The America Haters
The radical right calls me an America-hater almost every day. The idea that anyone criticizing this administration hates America and plots treason is spread all over the net and the traditional media. The intention is to make us critics ashamed and fearful of saying anything. The intention is approving silence, the only love that is acceptable to the most extremists on the right.
But it is we, the noisy and complaining ones, who really love America, love her as she is, a gangly teenager with acne and furious dreams and occasional bad mistakes which she then corrects. Love her beautiful mountains and rivers and prairies and wetlands and deserts and cities and all the people that inhabit these, even the ones who think differently. It is we who love what America was, what she had grown to, her promises and her frailties, her ability to learn from errors, to become better, to promise to try, her genius, her optimism, her determination to follow the arc of justice, ultimately.
Yes, we would complain about her teenage fads, about her shallowness, about the serious problems which she didn’t know how to correct: the role of race, the role of poverty and the role of violence in a society. But she tried, however unclearly sometimes, and all the voices, even the conservative ones, participated in this trying and made the country ultimately better, closer to maturity, without any loss in the optimism and sunniness that we all prized.
This is the America that was and still is, at least partly, and this is the America that the current administration and the radical right want to destroy. We love her too much to want to see this young country clad in a burkha, to want to see her bent over to carry the heavy moneybags of a few greedy capitalists. We love her too much to want to see her poisoned by mercury and arsenic in her beautiful oceans and lovely lakes. We want her to learn and to grow, not to be forced to sit in a solitary silence, reading over and over the same “thou-shalt-nots” of the conservative bibles.
We critics don’t want our America to rampage across this globe, grabbing money and power and leaving behind destitution and death. It is not good for the world and it is terrible for the young country we still are. We are like the parents who love their children, yet see clearly where their frailties lie, and as good parents we tell how to fix those frailties and how to grow stronger while retaining the essential greatness of the child, the teenager, this glorious country of many songs.
How to be mature.
The radical right wants none of this. It wants a country with no kindness, no shelter, no common squares where people can meet. It wants a country in perpetual war, a country where mercenaries and corporations are cared for, where America is but their feeding ground, the silent congregation in some monsterous church for money.
We critics are needed, because we indeed love this country. Our tough love is needed, because it sees with clear eyes. Our patriotism is needed, because it is untainted with false beliefs and childish assertions of how much greater America is than the rest of this earth. We are needed for the very love that makes us named the haters of America.
—-
Cross-posted from my blog because I had to go and do family stuff this morning.



September 17th, 2005 at 10:52 am
Silence may be equivalent to consent. But is consent equivalent to any kind of love? It’s that old line: “If you love me, you will consent to…”
I would love to see a poll: “Do you love George W. Bush?”
September 17th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
The author of “American Haters” is just as guilty of ad hominen arguments as the radical right. Refering to necons as people who love war, lack compassion, use the bible to denounce others and really do not love their country is an attack on the values and character of the radical right not a refutation of their ideas.
One might point out that their is always more than one side to an issue even if one particular side seems unthinkable to some people. That does not mean that other people can’t consider it a legitimate point of view. Unless all sides of an issue are rationally debated and evaluated, it is impossible to draw an intelligent conclusion.
The radical right might reject your argument but at least you have presented an argument and not engaged in name-calling or character assassination.
September 17th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
The author of €œAmerican Haters€ is just as guilty of ad hominen arguments as the radical right. Refering to necons as people who love war, lack compassion, use the bible to denounce others and really do not love their country is an attack on the values and character of the radical right not a refutation of their ideas.
Well, not ad hominem attacks. I named no names. This post is slightly different from most of my posts in that it doesn’t use the intellectual argument in quite the same manner. It is more akin to a literary essay in that it tries to tap the emotional and spiritual aspects of this debate from a liberal/progressive angle.
September 17th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
With all due respect to this “radical right,” they are, after all, fascists. Any problems with that? Am I being insensitive?
September 17th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
“America is not a young country.” William Burroughs said that somewhere. America isn’t a young country anymore. It’s a middle-aged, senile bully, yelling at kids on its lawn and threatening to kick its neighbors’ asses. I wish it were the country my grandfather fought for in the second World War, but it’s not.
September 17th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
Unless all sides of an issue are rationally debated and evaluated, it is impossible to draw an intelligent conclusion.
With the neocons, there has never been any rational debate. They do not debate. They just talk with forked tongs and kill the poor. Ask a Jew in a concentration camp to debate the virtues of the Nazi Party?
Anyway, I can discuss things, or even argue things, but I do not debate people.