Actually I’m not writing about Paul Revere, I just liked the alliteration… and that sign at the Rally for Sanity that said, “Paul Revere was an anchor baby!” (Though he wasn’t, really… his mother was from an old Boston family and so he was more of a Barack Obama.)
Getting back on topic… in the massive pre-election propaganda dump I recall reading this sentence about some Tea Party dude… “He is both fiercely partisan and a staunch patriot.” And I remember thinking “Whaaa?” Because I consider staunch patriotism and fierce partisanship to be mutually exclusive qualities. It’s like saying, “He is both morbidly obese and a severe ectomorph.”
My definition of a “fierce partisan” is somebody who hates the other party more than he loves his own country. These are the people who think American politics is some kind of long-running football game, or a war between the Bloods and the Cripps, when it should really be about sanely, soberly, productively governing the greatest country on earth. And you need to get the governing right… because whenever you don’t, not only you but a billion innocent people half a world away are going to suffer for your mistakes.
Here’s my test for partisanship/patriotism: You are a law maker and you have to vote on a bill that you know is good for the country, but voting “aye” may damage your political career while the other party will get credit for the bill’s passage.
What do you do?
If you vote “nay,” you’re a partisan motivated by self-interest. If you damn the consequences and vote “aye”… you’re a true patriot.
I think ideally any government should be about 90% patriots and 10% partisans… but the distribution these days is pretty much the opposite of that. In fact I’ve been trying to think of courageous, patriotic, principled votes that anybody has taken recently on either side, putting country ahead of self-interest or hatred of the opposition, and they’re pretty difficult to come up with. I’d been xceedingly cheered and encouraged if you all could remind me of a few.
Note:… most of the recent “hard” votes for climate legislation and HCR don’t really count, since I consider fear of Nancy Pelosi to simply be self-interest wearing a different hat. (Especially when the weenies who took those “hard votes” wouldn’t even stand up to defend them later when it really mattered).
Ed Note: “his father was French…” Then wouldn’t he be Baroque Obama?
538 Refugees 
The Junior Senator from Kansas, Senator Edmund Gibson Ross, voted against conviction in President Johnson’s impeachment trial, which resulted in the acquittal of President Andrew Johnson.Ross lost his bid for re-election two years later. btw, Ross was born in Ashland, Ohio, and attended high school in Sandusky, Ohio. Always an OH connection, except when there isn’t.Is this recent enough. ;)Once politicians are elected, most are only interested in doing whatever it takes to get re-elected. Shocking!>Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference
I believe if partisanship transforms into outright hatred to the point you wish direct physical violence on those who oppose you, then you are no longer a patriot, but an advocate of destroying your country. With that said I consider James Carville and Rush Limbaugh pretty fierce partisans, but hardly unpatriotic. And understand I am taking the concept of patriotism very seriously, the advocates of dissolution of the Union in the 1850’s, loyalists after 1776, terrorists who have American roots be it Islamic or McVeigh types, that is hatred and to call it unpatriotic is an understatement.
Limbaugh preaches hatred/division 24/7 to his yahoo conservative lemmings.There is no comparison between the (2) of which you speak.take care
Fili: “My definition of a “fierce partisan” is somebody who hates the other party more than he loves his own country.”Why do you believe partisanship (love of party) is somehow mutually exclusive with patriotism (love of country)?Almost every partisan will tell you that she loves her country and that her party’s policies are good for the country. Sometimes these beliefs fly in the face of reality, but that does not mean the partisan loves their country any less.
There is no difference between the two to you. As for Limbaugh preaching hate all the time, whatevs.
btw, Limbaugh helped Claire McCaskill get elected in 2006 when he childishly, foolishly, despicably made fun of Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson disease.Thanx Rush! 🙂
Bartles, I though you were taking a break from 538.Oops!and feel free to comment on what happened in Colorado on Tuesday at any time … or not. ;)ciao
@BartWhy do you believe partisanship (love of party) is somehow mutually exclusive with patriotism (love of country)?Why do you ask a question that was answered in the article?
That’s your version of what he did, of course saying those who opposed certain aspects of stem cell research support horrible diseases somehow gets forgotten.
Robert I can buy some of your lay out. I think it can go beyond direct physical violence though to acts that are detrimental to the country especially if it is obvious that they are or could be.To pick personalities and define them as patriotic or not patriotic is proably risky. I’m guessing you would rate Limbaugh and Carville as about the same or give a slight nod to Rush. I would give the nod to Carville on the basis of his volunteering into the Marine Corps and teaching in a pretty poor high school. Rush did not serve (no he wasn’t a draft dodger his number just didn’t get drawn but he also didn’t enlist) and I can find little if any thing that he has done in terms of helping society. Now I have said nothing of their politics for both can be pretty damned intense but I can not relate Carville to openly trying to stir up things that are harmful to the country and I can with Rush, you may see it differently but that is why this is such a subjective topic.I can fight with Bart hammer and tong, but I can also thank him for his military service as I appreciate those that have and do serve as being patriotic. Does not mean I can not think them wrong headed but they have done some thing for the society as a whole. Where we need to be concerned is with the false patriot, those that would wrap themselves in the flag to hide their ill deeds or plans. No one party has a lock on patriotism, no one group no one geographic region. Just as soon as you hear one say this group or that area or this party are more patriotic get ready to throw the peuce bullshit flag because either the speaker bears watching or isn’t very patriotic or the group being touted as more red white and blue probably isn’t.
@rvThat’s your version of what he did~~~~~No, that’s in fact exactly what he did as what he thinks about stem cell research is irrelevant to our one sided discussion, unless of course you can come up w/a rational argument. Good Luck!Damn, not even a song and dance deflection lol as you know Limbaugh has no defense, but you can continue to be one of his lemmings, not a problem.take care, blessings
ok, maybe Limbaugh was having a withdrawal symptom to one of the many illegal drugs he was takin’ back then lol
Pardon me for interjecting some nuance here…Let’s assume I am the representative, and I believe the bill is good for the country. Let’s further assume that I have concluded that my constituents are against the bill, for whatever reason, and I realize that voting Aye will mean that I’m out of office in another year.Let’s further assume that my vote isn’t critical, that the bill will pass even if I vote Nay.Now, if I vote Aye, then I will no longer be able to do things that I believe are important to this country. So I vote Nay.Does this make me partisan?Rarely are votes as clear as you describe in the article.
Look, this whole article has merit, if a person puts hatred as the driving force behind their policy choices they clearly are not patriots. But how can one know a significant policy difference isn’t based on differing ideas of whats right, or a deliberate choice of policies that undermine the nation?
@fili,Let’s say have a daughter. She was always the model daughter, straight A student, volunteered in the community, hung around great kids.When she turned 18 she decides to quit school and move in with her boyfriend. She decides to get a job down at the club waiting tables. She was working late nights and had a hard time staying energetic at the club, so she decides to start using uppers so she won’t lose her job.Then they decide to start trying to have a baby. She’s certain these decisions she’s making are the best thing for her and her future. What would you do? Would you tell her she’s wrong and she needs to move out of her boyfriends appartment, go back to school, and stop using drugs? That she’s too young to have a baby? Or would you sit back and hope her decision to quit school and start using drugs work out for her? Would your disagreement with her decisions (partishanship)mean you don’t love (unpatriotic) her anymore?
@Realistand I realize that voting Aye will mean that I’m out of office in another year.~~~~~In a perfect world, one should always vote their conscience as “we the people” are not always correct, ehand hopefully live to fight another day or not.>Funny you mention nuance lol as there ain’t a lot of nuance in Congress nowadays and if you ever find a perfect world, let me know.One either has principles or they don’t …
grog, your analogy escapes me …take care
It at times seems that the more jingoistic a group is the more they feel compelled to wrap themselves in the flag and denigrate others patriotism that are not as jingoistic.One of my favorite comments from a discussion I can’t seem to find any more on U-tube, don’t even remember who it was between. The comment was that the South was the most patriotic region of the country and as evidence said that a preponderance of military personnel came from the South. When asked how they figured that they said a computer serch indicated that is where most soldier and sailor addresses were. Not sure how one would do such a search but most of the major bases being in the South for economic and political reasons might shade that a little.
“I’d been xceedingly cheered and encouraged if you all could remind me of a few.Two examples come to mind: the Civil Rights Act and Bush the Elder’s tax increase. Both had steep political costs, but were the right thing for the good of the nation.
shiloh wrote: “Bartles…feel free to comment on what happened in Colorado on Tuesday at any time … or not.”Great: Took the majority of the House delegation with 2 added seats and the state house.Beware divided votes: Lost the governor’s mansion with a well publicized divided vote and incredibly the state senate because the libertarians pulled around 1300 votes in a razor thin GOP loss for the deciding seat. (The state house should check any new Dem taxes posing as fees and stop any Dem gerrymandering if CO gets another seat.)Disappointing: Millions of dollars in union funded negative commercials on conservative talk radio smearing Buck (good strategy BTW) pulled out the reelection of a leftist Dem lying about his positions.
Good to have you back Bart but that spin took you a little longer than usual. Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn’t a Dem be considered generally left and a Republican right?
Bartles, oh the humanity/irony as you’re crying about 2010 campaign funding where the Dems got blown away nationwide by Rep billionaire special interest $$$.If you’re gonna deflect, at least be somewhat rational.CO Reps nominated a clueless teabagger in their senate primary and all the $$$ in the world couldn’t get him elected.And won’t even talk about the Rep governor discombobulation.>but, but, but on the bright side, since you’ve given me an answer, although a disappointing song and dance 😉 answer, shocking! … you are now excused to take a break from 538 or not.btw, the Dow was up 219 today, must have been a reaction to Obama’s speech yesterday, eh.and your newly, freely elected senator Bennet 🙂 is being interviewed by Tweety.take care
I posted this in another thread yesterday, but it seems particularly appropriate here. From a Minneapolis StarTribune editorial:”But whether or not Minnesotans rode the national wave on Tuesday, we’re confident of one message they meant to sent to Washington: Divided government is no excuse for paralyzed government. If one or more houses of Congress are in Republican hands for the next two years, those hands are obligated to join in governing this country. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell had it wrong last week. Republicans first job isn’t to see to it that the President isn’t re-elected in 2012. Their first job is to improve the lot of Americans. With their election certificates comes a duty to help put more people to work, fix crumbling infrastructure, improve public education and protect the planet from climate change. Tuesday’s winners won not only a share of government’s power, but also accountability for its fruitful use.”
I just got home from bowling and will address some of the comments and arguments as soon as recover from the delightful shock of bowling 50 POINTS OVER MY AVERAGE.(And whichever editor is responsible for that dreadful, horrible, no-good pun… you are dead to me… 🙂
@Bart… Why do you believe partisanship (love of party) is somehow mutually exclusive with patriotism (love of country)?It’s definitional, Bart. I believe a “fierce partisan” is somebody who puts party ahead of country… while a true patriot would always do the opposite.
@GROG… Would your disagreement with her decisions (partishanship)mean you don’t love (unpatriotic) her anymore?I consider this a weak analogy. “Tough love” is still love… often it’s the best kind of love (and if you’re a parent, you know it can be the hardest, too :-(There are times when a country needs tough love. Those who apply it are certainly not unpatriotic. I’m talking about people who claim to love their country (with waving flags, hands on hearts and crocodile tears) but are unwilling to take steps for the good of the country that the opposing party migth get some credit for.A better family analogy is a divorce and cutody battle… where one person is generous to the other battling parent in front of the kids, while the other publicly bad-mouths and obstructs the ex at every opportunity. Which one really loves the kids… and which is just advancing a personal agenda?
While I understand what filistro is getting at, I think someone can be both patriotic and partisan. Believing strongly that one’s ideological views are what’s best for the country does not necessarily preclude one from loving the country. I know many patriotic partisans from both ends of the political spectrum. :-)However, to filistro’s point, I do think it’s possible to be *too* partisan. If one would honestly choose party over the welfare of our entire country, that would be *too* partisan. In filistro’s hypothetical, let’s assume that most of the votes are in and your vote is likely to be a deciding vote. Let’s further assume that there is little ambiguity in the bill being necessary and good for the country. Under those circumstances, if you would vote for “politics” rather than for the good of the nation, then you’re too partisan. If you’d resort to violence over a disagreement with your political foes within our country, then you’re too partisan–or at least more partisan than patriotic.Regarding extreme partisans, I do not think the ratio is quite as skewed as filistro suggests. (90-10, really?) Instead, I think there are a lot of patriotic partisans who sincerely believe that their policies and ideas are best for us all. The ultra-extreme partisans are a minority on both sides.Even though I believe that there are very few who are actually more partisan than patriotic, what I do see in recent politics is a polarization of the two parties. When I was younger, the party lines weren’t as rigid and there were much more cross-over votes. The increasing polarization and party-line voting certainly gives the appearance of more votes being cast for purely partisan reasons. The level of partisanship is definitely concerning and should be watched. Traditionally, the media is supposed to be the watchdog for out-of-control politicians, but in this environment, the media is an active participant in increasing the schism.As Jon Stewart has argued, I think this media environment hurts our national dialogue.
@filistro,A little birdie told me you bowled a 65 today…
Hey Realist… I’ll have you know I’m a pretty hot bowler. I even have my own ball, with my name on it and everything. I bought it at the Riverside Casino in Laughlin and had two old TV pro-bowlers drill it to fit my hand.Take THAT, eh 😉 (Since my sore foot means I probably won’t be able to curl this year :-(… it’s a good thing I still have bowling to comfort me.)
The problem here is that “patriotism” is an extremely loaded word that can mean anything that you want it to. McVeigh considered himself patriotic, after all. He thought that the OKC bombing would trigger a revolution and restore a Constitutional Republic in line with the Founding Fathers’ vision.People who supported racial segregation considered themselves patriotic, too. So did those who opposed women’s suffrage. Likewise, McCarthy and his HUAC.The distinction that is crucial here is when people use patriotism as a blunt instrument against their fellow citizens. That is why this “real Americans” narrative is so dangerous. It’s not a patriotic love of country. It’s a tribal loyalty towards those who agree with you. It leads to Very Bad Things.
@mclever… I think someone can be both patriotic and partisan. Believing strongly that one’s ideological views are what’s best for the country does not necessarily preclude one from loving the country.So here’s a really tough question.John McCain has always truly believed that giving illegal immigrants a sensible path to citizenship is essential for the welfare of the nation.Now he says “Build the dang fence.”John McCain has said repeal of DADT would be the best approach for the military. Now he is the one blocking repeal.Q… is John McCain a patriot?
John McCain is a patriot…with memory loss.
@Todd,People who supported racial segregation considered themselves patriotic, too. So did those who opposed women’s suffrage. Likewise, McCarthy and his HUAC.I can’t speak to the women’s suffrage people, but I can speak to the others. George Wallace himself said he didn’t believe in segregation, and that he only went down that path because that’s how to get reelected. McCarthy was similar. How do I know? Because his “list” was fictitious. That’s not being patriotic. That’s being opportunistic.
Todd Dugdale makes a very good distinction:“The distinction that is crucial here is when people use patriotism as a blunt instrument against their fellow citizens. That is why this “real Americans” narrative is so dangerous. “And I agree with his conclusion that it’s dangerous to start labeling one’s political opponents as “un-American” or “unpatriotic” or “not real Americans.”
@filistro,Q… is John McCain a patriot?I would not be inclined to question Mr. McCain’s patriotism. I would question his mental acuity…
@shortchainExactly! LOL!
I suppose, as with anything else, we must always consider motivation. I mean, it’s possible that Mitch McConnell truly believes the single most important way to help the nation right now is to concentrate on defeating Obama in 2012.But since I am unable to look into the man’s heart I have to go with my own commonsense gut reaction…which is that this is one of the most blindly, nakedly partisan things I have ever heard from a politician.
When Washington was President he was executed in effigy, somehow the country survived.
Realist:you are just proving my point. I said that they considered themselves patriotic. Obviously you don’t consider what they did to be patriotic; neither do I. Are you really willing to say that everyone who supported racial segregation hated America and what it stands for, in their own minds? Even those who fought for their country? I’m not. That doesn’t make it right, or good for the nation, of course. It just shows that patriotism is an extremely vague and ill-defined term that anyone can invoke to cover any action or belief. It’s also why it’s useless in a rational discussion.
@filistroI mean, it’s possible that Mitch McConnell truly believes the single most important way to help the nation right now is to concentrate on defeating Obama in 2012.If so, though, it shows a horrid lack of imagination.For one thing, if you believe, as it seems many Republicans do, that we have urgent issues that need to be addressed immediately, why is it that the most important thing to work on is something that cannot show results for over two years?
It all depends on how your brain is wired. If you are an empathetic soul, the suffering of the masses who have no jobs and are increasingly to be found at intersections panhandling for money will make you see the problem facing the country as providing employment or relief.If, on the other hand, your mirror neurons are connected in such a way that the feeling you experience at seeing the suffering of others is schadenfreude, perhaps you’ll see the problem you want to solve is making sure you’re never in the position they are…
filistro wrote:”it’s possible that Mitch McConnell truly believes the single most important way to help the nation right now is to concentrate on defeating Obama in 2012.“Interesting that he’s willing to wait until 2012, though. If you follow his ‘logic’, wouldn’t it be even better to throw Obama out of office ASAP?
McCain is, was and will be a patriot. It does not mean that he can not be wrong about things. We have many people that are not over patriots that are really good AMericans. They go to work, pay their taxes and generally vote so maybe in that context they are patriotic but I suspect if you asked many of them if they were great patriots they would defer and just consider themselves Americans.Rosa Parks never served in uniform (at least I don’t beleive she did)generally lived a pretty staid life but she had huge impact on what life is like in this country, was she a patriot? Or just an American doing what needed to be done?Margret Chase Smith was a small woman from rural Maine, quite soft spoken a widow. But she faced down Joseph McCarthy (see her Declaration of Conscience speech) and showed all the others that one could stand up to his bullying and fear and scare tactics, so was she a patriot or an elected representative doing their job?Paul Revere is even interesting. He is famed for his late night ride and considered by many to be a patriot for it but later in the war he was part of th worst naval disaster this nation faced up to Pearl Harbor and was court martialed and thrown out of the Mass. Militia (see Penobscot Exibition really ofinterest in my family as two of the ships lost belonged to my family and one of my ancestors was taken from his ship in irons when he refused to scuttle it prefering instead to try and run the blocking British vessels) so was he still a patriot? Does one act cancel another?
@Mainer.. McCain is, was and will be a patriot. It does not mean that he can not be wrong about thingsI agree and disagree. It’s not a matter of being “wrong.” The man has gone against things he himself said in the past were best for the country… and he did it simply to get re-elected.As Todd says… “patriotism” can be a much-abused word. But at the very least, McCain’s actions, if not unpatriotic, are dishonest and opportunistic.It is sad end to a truly patriotic life.
filistro wrote:”It is a sad end to a truly patriotic life.“If this were ancient Athens, he would have been served a cup of hemlock a long time ago. While I think “patriot” is much-abused, the term you may be looking for is “statesman”.Is McCain a statesman? No way. Were O’Connell’s remarks those of a statesman? Hardly.
@Todd… the term you may be looking for is “statesman”.Yes! STATESMAN!! I would define that as someone who a)takes governing seriously andb.) puts country ahead of personal ambition or party.So who, in today’s political arena, deserves that term?I think Russ Feingold did 😦
Oh lord let us not look for any statesmen in our current crop of politicians.
Conventional political Parties do not tend to cultivate statesmen. Off the top of my head, I’d say that I considered Tom Horner (MN candidate for Governor) to be a statesman. He proposed tax increases, which is death. He failed to pander to the unions, and said that we cannot cut our way out of the State’s budget problems. No magic answers.He lost, and I didn’t vote for him because I (non-statesman that I am) calculated it to be more important to keep Emmer out of office.
Todd,Your thinking on Horner is exactly what I felt. I’m very ambivalent about Dayton, but he had the best chance of defeating Emmer, who had to be kept out of the governor’s chair for the sake of this state’s future.
Guys in regards the MN gov race did you see that Fox had a piece today saying that it would be bad for the Dems to fight the result??????H U H. Why?
Fili:”I’d been xceedingly cheered and encouraged if you all could remind me of a few.”Todd: “Two examples come to mind: the Civil Rights Act and Bush the Elder’s tax increase.”Excellent examples. I’d say the PPACA vote and the ARRA vote as well — but of course you’re right, Fili, the fact that many of the wusses ran away from it later shows they collapsed from the pressure. But it doesn’t negate the courage of the vote itself, because they knew they’d pay a price for it.
DC I still think Maggie Smiths Declaration of Conscience is right up there. But I am having a hard time with much since then.Profiles in courage would pretty much have to be profiles in wussiness today.
Mainer,The story (if it’s the one I looked at — but I’m not a Fox viewer) didn’t claim that the Democrats would be better off not to push the recount. It claimed that the recount would be good for the GOP. (Standard story: everything that happens, no matter what, is good for the GOP.)The theory is that it will give Tiny Tim a platform from which to burnish his image in the national spotlight, and, if it goes on long enough (send donations of money, food, and legal briefs to the MNGOP), Pawlenty will have to continue to serve with, coincidentally, a newly sworn in GOP dominated legislature.The putative leaders of which assured the people of Minnesota, using weasel words and speaking in code, that they wouldn’t dream of passing socially conservative laws or cutting the budget with a chainsaw, not even though, if they did, and Pawlenty signed these acts into law, where, even if Emmer loses the recount (which he is going to with 8800-to-1 odds), it will beyond the power of the people to do anything about it until years from now, when a new legislature can be elected. Minnesota’s Constitution makes recall extremely difficult — virtually impossible. The law, passed in 1996, has never been used, or even tried, to my knowledge.Now, a real statesman would, in Emmer’s place, facing certain defeat in the recount and the court case that appears inevitable, spare Minnesota the expense and tribulation.I expect that it will take until April to get a new governor.
@shortchainEmmer, who had to be kept out of the governor’s chair for the sake of this state’s future.This is particularly true since the R’s won control of the state legislature. If we also had a Republican as insane as Emmer as Governor, we’d be in real trouble.@Mainer Guys in regards the MN gov race did you see that Fox had a piece today saying that it would be bad for the Dems to fight the result??????H U H. Why?Maybe FOX is trying to push the idea that Emmer won, and that any other result is illegitimate.
Mainer wrote:”did you see that Fox had a piece today saying that it would be bad for the Dems to fight the result??“I don’t have the ability (or inclination) to watch FNC, so “no”.Since the Democratic candidate is ahead by 9000 votes, it really is the Republicans that are “fighting the result”.The recount is stupid on so many levels, it’s amazing that the Republicans are even going there. It’s sheer conspiracy theory, and a self-defeating one at that. The Republicans just finished putting the entire 2008 under a microscope about a month ago – and they found 47 cases of abuse. About 40 were felons voting, and 4 were people voting twice. Even if these people voted for Franken (which isn’t by any means clear), it would not have switched the final outcome. And there was absolutely no evidence of conspiracy, nor of illegal aliens voting.If “the entire State election system is suspect”, then aren’t the Republican victories suspect? This is where the rhetoric is self-defeating. The system was fine when it elected Pawlenty and Coleman, but when it elects Democrats it’s completely untrustworthy?If it were a thousand votes in the balance, the Republicans might have a slim chance. 9000 votes is just too many to overcome, though. Emmer should just concede, but the longer he delays things, the longer Pawlenty stays in office.
shortchain wrote:”The theory is that it will give Tiny Tim a platform from which to burnish his image in the national spotlight, and, if it goes on long enough (send donations of money, food, and legal briefs to the MNGOP), Pawlenty will have to continue to serve with, coincidentally, a newly sworn in GOP dominated legislature.“That’s pretty much it: maintain the rage, and bulldoze legislation through. After it’s all over, Dayton walks into a disaster of epic proportion.
Yes but to relook at earlier posts and the whole you are not patriotic or you are not real Americans then it is a small step to convince certain individuals that any one that is not a conservative is not really an American and therefore not to be accorded the same protection under the law. We are I fear on a very slippery hill in this country and some of todays babble would seem to say it shall soon get steeper and more slippery. Isn’t there some mechanism in place to prevent frivolus (sp)requests for recount?
The Seattle Times calls it for Patty Murray. The Western firewall remains intact.Welcome back for another six years, Sen. Murray!
I think I might have been unfair in this, because I failed to mention there are partisans on both sides who put party ahead of country. A lot of the Democratic base is angry with Barack Obama simply because he is a gracious, classy guy who insists on being courteous and conciliatory with the GOP when they would prefer to see him insult, smash, obliterate and annihilate his opponents… or at least talk some smack about them.I think there are lots of Democrats who would truly rather see the country suffer for the lack of good policies than see the Republicans get credit for those policies.Democrats like that are every bit as offensive to me as their counterparts on the other side. Maybe more so because it’s embarrassing to have people like that “in the family”, so to speak.
What about when patriotism becomes quaint and unnecessary?
Alright, on reflection I uttered that while under a bridge. More politely, what is wrong with not being patriotic but otherwise fulfilling the roll of citizen?
More politely, what is wrong with not being patriotic but otherwise fulfilling the roll of citizen?Nothing. In fact I find that quite admirable.