One of the favorite tactics of Democrats is to whine about being called "traitors" and "unpatriotic" when they criticize the administration or the war. Or the troops. And what's frustrating about this is that for the most part it's a strawman, because I've always perceived that in fact few supporters of the war and the administration actually do this.

But it turns out I was wrong. I have found an actual instance of it:

I say to you, all of you...there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.

I want to go on the record, however, and say that (as is usually the case) I disagree with him.

Well, I certainly agree with the first part of that; there is nothing patriotic about hating your country; it's pretty much definitionally the opposite of patriotism.

The latter part is more problematic, but it sure does seem that many (or most!) people who claim to "love the country but hate the government" do hate the country as it is (because generally the only government they approve of is one so radical (whether to the left or to the right) that it could never gain the approval of the mass of the people, and thus can't really be said to be a plausible form of "the country". Examples: communism, theocracy).

Such people might love an impossible fantasy version of their country, but one that has nothing to do with the actual country as it could be formed in the real world with means even vaguely resembling the democratic.

(The partisans who hate the government solely because of the party controlling it at the moment don't hate their country, but they are infantile in their political thinking.)

> people who claim to "love the country but hate the government" do hate the
> country as it is (because generally the only government they approve of
> is one so radical (whether to the left or to the right) that it could
> never gain the approval of the mass of the people

So, you think Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan because the American people loved big government???

> Such people might love an impossible fantasy version of their country, but
> one that has nothing to do with the actual country as it could be formed
> in the real world with means even vaguely resembling the democratic.

You're confusing "democratic" with "Democratic." Not only does America remain small-d democratic, but, thanks to Ronald Reagan, democratic governments now exist in many nations that "Democrats" said would remain Communist forever.

Not bad for someone whose election is an "impossible fantasy."

I agree with Pres. Clinton. (Yeah, even a broken clock is correct twice a day)

While it is true that seated republican's haven't called anyone unpatriotic, don't let the Dems pull the jedi mind trick on you Rand. It is perfectly valid to call folks unpatriotic that are actively voicing ideas, policies and words that are designed to undermine the present administration's foriegn policy while in this time of external conflict.

Read my Dec 7th entry:
PoliticalFred.blogspot.com

> I agree with Pres. Clinton... It is perfectly valid to call folks unpatriotic
> that are actively voicing ideas, policies and words that are designed to
> undermine the present administration's foriegn policy while in this time
> of external conflict.

What external conflict? Clinton decided to bomb Kosovo to distract attention from his domestic wrongdoings, then used the attacks to say anyone who opposed him was unpatriotic. The Balkan states didn't blow up the World Trade Center or even try to assassinate a former US President (as Saddam Hussein did).

Edward Wright wrote:

What external conflict?

The Battle of Iraq.

Clinton decided to bomb Kosovo to distract attention from his domestic wrongdoings, then used the attacks to say anyone who opposed him was unpatriotic. The Balkan states didn't blow up the World Trade Center or even try to assassinate a former US President (as Saddam Hussein did).

I'm not sure that we disagree.

In the Clinton scenario it is perfectly valid to criticise the president's domestic misdeeds. It would have been unpatriotic to loadly declare: "We can't win in Kosovo"

In the current Bush scenario it is unpatriotic to say "We can't win in Iraq". It would be valid to say "elect me, I'll run things differently." Since there isn't an election going on, who is benefiting from the anti-victory rhetoric?

There is much to admire in the unwritten policy of ceasing political fighting at the waters edge. The Dems have violated this rule big time. I don't advocate doing it to them when they are in power, but I do advocate voting them down so they won't be in power.

>> What external conflict?

> The Battle of Iraq.

Clinton's comments did not concern of Battle o Iraq, however, because Clinton was not fighting Iraq.

> In the Clinton scenario it is perfectly valid to criticise the president's
> domestic misdeeds. It would have been unpatriotic to loadly declare:
> "We can't win in Kosovo"

No, merely foolish, given the relatively military strength of the US and Kosovo. I'm not aware of anyone who said that, however. Many did question how Kosovo threatened the US or US interests, however.

> In the current Bush scenario it is unpatriotic to say "We can't win in Iraq".

Not if the person saying that sincerely believes it. Again, being foolish does not equal being unpatriotic.

> There is much to admire in the unwritten policy of ceasing
> political fighting at the waters edge. The Dems have violated
> this rule big time. I don't advocate doing it to them when they are
> in power, but I do advocate voting them down so they won't be in power.

That principle generally assumes that US forces are deployed overseas in defense of the United States in time of war, not as UN police officers in time of "peace." When US forces are used in ways the Founding Fathers never intended, for partisan political purposes, criticizing those uses is not unpatriotic.

Drawing a parallel between the post-9/11 war and Serbia/Kosovo is falling for the ultimate Jedi mind trick.

This is an excerpt from a speech after the Oklahoma City Bombing. I'm not sure were Kosovo comes into play here. Considering the context of the speech, I'd say there is no doubt that what occurred in Oklahoma City was not patriotic. It appears Rand is practicing what he learned from Scott Adams blog post. However, it is a nice stick to poke lefties with.

It is from the post-OK City period, in which the Democrats were trying to recover from their devastating electoral losses the previous fall by demonizing Republicans and "right wingers" as supporters of McVeigh and militias. Unfortunately, their demagoguery succeeded at the time.

> I'd say there is no doubt that what occurred in Oklahoma City was not patriotic.

That's called guilt by association, or it would be if there were any association. There's no evidence that "others who believe" in limited government were supporters of the Oklahoma City bombing (and, indeed, not much evidence that McVeigh was a supporter of limited government).

What would liberals say if Pres. Bush called "others who believe" in big government unpatriotic and linked them with 9/11?

Believing in the principles of the Founding Fathers, rather than the pinciples of Bill Clinton, does not make one unpatriotic.