Can You Really Love Your Country?

Why do people get upset with Barack Obama for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel or with Michelle Obama for suggesting she’s not been proud of her country until now? Why is failing to “support the troops” regarded as a sin?

Because it’s a secular blasphemy to do or say anything that suggests you don’t love your country. But why should you love your country? Most people would say our country has done so much for us that we should show our gratitude.

But what has “our country” done for us? An even better question is: what is “our country”?

The rest of this week's op-ed, "Can You Really Love Your Country?" is at The Future of Freedom Foundation website.

Happy Revisionist History Day

Revised and expanded from last year's "Memorial Day" post.

Since, as Paddy Chayefsky has his main character say in his movie The Americanization of Emily, " We...perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices" (see this and this), I've long thought that what is called Memorial Day would be better recast as Revisionist History Day. The state inculcates an unquestioning faith in its war-making by associating it with patriotism, heroism, and the defense of "our freedoms." This strategy builds in its own defense against any criticism of the government's policies. Anyone who questions the morality of a war is automatically suspected of being unpatriotic, unappreciative of the bravery that has "kept us free," and disrespectful of "our troops," in a word, un-American.

But in fact the forces aren't "serving their country" or "keeping us free." They are doing the bidding of hack politicians, well-connected economic interests, and court intellectuals who are striving to achieve personal ambition, wealth, and historical legacies.

The secular religion we call nationalism, which keeps the wool over most people's eyes, can be seen clearly in the criticism of Barack Obama for not wearing a flag lapel pin and his wife for saying she's not been proud of her country until now. What is this thing, "country," that we're expected to love and be proud of? It's never defined. But a big part of it is obviously the state and its war record. This is supposedly something to be proud of -- and if you're not, something is wrong with you.

To counter this common outlook, which people are indoctrinated in from birth, we should do what we can to teach others that the government's version of its wars is always self-serving and threatening to life, liberty, and decency. A good way to spend part of the day would be to pick a war and read a high-quality revisionist account of it. Here are some books (in no particular order) you might use as a guide:

Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War, by Paul Fussell
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War, by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, by William Appleman Williams
The Civilian and the Military: A History of the American Antimilitarist Tradition, by Arthur Ekirch
The Politics of War: The Story of Two Wars which Altered Forever the Political Life of the American Republic, 1890-1920, by Walter Karp
The Costs of War, edited by John Denson
Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, by Stephen Kinzer
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, by Stephen Kinzer
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, by Chalmers Johnson
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, by Chalmers Johnson
War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, by Chris Hedges
A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, by David Fromkin
The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, by David Hirst

A good place to start is this article by Robert Higgs: "How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor" (The Freeman, May 2006).

Many other books and articles could be added to the list. The point is this: if we are to prevent wars in the future, we must self-educate and then, when opportune, teach others.

And spend part Revisionist History Day watching The Americanization of Emily. It'll be worth your while.

Don't Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment!

Surely any champion of freedom wants to get rid of the income tax. And surely the way to really get rid of the income tax is to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Right?

Wrong.

Repealing the Sixteenth Amendment would be a waste of time because its disappearance would change nothing. Alas, Congress could continue to tax incomes (and anything else).

The rest of this week's TGIF, "Don't Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment!," is at the Foundation for Economic Education website.

When Was the Last Time...

... a great inventor, scientist, intellectual, or entrepreneur got wall-to-wall coverage on cable television at word of his or her death or diagnosis of a terminal illness? Why does this happen only with politicians? It's just the media's subtle way of conveying their worldview that nothing is more important in life than the state and its "statesmen." Disgusting.

Chesterton Gets It Right

From G.K. Chesterton's Heretics:

It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people. First, it is a small power, and fights small powers. Then it is a great power, and fights great powers. Then it is a great power, and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity. After that, the next step is to become a small power itself.

Hat tip: Glenn Greenwald

The Wisdom of Ringo

"Everything the government touches turns to crap."

--Ringo Starr

Why No Republican Should Ever Be Elected President

Well, one reason why. Given how the media, encouraged by the politicians, see the political spectrum, any Republican administration will be portrayed as advocating and practicing laissez faire. If it happens with George II, it'll happen with anyone. The result is that when the economy turns sour under a Republican, the laissez-faire administration be blamed. Protests and demonstrations of the facts to the contrary will largely fall on deaf ears.

This is what's happening right now. You will have a hard time convincing someone that the housing and credit problems aren't the result of the free market. The job is not made easier by the "vulgar libertarians" (Kevin Carson's term) who speak as though they believe what we have is a free market.

O Goody! Another Reason to Go to War!

"Henceforth, should any danger threaten your people, America and the NATO alliance will stand with you, and no one will be able to take your freedom away."

--George II on the occasion of NATO membership invitations to Croatia and Albania

Newest Scribblings

I get nervous when presidential candidates -- or their surrogates -- take up subjects that are clearly none of their business. Actually, most of what they talk about is none of their business. But some things are so far over the line that hearing politicians discuss them gives me the creeps. Herbert Spencer, where are you when we need you?

The rest of this week's TGIF, "Statecraft Is Not Soulcraft," is at Foundation for Economic Education website.

John McCain, the Republican candidate for president who dubiously claims the status of war hero because he was imprisoned and beaten after bombing civilian targets in North Vietnam 40 years ago, apparently wants other young men to have the chance to become war heroes.

The rest of this week's op-ed, "100 Years in Iraq?" is at The Future of Freedom Foundation website.

Starting the Invasion off Right

Unsurprisingly, the U.S. invasion of Iraq began with a bombing that killed innocents, children included. Jacob Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation has the story here.

Herbert Spencer, Social Darwinist?

Charles Johnson brings to our attention a revealing quotation from Herbert Spencer. For more click on "Herbert Spencer Anti-Defamation League (Part 423 of ???)" in "Sheldon's Shared Items" on the right.

It is very easy for you, O respectable citizen, seated in your easy chair, with your feet on the fender, to hold forth on the misconduct of the people – very easy for you to censure their extravagant and vicious habits …. It is no honor to you that you do not spend your savings in sensual gratification; you have pleasures enough without. But what would you do if placed in the position of the laborer? How would these virtues of yours stand the wear and tear of poverty? Where would your prudence and self-denial be if you were deprived of all the hopes that now stimulate you …? Let us see you tied to an irksome employment from dawn till dusk; fed on meager food, and scarcely enough of that …. Suppose your savings had to be made, not, as now, out of surplus income, but out of wages already insufficient for necessaries; and then consider whether to be provident would be as easy as you at present find it. Conceive yourself one of a despised class contemptuously termed the great unwashed; stigmatized as brutish, stolid, vicious … and then say whether the desire to be respectable would be as practically operative on you as now. … How offensive it is to hear some pert, self-approving personage, who thanks God that he is not as other men are, passing harsh sentence on his poor, hard-worked, heavily burdened fellow countrymen …. (Social Statics, pp. 203–5)

Pretty pathetic Social Darwinist, if you ask me.

A Key to the Mortgage Debacle

From Arnold Kling at EconLog:

In the case of mortgage markets, the internal contradictions of regulatory policy are more of a problem than the execution of the policy. For example, you can't place a high priority on home ownership for the "under-served" and then act all put out when so many of these folks who can't afford homes wind up in foreclosure.

Hillary the Embellisher

Sen. Clinton clearly lied about being under fire in Bosnia. But even if things happened exactly as she said (several times), so what? That would count as foreign-policy experience? Are victims of crime eligible for chief of detectives?

RFK Jr., Left Libertarian?

You show me a polluter and I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the market and load his production costs onto the backs of the public. Tax-payers give away $65 billion every year in subsidies to big oil, and more than $35 billion a year in subsidies to western welfare cowboys. Those subsidies helped create the billionaires who financed the right-wing revolution on Capitol Hill and put Bush in the White House. While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business. True free-markets, in which businesses pay all the costs of bringing their products to market, is the most efficient and democratic way of distributing the goods of the land – and the surest way to eliminate pollution. Free markets, when allowed to function, value raw materials and encourage producers to eliminate waste by reduc-ing, reusing, and recycling. I don't think of myself as an environmentalist anymore; I consider myself a free-marketeer.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seems to know something that too many libertarians don't know.

Hat tip: Kevin Carson.

Bailout Hypocrisy

Thud. That was the sound of the other shoe dropping. In response to severe problems in the credit markets, thanks to years of government intervention, the Federal Reserve, the government's counterfeiter and chief culprit in the current crisis, has opened its discount window to the investment banks. Interest rate: 2.5 percent. Until recently, only commercial banks could borrow money from the Fed. But now investment banks may also -- and here's the kicker: They can put up shaky mortgage-backed securities as collateral. Which means the American people are potentially on the hook for those loans. Should they go bad, we Americans will pay either in inflation-induced higher prices or higher taxes. Investment banks that may have invested in bad mortgages are already taking advantage of the new opportunity. Is this a great country or what?

The rest of this week's TGIF, "Bailout Hypocrisy," is at the Foundation for Economic Foundation website.

Why the Peaceful Majority of Muslims Are Not Irrelevant

A few years ago, FrontPageMag.com columnist Paul Marek wrote an article titled “Why the Peaceful Majority Is Irrelevant”. His thesis was that even if the majority of Muslims abhor violence, it doesn’t matter because “the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.... The hard quantifiable fact is, that the ‘peaceful majority’ is the ‘silent majority’ and it is cowed and extraneous.”

For Marek, the upshot is this: “We must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.”

He’s wrong. No, he’s worse than wrong, because his position could be used to justify mass murder.

The rest of my op-ed, "Why the Peaceful Majority of Muslims Are Not Irrelevant," is at The Future of Freedom Foundation website.

Only Americans Count

The U.S. death toll in Iraq hit 4,000. You'd think there were no Iraqis or Iraqi casualties in Iraq.

Private Protection

I had the pleasure yesterday of attending a lecture by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, long-time libertarian writer/activist and a professor of economics at San Jose State University, on "national" defense in a free society. In making the case for private nonstate protection, he pointed that we already are protected to some extent from government invasion by private organizations. How so?

The U.S. government could be violating our freedom a lot more than it is now. During World War I, Eugene Debs was jailed for making a speech defending war opponents. This doesn't happen today. The main reason freedom of speech is more secure than it used to be is that the ACLU and other civil-liberties groups have for years promoted the idea to the public that free speech is a good thing. Moreover, whenever the state makes a move against it, these groups spring into action. That is, they act as private defense agencies. Interestingly, they are nonprofit and unarmed. Their weapons are ideas, which Hummel emphasizes are always the ultimate defenses against tyranny. As he says, "Force doesn't rule the world. Ideas rule the world because ideas determine in which direction people point their guns."

On the other side, Hummel pointed out, our freedom to own guns is to some extent protected by another set of private organizations, most prominently (if highly imperfectly), the National Rifle Association. Again, their weapons are ideas, not (ironically) guns.

This is not to say the protection is flawless -- far from it. But it is not insignificant. Think how much worse the U.S. government could be. If we want private protection to work better, we need to win people over to a set of ideas not as riddled by contradictions and compromises as the current set is.

But the point stands. Private organizations can defend liberty against tyranny. If they can do it with respect to the the U.S. government, they can do it with respect to any government.

Cross-posted at Liberty & Power.

Was Rev. Wright Right?

Yes and no. Most of the particulars that I heard Barack Obama's former preacher, Jeremiah Wright, cite -- the government's atomic bombing of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, its foreign policy of oppression and murder, its enslavement and then humiliation of black people, its racially motivated "drug war" -- should be fair game. (His collectivist racism and his theory about AIDS as a means of genocide are off the wall.)

But in damning "America," Rev. Wright makes an error similar to those who claim to be proud of "America." What is America? The doctrine of nationalism encourages people to identify country with state. The two are integrated into one. This is a dangerous move because it leads people to think that if they criticize the state, they are criticizing the "country." (That's why it is considered improper for an American to dissent from government policy while in another country.) It also leads them to think that an attack on the state they live under is an attack on them.

The idea of country is an abstraction that subsumes many things, admirable, condemnable, and neutral. The Declaration of Independence and Revolution are part of the country. My home is part of the country. But so are slavery, the Trail of Tears, Jim Crow, imperialism, colonialism, conscription, aggressive wars, carpet bombing of cities, the A-bombs, the early centralization of power and betrayal of the revolution, and so on. No one should let himself be trapped by the question, Are you proud of your country? (Leave aside the fact that taking pride in things you had nothing to do with seems problematic.) What the heck does that mean? If it means, Are you proud of the government and the people who run it? then my answer is no.

Nationalism is a scourge, an ever-present threat to liberty. This is a point worth making whenever possible. I don't salute flags. I don't pledge allegiance. I don't sing national anthems. I don't wear flag lapel pins. I refuse to mouth platitudes about pride in the country. I admire specific things in American history, and I'm happy to enumerate them if asked. But I will have no part of package deals that are ultimately designed to win unthinking loyalty to the state and acceptance of its crimes.

P.S. David Henderson has an excellent column on this subject here. I agree with his partial defense of Wright and his criticism of Obama.

Who Said This?

"Many of his policies did not work as intended but in the end FDR deserves great credit for having the courage to abandon failed paradigms and to do what needed to be done."