercises those rights and freedoms.

Supporting President Bush with "complete unity," as former President Jimmy Carter urged, is patriotic — provided one can do so with no qualms about the administration’s ever-changing response to America’s recent disaster.

Unity, when tempered with reason, and reached through logical progression, is a wonderful thing. Pledging support in the midst of rally-‘round-the-flag fervor when one has serious misgivings, however, is like making a promise one might not be able to keep.

One hopes that patriotic men and women will tell the truth about how they feel. It is hoped too, that war supporters, in the spirit of true patriotism, will acknowledge that the right to dissent is fundamental, and not accuse any vocal opposition of being "un-American."

The local citizen who hanged Osama bin Laden in effigy was probably profoundly moved by patriotism and anger. Doubtless, several saw it his way, while several others, who also love this country, felt their spines tingle in horror. There is at least one person for whom seeing the flag waving above such staged, seemingly barbaric lawlessness, was insulting. Yet, in a country that recognizes individual liberty, all responses are, in their way, patriotic.

Patriotism of the knee-jerk, feel-good variety has reached fever pitch. A customer at a local store, speaking of bin Laden’s siblings, commented: "We should just string ‘em all up." One hopes that was only heat-of-the-moment sentiment. Since when do law-abiding patriots approve of lynchings? Since when are all members of a family responsible for the (presently alleged) actions of one member?

Patriotism requires thought. In some cases, it requires "rethought." A midnight epiphany led this columnist to rethink her suggestion of government-sponsored assassinations for those determined to be guilty. Since when does America deny any criminal, no matter how odious, due process? Or, in the words of a colleague: "For crying out loud, even Hermann Goering and Adolf Eichmann got trials."

That should give pause for thought. As this same colleague and a letter writer both pointed out, those responsible are neither warriors nor leaders, but criminals. Treating bin Laden as a primary suspect, obtaining him for questioning, guaranteeing a clean trial — even if it must be held at the Hague — and presenting evidence, rather than rhetoric, might go a long way towards convincing the presently reluctant Taliban to hand him over.

Such an approach might also serve to bank the fires of "holy war" that bin Laden is stoking in Muslim nations. At the very least, it might let the innocent Afghanis caught in the middle of their government’s reticence and our anger, breathe a little easier.

Treating criminals fairly is the true "American way" when it comes to meting out justice in our own country. We arrest those accused, and give them a trial, no matter how much of a "safe bet" their guilt is, and no matter how much we detest what they are accused of. Supporting our own tenets of justice is certainly patriotic. After all, if we cannot follow our own rules, how can we expect those who hate us and feel they have nothing to lose to do so?