I have a message to conservatives obsessed over flag pins and other symbols of hyper-nationalism. You may be seeking cheap political points now, but think carefully before you proceed. The strategy you are employing threatens the deepest roots of American democracy, and is in fact nothing less than flirting with fascism.
Sure, wearing a flag-pin hardly makes you a fascist, but in the context of the wider culture of fear and suspicion which some on the right (not all, by any means) have sought to create, labeling people traitors or "the enemy within" over the refusal to echo certain symbols or slogans brings up disturbing memories for those familiar with history.
Living in Germany gives one an interesting perspective on this. As a country which lived under the terrors of fascism, most Germans are careful to avoid even mild displays of nationalism. Only recently at the World Cup have German flags begun to make a small comeback. Citizens here would find a "loyalty oath" such as the Pledge of Allegiance disturbing, and are taught the horrible actions which have been committed by their country in the past. For a pastor to criticize the country here would not be viewed with dismay, for all Germans are instructed to view their country in a critical light.
Are we to say that Germans therefore hate their country and culture? Of course not. But they know very well the danger of a system obsessed with nationalistic symbols, slogans, loyalty oaths, etc. They know the consequences of a system which equates dissent with treason, stirs fear of the other, creates vague threats both foreign and domestic, and promotes aggressive militarism as the path to security.
Indeed let's take a look at a few key characteristics of fascism. I know that the internet's full of predictions from both the left (Naomi Wolf),and the right (Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul) of a future fascist state. Personally I don't see that happening, opposition in the U.S. has simply become too strong. But it's still helpful to expose the similarities between a certain branch of the conservative movement, and past nationalist movements in Spain, Italy, and Germany, among others.
1. The fascist movement seeks to create a terrifying but vague external threat. With the fall of communism, terrorism was the natural scapegoat. Governments seek to inflate this threat beyond any reasonable level. So even though as many people die from heart disease and cancer in one day as terrorism has killed in the last 20 years, terrorism IS THE GREAT THREAT OF OUR TIME. Even though 100000 people die from the lack of medical coverage each year, terrorism should dominate our national discourse. This fear is continually stoked through nebulous warnings, the raising of the terror level, unconfirmed reports of a terror plot "somewhere, sometime," instructions to buy duct tape, etc. It's important that this war have no definite closure or end, so as to serve it's purposes for as long as need be.
2. Then comes the creation of a corresponding internal threat which weakens the nation and prevents us from fully defending ourselves. Usually this just happens to be the political opponents of the regime. In German it was the communists and Jews, in the U.S. liberals, atheists, pacifists, Mexicans (take your pick). Liberals have been labeled everything from "Domestic insurgents" to the "enemy within" to "terrorists".
3. The curtailing of individual liberties for the purposes of "security", even if these new laws do not in anyway increase our safety. Thus the administration decides that illegal wiretaps and spying, the restriction of Habeus Corpus, and Guantanamo Bay are more effective uses of our resources than restructuring and funding the INS or enhancing port security. Student peace organizations and anti-war activists are treated with the same suspicion as terrorists.
For a more comprehensive list of other actions the U.S. has taken with dangerous historical precedents check out http://www.huffingtonpost.
This is not a conspiracy theory. I am not predicting a fascist state, nor am I saying that Bush has a secret scheme to install such a regime. But if history has taught us anything, it's that even modern, open societies can fall into fascism when fear and patriotism are manipulated for political purposes.
Neither is this a partisan issue. Ron Paul has been in many ways more courageous in his opposition to these actions than many liberals. Citizens should apply the same scrutiny to either party that uses fear as a means to power.
If someone wants to have a debate with me about the best way to enhance America's security, that's fine. I believe that current conservative tactics have in fact jeopardized our security. You may believe the opposite. That's politics. That's speech. Yet I would never call you a traitor, question your love of this country, or diminish your status as an American. I only ask for the same respect for my beliefs.
And please, let's discuss real issues. If Obama doesn't want to wear a flag pin, that's his call, and as I've illustrated above, there are numerous reasons why he might not want to sport a pin other than a pathological hatred of his country.
Contrary to popular belief, many liberals have studied history, served in the military, have families, and love their country. You may believe we are dead wrong, but question our logic, not our love of country.
Contrary to popular belief, Obama supporters are not a cult, so fanatic in their love of their candidate that they will blindly defend him of any wrongdoing. Most Obama supporters which I personally know were originally supporters of Edwards or another candidate. When I had to choose between Obama and Hillary I did so after a thorough research of their past legislative actions. If we seem a bit enthusiastic, this comes from what we have found out about our candidate, not what we have ignored. Chance are if you hear about an Obama "scandal", I heard about it months ago, and checked it's validity while I still had my doubts.
I have read testimonies from people who have known Obama at every stage in life. From blacks and whites, from his high school, his days at Harvard, his days as a student and professor at the University of Chicago, as a community organizer, local and state politician. While I don't agree with all of his politics, everything I have read suggest someone who has respect for people of every race and political background. In fact, Obama has set a more respectful tone throughout his career than I am often capable of. Everything suggests a man who examines both sides of the issue, seeks to compromise with those who think differently, and genuinely cares about the plight of America (seriously do you think his 15 years of work in the communities of Chicago was because of his political ambition?)
People have pointed out that the approach of Rev. Wright does not match Obama's rhetoric. True, but that's the whole point of Obama's campaign. There are two Americas (or in fact, many more). Obama knows the Chicago slums and the white suburbs, white Harvard law graduates and black liberation preachers, the black youth who rages at police brutality and the white worker who rages at affirmative action taking a job. If there's anyone who can fairly address the grievances of both sides, it's Obama (in my humble opinion).
Sure you can disagree with his politics. But to create this image of a bigoted black nationalist/Marxist in disguise just doesn't work if you study his background. The fact that Obama associates and is familiar with a wide array of people and viewpoints should be seen as a plus, not as an excuse to take those diverse views and unfairly attribute them to Obama.
Maybe, just maybe, could we have an election based on real issues?
Here are some articles on Obama's past, credentials, character, and vision, if anyone is interested.
Character
http://www.dailykos.com/st
http://www.dailykos.com/st
Experience and record, national security, endorsements and praise from both parties
http://www.dailykos.com/st
http://www.nytimes.com/200
http://andrewsullivan.thea
http://www.huffingtonpost.
http://www.bloomberg.com/a
http://www.youtube.com/wat
http://www.republicansforo
http://www.huffingtonpost.
http://www.washingtonpost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.
Past, Race, Patriotism:
http://www.chicagotribune.
http://www.newyorker.com/r
http://thinkprogress.org/2
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Religion:
http://www.christianitytod
http://link.brightcove.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.
Concerning Pirates:
http://torrentfreak.com/pi
Posts
