America - Love it or Leave it

[Pexster]

"America - Love it or Leave it."

Remember those bumper stickers? Over 30 years ago, they and the people who sported them on their vehicles angered me greatly. The premise was that anyone who disagreed with, and dared speak out against our policies, was a traitor. It was a vicious and ignorant thing to say then, and it's no less so today.

'Patriotism doesn't consist of following orders—not when you're not in the chain of command. For the American people, for citizens in a democracy, patriotism's highest calling isn't simply following what the administration says. It's not blind obedience. It's not unquestioned adherence. The highest form of patriotism is asking questions. Because democracies run on dialogue. Democracies run on discussion. No administration has the right to tell Americans that to dissent is disloyal, and to disagree is unpatriotic. …
'We need a new spirit, a new kind of, a new American patriotism in this country. … [T]his new spirit of patriotism should be dedicated to the protection of our rights and liberties. … In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised.'

- General Wesley Clark (Retired)

I've been casting back in my mind for memories of left-leaning people using this flag-draped attack, but I'm coming up empty. Perhaps my own biases are preventing me from recalling them. If so, I'm sure well-meaning members will correct me.

When Clinton engaged our forces in Somalia, there were countless public attacks directed at him. Same thing with Kosovo. Were the dissenters ever branded as un-patriotic or as traitors? I don't think so. No, in my mind, this is strictly a right-wing phenomenon. Why is this? Here in the U.S., we all share the same flag. Why do some insist on wearing it to cloak their agenda?

[Chuckiechan]

He is voicing the attitude that somehow made it ok in Vietnam to roll a frag into the lieutenants hooch. Dissent with a capitol "D". It's ok for Jane Fonda to go to North Vietnam.

No problem. We have the freedom to keep encouraging the enemy not to quit, that there is a solution to their problem after the next election! Just hang in there.

Great example:

When Clinton engaged our forces in Somalia, there were countless public attacks directed at him. Same thing with Kosovo. Were the dissenters ever branded as un-patriotic or as traitors? I don't think so. No, in my mind, this is strictly a right-wing phenomenon. Why is this? Here in the U.S., we all share the same flag. Why do some insist on wearing it to cloak their agenda?

The liberals pretty much own the "anti war" crowd, and aren't going to call their own nasty names. Plus, the liberal press isn't going to take them to task either. Basically, the left is given a "pass" by the press.

If you are identifed as "right wing" you get the treatment GWB is getting, and has got from the day he stepped into office. The left hates clean-shaven, moral decency in any form.

Fighting for other's freedom is so trite.
Recognizing that secure oil supplies are part of our national interest is soooo yesterday.
Doing both is a job for someone else: The UN...!

[Pexster]

Chuckiechan says:

The liberals pretty much own the "anti war" crowd, and aren't going to call their own nasty names.

No, my point was that there was a sizeable "anti-war" crowd back in the 90s -- the same crowd that opposed Clinton from Day 1, and they were not liberal, by any means. Did anyone ever call them traitors or label them "unpatriotic." I think not. QED. [Generated by Intellectual plug-in to Sleep-n-Post.]

ho boy...
Quoting Gen Clark ret. (you know he ticks us off! )and "we all share the same flag. plus Why do some insist on wearing it to cloak their agenda?" is a hot button kinda post
Dang, I'm off for lawn mower parts but will return.. just like another general.
I actually think this is a great topic and if members could just put down their ire and really answer it from the heart with what they feel that causes the anger and feelings of betrayal we could have a great conversation.

Chuckiechan, this is not a GWB issue or current times issue. This has noting to do with the UN. Perhaps if you switch gears from defense/attack and tell us why or if you feel that way and what lead to it. I would like to know. I went through a process to get to that feeling of love it or leave it.

[Bovon]

Pexster... I am certainly old enough to answer your query, and in a small way I will attempt to do so.

Years ago, when the term "Love America or leave" was coined..many took offense because it was perceived by them that if a person disagreed with what the government was doing, they didn't "love" America. Nothing actually was farther from the truth, and then..as now, it was generally the hot-heads that twisted the meaning that some of us (hopefully, level headed) types say such things, it doesn't really mean that the individual does not love his/her country..but a hothead will look at the words in that manner.

Let me offer a couple of instances that may relate.

Take a couple of brothers...they may fight like dogs..and really "hate" each other at that particular point in time... but, if an outsider attacks either brother..the other will be there defending his brother to the end.

The same thing holds true for a man and his wife...sometimes they may fight (verbally most times) like cats and dogs...but do they hate each other?.. not often, and soon..they will make up and be "in love" again.

If I ever knew anyone that truly disliked America, and remained here.. I am unable to recall them... I have said exactly the what the title of this thread says to others...not really meaning it, but getting my point across that this is a free country and is open to be critized..but if an individuals heart is so hardened against the freedoms we enjoy.. it would be better for him/her and us..if they sought citizenship elsewhere

[Chuckiechan]

Ho Chi Minh perfected the art of war against America. He knew that we were adverse to casualties. He knew that we had a media that lived and died on headlines. He knew that the more US soldiers he killed, the more publicity he would get. He knew the media would ask each and every parent "was it worth your son's life?" on the 6 o'clock news. He realilzed that politicans would place national interests ahead of getting elected. He knew that grief and anger was a swing vote to be exploited. He knew that loud minority dissent looked like a majority opinion on television.

The greatest triumph for Uncle Ho was when CBS started the daily body count of US killed and wounded on the 6 o'clock news. He knew then that victory was in sight. He knew that no president could survive the drip, drip, drip, of daily body counts in a society that screamed headlines to sell papers. And better yet, no one could stop them. The war goal became less about territory and more about killing GI's. The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Viet Cong. They lost the battle. They lost thousands of men and thousands of weapons. But thanks to American television, they won the war. They looked agile and victorious.

Soon, the anti war movement started with the likes of the Weather Men and the Viet Nam Vet's agaist the war. They were for the most part, long haired, bearded counter - culturists often involved in the newest American fad: Drugs. They were probably funded by the communists through Russia, but it dosen't matter now. What does matter is that a national movement coalested around people who didn't trust their government. They were suckered in by Kennedy, who tried to save the French (?), followed by LBJ who just threw men at the problem without any way out.

Followed by "peace with honor" Nixon, who finally said the hell with it, and we left with our tail between our legs.

It's no great leap of imagination to wonder why an autoworker or gas station attendant was alienated by these long-haired, loud, anti-American "kids". Many of these men fought in WW2 and Korea and felt they had handed these youths a pretty good country. They felt that they too would fight to free other men and right other wrongs. But instead, like their own spoiled brats at home, they stood up in front of American television and said: "up yours!" And the liberal elite beamed with joy at their new power to change the direction of the country.

Thus came the phrase: "love it or leave it".

[Pexster]

Chuckiechan posted:

He is voicing the attitude that somehow made it ok in Vietnam to roll a frag into the lieutenants hooch.

The people involved in those incidents, AFAIK, were not "anti-war" -- they were "pro-life" -- as in their own, and weren't ready to stand by and watch their wet-behind-the-ears lieutenant get more of their buddies killed.

Bovon, your claim is that "hotheads" mis-perceived the meaning and intent of the phrase? That it was only directed towards those having a

. . . heart . . . so hardened against the freedoms we enjoy . . .

I think that is revisionist history, to put it bluntly. In my memory, that phrase was directed against any who disagreed with the country's direction.

Chuckiechan also wrote:

It's no great leap of imagination to wonder why an autoworker or gas station attendant was alienated by these long-haired, loud, anti-American "kids". Many of these men fought in WW2 and Korea and felt they had handed these youths a pretty good country.

True, but many WWII and Korean vets were equally repulsed by what they saw Nixon do to this country, with his crooked staff and enemies list. And that list didn't just contain the names of long-haired hippies. Respected journalists like CBS's Daniel Schorr were on it. Paul Newman was on it. John Conyers and Ron Dellums were on it.

Finally, I firmly reject the notion that television and war protestors "cost us" the war. Ho Chi Minh knew what he did about America and it's tolerance for pain well before TV played a part in anything. The fact is that he knew his society had more of a stomach for loss of life than we did -- evening news or no.

[Chuckiechan]

Well Pexter, we have some disagreement here.

The people involved in those incidents, AFAIK, were not "anti-war" -- they were "pro-life" -- as in their own, and weren't ready to stand by and watch their wet-behind-the-ears lieutenant get more of their buddies killed.

They didn't cost us the war, as you say. They were the "third column" that Ho Chi Minh, and now other enemies seek to enlist.

Finally, I firmly reject the notion that television and war protestors "cost us" the war. Ho Chi Minh knew what he did about America and it's tolerance for pain well before TV played a part in anything. The fact is that he knew his society had more of a stomach for loss of life than we did -- evening news or no.

They joined with the anti-war propaganda forces, foreign and domestic to influence our attitudes rather than report the news, just as the liberal media choosed to do today. It would be meaningless as to what Ho Chi Minh knew without a willing partner beaming the results of his battle plan into America's living rooms.

They only thing restraining the liberal media today is the move away from the liberal press to cable channels that sell news, not agenda. Even though there are liberal componets, there are alternatives that weren't available back then. At least now, conservatives and other pro-establishment groups can be heard and not ridiculed by the "social elite".

[Pexster]

OK, perhaps we can agree to disagree about what happened during the Viet Nam war era. But back to my main point and question. Can anyone recall instances where the left has accused the right of being unpatriotic when they opposed our use of the military overseas? As in the '90s? (I believe Omardeth is asking a similar question in the Pat Buchanon thread.)

[MTAtech]

The Right, thinks that 'liberals hate America while conservatives love America.' The problem is that conservatives love America the way a three year-old child loves their mommy. Whatever mommy does is wonderful and anyone that critizes mommy is bad.

Liberals, on the other hand, love America at least as much but the way an adult child loves a cherished parent - able to accept their faults without diminshing their love and helping their loved one improve.

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” -- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)