Strong Words

Anyone who has studied the Alien & Sedition Acts passed by John Adams knows that sometimes a president can go too far. Personally, I think that the Patriot Act went too far, but at least it's still America and we shouldn't be accused of being un-American for questioning what our government does. We should be more American for questioning things, because that's what democracy is all about. However, it's starting to seem like that's happening at the Republican Convention. Granted, I have not actually watched the convention, and the following article that I quote from is written by someone who does not plan to vote for Bush. (So it's probably a little biased - but what isn't?) But what this quote does do is say what I've been thinking for a long time: I get the feeling that the President thinks that anyone who dares to question his policies is un-American. I've lived in Europe - I know what un-American looks like, and it's not me. I'm proud to say that I am an American and proud that I can say whatever I want about the President without being thrown in jail. So let's watch what we say here, people, and remember that 4 years ago Bush was critizing the President so he could be elected. Why wasn't that un-American?

Anyway, here's what William Saletan has to say:
In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.

Are you prepared to become one of those countries?

When patriotism is impugned, the facts go out the window. You're not allowed to point out that Bush shifted the rationale for the Iraq war further and further from U.S. national security—from complicity in 9/11 to weapons of mass destruction to building democracy to relieving Iraqis of their dictator—without explaining why American troops and taxpayers should bear the burden. You're not allowed to point out that the longer a liberator stays, the more he looks like an occupier. You're not allowed to propose that the enormous postwar expenses Bush failed to budget for be covered by repealing his tax cuts for the wealthy instead of further indebting every American child.

If you dare to say these things, you're accused—as Kerry now stands accused by Cheney and Miller—of defaming America and refusing "to support American troops in combat." You're contrasted to a president who "is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America." You're derided, in Cheney's words, for trying to show al-Qaida "our softer side." Your Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts are no match for the vice president's five draft deferments.

By the way, no matter what you think about Kerry's medals, the government awarded them to him. So now that I've hypocritically used them, let's move on and stop talking about what both candidates were doing 30 years ago. How about what's been done for the last 4 years?