March 1, 2003
LIBERAL$' PATRIOTI$M:
Defining 'Patriotic Liberalism' (E. J. Dionne Jr., February 28, 2003, The Washington Post)[I]t is time to proclaim loudly and without apology that there is such a thing as "patriotic liberalism." [...]It would include a strong emphasis on service to the country. Congress should pass the bill proposed by Sens. John McCain and Evan Bayh to expand service opportunities for young Americans so that 250,000 slots would be available for those who want to give a year to their country. Short-term enlistments in the military should be encouraged.
Patriotic liberals would support the call of a commission convened by CIRCLE, the Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning and Engagement, and the Carnegie Corp. to have our schools place a new emphasis on civic education. This would include a genuine rigor in the teaching of government and history and a new emphasis on extracurricular activities now endangered by budget cuts.
A patriotic liberalism would contrast itself to a radical individualism that rejects any idea of a "common good." It would emphasize both rights and responsibilities. It would tell corporations moving offshore to escape taxes that they have obligations to their country at a time of war and domestic threats. It would urge that we spend what's needed to defend ourselves at home against terrorism.
It would argue that the preservation of freedom is a common project requiring a commitment of citizens to one another across the lines of class, race and gender. It would insist that a free republic will not prosper if too many of its citizens feel deprived of opportunities.
Patriotic liberalism would declare that we are all in this together. That's old-fashioned. At the moment, it would also be a radical challenge to the status quo.
Put simply:
(1) a new government program
(2) more money for "extracurricular activities".
(3) higher taxes
(4) more spending
(5) Feelings....whoa...whoa...feeeeeeelingsssssssss...
And they wonder why no one takes them seriously when it comes to defending the country.
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 1, 2003 4:50 PMI particularly like the one about participating in extracurricular activities endangered by budget cuts. Presumably, this means that school children will be actively DIScouraged from participating in extracurricular activities whose budgets have been safeguarded or even increased. Also, it seems beyond comprehension for liberals (patriotic or otherwise) to grasp the simple concept that most of the "opportunities" about which they are constantly gassing are products of an active and dynamic private sector and not creations of the government, academia and leftist think tanks.
I have already spent far more time on this typical piece of Dionnean Drivel than it was worth.
Just how many corporations have moved
offshore, anyhow?
Dionne is delusional.
OJ:
The strength of a society rests on three legs: civic, military and economic.
Only a left-liberal could fail to see how productively participating in the economy helps defend our country.
Regards,
JG
Jeff:
A rare bit of sense. :)
there is nothing "liberal" in the worldview of modern "liberalism". More intrusive, non_representative government through the growth of thr administrative state. Higher taxes to support programs which do not work, the classification of citizens by race, gender, economic "class", etc. By any classical definition, what today is called "liberalism" is nothing but intolarant statism.
Posted by: tom corcoran at March 2, 2003 10:02 AMThere is one set of questions that Americans want liberals to answer about patriotism: are you willing to fight our enemies? Are you willing to kill our enemies? Are you willing to send men to die to defend our country? A "yes" to those three questions would solve their patriotism problems.
Instead, he would bastardize the meaning of the term, making it a euphemism for liberal social projects. Just digging the hole deeper, EJ.