Ciao!

Well put!

A healthy dosis of constructive criticism, whether from the right or the left, should serve only to make America better.

Interesting perspective. It's my opinion that liberals become somewhat obsessive about certain key topics, and when the opinion of the electorate differs said liberals tend to become quite anti-American. And while they may if comparing Väterlander choose America, as any reasonable person would, many liberals tend only to harp on the mistakes and problems in the absence of immediate comparison.

As to the breaking up analogy and "I'll immigrate to Canada" mantra ... maybe. Fundamentally though, liberals would be far better served by not allowing themselves to be painted as radical, which may be what you were suggesting. Talk of moving to Canada, and seccession, and Michael Moore films (which I posit do the left far more harm than good), and all that other bullshit makes the other half of America reasonably skittish.

Tom,
It's quite amusing to hear you state that liberals have "become quite obsessive about certain topics" especially in light of things like Terri Schiavo, abortion doctor assasinations, sticking the 10 commandments on every school/courthouse door, wanting to amend the US constitution to condemn a sexual practice (homosexuality), etc.

Further, you continued this childness with the statement that liberals "tend to become quite anti-American" when the electorate differs from their view. Perhaps you should revisit the electoral data from 2000 and 2004, when the offical voting data shows the country was split 50/50 in 2004 and in 2000 the conservative candidate actually got less votes than the liberal candidate. What you fail to see is the electorate doesn't differ from liberals--the electorate is as liberal as it is conservative, with only a tiny difference making the difference between Bush and Gore or Bush and Kerry.

Miguel does make an excellent point though. There is a difference between criticizing your country because you dislike it and criticizing your country because you know it can do better and it is the only place in the world that can do certain things. As a liberal I try to fall into the latter group, but I know many people who call themselves liberal who do say "let's move to Canada" or drop the rest of the country. I get very angry with people like that--they are as intolerant of differing political views as those people they rant against. One of the great beauties of America is its capacity to find the middle ground and to work together on those things people can agree on.

However, part of the current problem is people like Tom and John Ashcroft on the right are so sensitive to criticism that they cannot tolerate it and simply call anyone who expresses a view differing from the current administration as "anti-American" or "unpatriotic." This problem is also compounded by people on the left like Michael Moore who consider Bush one step shy of Adolph Hitler. Observers of Congress say this larger political division has even infected people who should really know better, professional politicians. Senators no longer even get a drink together after the debate on the floor--some members can't even stand to talk to each other in the lobbies. This is a real problem and one that doesn't help to create benefical law for the country at large.

As far as asking whether liberals love their country, the same could be asked of conservatives. If you love your country, why are you destroying the rule of law (Gitmo, torture, rendition), the military (Iraq), the National Guard(Iraq), the environment(Kyoto withdrawal), arms control(ballistic missile treaty, chemical weapons treaty, missile defense), the separation of church and state(10 commandments in public bldgs), energy policy(drilling in ANWR), lower class wages (no increase in fed min wage), health care(no healthcare for 40 million), and so on?

The problem is not liberals or conservatives, who will always exist, it is the tone of the debate. Until that tone changes we'll have this bizarre labeling of liberals as "anti-American" and conservatives as "Nazi."

Patrick:

Well, I think it's obvious that some on the right don't like America much either. But to use Gitmo or the war in Iraq as an example is problematic, because some might not believe those are bad things. Same w/ many of the other things. Proposing things *you* disagree w/ doesn't make someone unpatriotic, either.

What I meant was something much simpler. There are many liberals who I personally know who would never wave an American flag, or sing the national anthem, who think the flag is nothing but a symbol of oppression, etc. The kind that get quite upset if they merely see someone w/ a "support our troops" bumper sticker or a flag & eagle. That speaks volumes to those around who witness that.

In many parts of the world, protesters carry their nation's flag as they march. They march on behaolf of their country. You'll rarely see a US flag at a protest, unless it's upside down, or some mock-up version. There seems a strong aversion by many on the left to even touch an American flag. Ever. I want to know why? Heck, even our Canadian neighbors seem proud of their flag.

When constant criticism comes from such people, it's easy (and perhaps right) to say: "they're just unpatriotic" and move on. To continue w/ my analogy, it's like getting objective advice from the crazy ex-girlfriend. Does she have some legitimate gripes? Sure. But she's so full of spite & bile that her advice on your new boyfriend is useless, since it's not meant to do anything but help you break up w/ him, too.

Yes, the tone of debate in this country has been severely wounded. And that's everyone's fault. But I think some of the opposition is more far fetched on the left. And some of the things you listed are disagreements over policy, which you assume means that people who hold positions opposite to your own also don't love America. Is that all anti-American means? "People who disagree w/ me."? If so, how different are you from Tom? Think about it.

Seems that I touched a nerve. Which is another problem: we can't discuss "fixing" the image of the left without saying things that will offend; but by making suggestions, many folks respond with a knee-jerk reaction of condemnation.

For the record, I consider myself a moderate liberal. And certainly not childish. Michael Moore is damaging the reputation of the left; and many liberals are so vehemently anti-bush as to make wild conspiracy theories, and other statements that I consider "anti-American", whether you like the term or not. I wasn't placing a label on anybody. I was characterizing the tenor of political speech - calling it like I see it. Which is my constitutionally-protected right.

Don't attack me. If you disagree, tell me why, rather than lump me in with conservatives and attacking a caricature you appear to think I am. I think labelling is stupid, too. If you had taken a few minutes to think about what I wrote rather than pouncing all emotional-like, then maybe you would've written something less inflammatory.

Kind regards.

Tom,
Let me first say I do apologize for my remarks. This is a very sensitive issue for me and in reviewing my post yesterday I did go a little overboard.

One of the reasons this is so sensitive has to do with my personal experience with the run-up to the Iraq war. I had a relatively low-key bumpersticker on my car for several months prior to the Iraq war it simply said "Attack Iraq NO". I live in what most people would consider a liberal state(MA), maybe even the most liberal of states. And do you know what reaction I got from people who disagreed with me on this--numerous middle fingers, shouts, yells of "leave the country", etc. Some idiot even tried to run me off the road on the Mass Pike.

These were the same people who had their car/truck covered with an American flag, or a moronic bumpersticker saying something about "first Iraq then France", and so on.

Miguel, this might be why some liberals get so upset about flying the American flag, or "support our troops" magnets, or yellow ribbons. They view these people the same way I was viewed by supporters of the war, lumping them into one group of pro-war supporters. Which is not necessarily wrong, because the vast majority of people with such things are supporters of Bush and did support the war.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the support our troops stuff--but I do have a problem flying the American flag. Quite simply, I am embarrassed to fly a flag that the current administration and its supporters have hijacked to support their illegal policies like the Iraq War and Gitmo. Watching Bush land on an aircraft carrier with a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner in red-white-blue after two months of what everyone with half a brain knew was only the beginning of years of occupation didn't help my view of the flag.

This doesn't mean I'm not proud to be an American or that I don't love my country. However, right now I have no intention of flying the US flag or putting a sticker of one on my car because I do not want to give any support to those who are carrying out actions I believe go against the core of what it means to be an American. I do not want to give anyone the impression that I am supporting the current policies of the US--this might be a wrong stance, but I feel it's necessary to show my disapproval.

What this means for liberals is that they are in trouble. Right now they have lost one of the most important symbols of America (the flag) to the conservative side of the equation. (For an example of how tacky liberals tried to regain the flag, just remember the DNC convention in Boston and Kerry's war show)

This is a real problem, because liberals can't do what the Ukrainians or the Lebanese have done recently--march in the streets with their country's flag to try and change policy. Something needs to change in the liberal mindset (my own included) to regain ownership of this symbol.

Patrick,

I apologize for the tone of my response as well. Clearly we miscommunicated.

I've bumped into some of the rah-rah, "you're with us or against us" pro-Bush, pro-war gimme-an-M 14 and a Terrorist Hunting License crowd, too. Frustrating, and irritating. The ugliest of these creatures is little Napoleon, or Machiavelli incarnate Karl Rove. The statements he made a few weeks ago about liberals wanting to give the 9/11 hijackers therapy brought my blood pressure up about 9000 points. If the president's top aide - a man with unprecedented access to the President and power and influence over the course of the administration - says such divisive, plainly incorrect things to cause a further rift to his ideology's credit, we're in for it. Men like that ought not be in seats of power.

America's core values of freedom and tolerance have been put in jeopardy, and liberal america has been made to look like wackos and loonies by an ugly spin machine. This image problem must be worked out. (I'm sort of fond of Dean in the sense that he's not afraid to speak his mind, and while he's and angry man, he's not a loony. Appointing him DNC Chair was a smart move, I think.)

Hi,

My comment isn't directly related to your post about expressions of love toward US, Miguel; it regards to symbol of patriotism to the US. And in this case, the US citizenship.

I just returned from that english learning program in Indonesia heading a cultural orientation to 2 American volunteers. One of the cultural minders they received - from me, yes - is that when they feel uncomfortable among new Indonesian acquaintances at any point in the program, they should not disclose their US citizenship, but affiliate themselves with their European heritage. For reasons of safety, obviously, since US foreign policy is viewed with animosity and distrust within a largely muslim population. And when a volunteer could not be located during the first few days of that orientation, we were worried not only for her physical safety, but of potential political implications as well.

One may see anyone not disclosing their origin as unpatriotic, and me suggesting these pointers to those volunteers as... well, whatever you want to think of it. But I see it this way. In the US, one can have opinions against the government, and still be tolerated.

But when you're out of American soil, people aupon first impression look at you as if you support the US foreign policies, and they see you as one with Bush, and judge you accordingly. It can get ugly if you happen to be among fanatics. Tolerance and freedom of opinion may be the core of being an American, but like Tom wrote, that's not the image that's being spun (although I hope these representations of America will be communicated in the classrooms).

What they see of Americans are the images they're most easily exposed to, from Hollywood movies, which is that of violence, excess debauchery and profiteering on the expense of third world countries.