Caitlin Hall

Why, if "patriotism" were the foul things it has been called in the last week, would anyone ever want to be a patriot? What can those who blamelessly sling mud mean when they charge that someone is acting "unpatriotically?"

In short: What makes someone a patriot?

Maybe it's simple love of one's country. To hear the way the word is used, however, that doesn't sound quite right. The citizen who professes love for our country's children, and pleads that they not be shipped off as cannon fodder, is called unpatriotic. The man who asks the country's leaders not to provoke attacks that could cost thousands more American lives is called unpatriotic.

The woman who points out that our schools are failing, our economy is crumbling and our civil liberties are being quietly disappeared while we spend $75 billion to bring freedom and prosperity to Iraq is called unpatriotic. And above all, the activist who holds that our nation is so wealthy, free, powerful and blessed that we cannot understand the suffering of those who don't enjoy the same luxuries is called unpatriotic, and far worse.

So it seems that being a patriot is something more than loving the people of a country and seeking their safety. It is also more than being thankful for living in that country, fighting to maintain its precious trappings and viewing its prosperity as a goal second to none.

The USA Patriot Act would have us believe that patriotism consists in consenting to wire taps, arbitrary search and seizure, suspension of the First Amendment ÷ and let's not forget that includes a lot more than just freedom of speech ÷ and spying on our neighbors. However, it seems unlikely that these offenses have anything to do with accusations of being "unpatriotic," especially given that, according to this definition, being unpatriotic sounds justified, decent and downright constitutional.

Perhaps those who demand patriotism command rabid, blind allegiance to our country's leaders, symbols and actions. If so, patriotism has nothing at all to do with love for one's country. How could one ever wish stagnancy, stasis, obsoleteness for something he loved?

If love means never wanting something to change, why do we teach our children to read? Why do we counsel our friends? Why do we have religion, or philosophy or higher education?

Change comes about through love, hate and brutal evolutionary indifference. Those who delude themselves into believing our country has miraculously attained the status of "good enough" doom it to be changed by the latter two. But these days they are called patriots, while those who demand evolution apace with science, industry and global politics ÷ "a more perfect union"÷ are derided for their selfishness and hatred of their fellow citizens. The true patriots, however, are those who realize not only that their country is strong enough to survive evolution, but that it must evolve to survive.

If patriotism is nothing but support of the actions of one's country, it goes by another name as well: nationalism.

Often this is indeed the case ÷ what is called "patriotism" from within the herd is called "nationalism" at a distance. And here another problem is raised: The very things we are supposed to be patriotic about ÷ individualism, autonomy, freedom in speech and thought ÷ are fundamentally opposed to the cultish deference and moral enslavement required by nationalist "patriotism."

But let's get to the point: "patriotism," as it is so used these days, means one thing ÷ support for the war, and support for its troops. And those are, indeed, treated as one thing. Hawks insist that it is logically impossible to support the troops without supporting the war, and that it is impossible to be a patriot without supporting the troops. And they argue this point so fervently that what are normally rational people have been bullied into waving flags and parroting bromides, even perpetuating the name-calling game.

It is not only possible to support the troops without supporting the war; it is, for many, necessary. Those who were against the war until it began, then reversed their stances "in support of our troops" should not carry any illusions that they are patriots. They are traitors. To say that the price is too great, that war is unjustified and immoral, that we should not send children to become murderers unnecessarily ÷ then to brush objections aside in the name of unanimity is bizarre and unjustified.

To disregard the enormous sacrifice that many are being asked to make ÷ to fight and die for a cause they don't believe in ÷ by pretending that it could not have been avoided is a slap in the face.