Reason Magazine

Print|Email

What's the Last Refuge of an Unpatriotic Scoundrel?

| June 7, 2009

President Calvin Coolidge and Osage Nation representatives at Capt. Wilton Parmenter's Medal of Honor ceremony.Now that the Democrats control everything in Washington except the Redskins I watch only FOX News, so I've learned that President Obama ends every speech with a rousing "Death to America!"

I'd welcome a textual analysis to the contrary, but I think it's fair to say Obama shows a taste for critical comments about American history and skepticism about U.S. behavior that has not been seen since the administration of Jimmy Carter. His speech in Cairo last week contained trace amounts of both, and I've learned that his Normandy address contains a satanic parody version of Ronald Reagan's "Boys of Pointe du Hoc" speech if you play it backward. Finally, I think it's within bounds to question a president's patriotism.

What I wonder is this: Does it matter whether or not a president loves his country? The office is set up along strictly rational terms, as a short-duration, limited-powers executive job. We don't expect every head of a company to love the company more than life itself, and in fact there are times when that would be a drawback. As you turkey-bowl your way through the night shift at Safeway, do you take more comfort in knowing your manager would give her life for Safeway or in knowing that she's got a good head for numbers? Same question if you have the mixed fortune to be a Safeway customer.

It's true that a country expects shows of loyalty that an employer generally doesn't -- one of which is a willingness by some citizens to put their lives at hazard. By that yardstick, merely being the president makes you a patriot: Statistically, you're more likely to survive tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan than to survive the U.S. presidency. And anyway it's a perversion of the word "service" to say a corporal carrying out orders in an active battle space and a president with a vast personal bodyguard and thrilling social life are both serving their country.

Of course, all theoretical arguments crumble before the terrible relic of Jimmy Carter. But two of Carter's longest national nightmares -- the boycott of the Olympic games and the Iran hostage rescue debacle -- were arguably results of his being too patriotic, of putting a firm national stance above other considerations.

But since there's more to making love than firm stances, I'll leave the question out there: Does it matter if a president loves the country, or loves it more or less than another president?

← Penske, the Man and His Dream | Main | New at Reason: Steve Chapman on… →

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.

Steve Smith|6.7.09 @ 12:00PM|

How was the boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics a "long national nightmare." It was wildly popular at the time, it discredited the propaganda show that the Soviets were going to put on, and it was a damned sight better thought out response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan than arming the Taliban. You may disagree with the move today, but it was hardly a "nightmare" for the Carter Presidency.

Mad Max|6.7.09 @ 12:09PM|

I think Obama loves his country (the USA).

If he didn't, he would be worse than he already is.

Patriotism is not enough, but it's better than the lack of it.

anarch|6.7.09 @ 12:20PM|

Why would he not? How could he not?

robc|6.7.09 @ 12:22PM|

Steve,

From a PR perspective, the Soviet boycott was a debacle, at least as I remember it. Especially in the athlete/fan of olympic sports community. At age 11, I had much more contact with that community than the US as a whole, so maybe it was different elsewhere.

</a|6.7.09 @ 12:22PM|

Now that the Democrats control everything in Washington except the Redskins I watch only FOX News, so I've learned that President Obama ends every speech with a rousing "Death to America!"

Does this make Obama our first cosmotarian president?

|6.7.09 @ 12:28PM|

It is one thing to have leader who's loyalty can be questioned but can get the job done, it's another to have a disloyal bumbling fool as a leader. Unfortunately the men behind the curtain aren't quite as incompetant, and may succeed at destroying our market economy.

|6.7.09 @ 12:29PM|

I think Obama loves his country (the USA).
Nice clarification at the end there! I think Obama loves his country the same way that Bender loves ladies with purses.

I don't know if loving the country makes for a better president, but I'm pretty sure that loving the principles of liberty or the rule of law defined in the constitution would make for a better president. I'm not likely to find out either way, though.

Steve Smith|6.7.09 @ 12:30PM|

I know Olympic athletes didn't like it (although some, like Dwight Stones, supported the boycott), but then again, they were the ones told to make the big sacrifice. The polls at the time showed the overall public supported the boycott, and most of the news stories about the actual Olympic games that summer portrayed the event as a debacle. Even today, the 1980 Summer Olympics are remembered, if at all, for being the ones where a white guy won the gold medal in the 100m sprint.

Jesse Walker|6.7.09 @ 12:45PM|

skepticism about U.S. behavior that has not been seen since the administration of Jimmy Carter

There's always Ronald Reagan's famous declaration that the U.S. government is the problem, not the solution. He never applied the thought to foreign policy, but in terms of patriotism there's no great difference between a wise skepticism toward Washington's interventions in energy markets and a wise skepticism toward Washington's interventions in the Middle East.

|6.7.09 @ 12:46PM|

One more national nightmare Jimmy Carter gave us: The Department of Education!

|6.7.09 @ 12:56PM|

When other people start loving their country, I start packing two small bags.

|6.7.09 @ 12:57PM|

Could someone please point out the constitutional authority for a president to prohibit travel to any foreign country by an American citizen?

I'm really torn about Jimmy Carter. He was a worthless president, but he's done a couple of decent things since then. He's also pulled a really shitty move on Israel by becoming a Hamas mouthpiece.

-jcr

alan|6.7.09 @ 1:07PM|

Nice clarification at the end there! I think Obama loves his country the same way that Bender loves ladies with purses.

In theory, a president with a deep love of his country as opposed to a glad handed politician will more likely be able to see beyond the narrow interest of the constituency that elected him and consider the general welfare of the nation as a whole.

Say, allowing GM to be gutted and purloined by the United Auto Workers union may not be in the long term interest of everyone else.

Or, nominating your personal lawyer to the Supreme Court who had little acquittance with Constitutional law may not be in the best interest of the public.

However, as I have seen little proof Obama, in spite of less than American alpha male rhetoric, and expressing a love conditioned on the nation meeting his expectations, is not a patriot at heart, and the same can be said of Bush, it is likely that the people who attain office will never measure up to the ideal
of impartially representing that general welfare.

Something to consider that perhaps Jimmy came the closest, and was nearly universally hated for it.

alan|6.7.09 @ 1:11PM|

Nice clarification at the end there! I think Obama loves his country the same way that Bender loves ladies with purses.

Funny thing, I was just going to compliment you on a good jab at Obama, but got distracted when
the idea for the rant hit me.

Nice one there.

|6.7.09 @ 1:21PM|

What does loving your country mean? Loving Uncle Sam? Loving purple mountains' majesties? I personally hate my country's government, a la Uncle Sam, and find anyone who loves it (him?) to be repulsive.

"I accept any rules you think you need for yourself. I will continue to live by my own."

Tacos mmm...|6.7.09 @ 1:32PM|

As libertarians, we're the first on the bus when it comes to "show[ing] a taste for critical comments about American history and skepticism about U.S. behavior."

I see the point you're trying to make, but you're not basing it on much. An active criticism of policy past and present is vital to representative government. All Obama is proving is that the electorate picking him was fed up with something.

Mike M.|6.7.09 @ 1:33PM|

Obama loves America the way that John Wayne Gacy loved children.

hmm|6.7.09 @ 1:34PM|

It isn't a love of the country. It's a love of the idea. And it isn't the love of the country. It's the love of the men and women who share your idea, even if you disagree with other ideas of theirs.

Criticism, past and present, of how things are done is fine and needed. Doing so in public with relation to a culture that defines such an action as weak is not good. The executive branch is the front line on foreign relations. Acting weak and admitting mistakes in some cultures is not the way to go.

hmm|6.7.09 @ 1:35PM|

I should add that doesn't mean you need to invade or take up arms against every country full of brown guys on the planet.

David|6.7.09 @ 1:50PM|

I don't expect the President to love the country. I do expect the President to honor the Constitution and act in the best interest of US citizens. This is why I'm perpetually disappointed.

|6.7.09 @ 2:01PM|

I'll leave the question out there: Does it matter if a president loves the country, or loves it more or less than another president?

This is what I have come to believe:

The President is, and ought to be treated as, no more exhalted or noble than any other stiff who is hired to do a job *you* don't want to have to do yourself, like pumping out your own septic tank.

This morning, I made the mistake of channel-surfing over to MSNBC for thirty seconds, as they swooned over the Presidential Imperial Itinerary. They make the old JFK-mania days seem like the height of indifference.

Elemenope|6.7.09 @ 2:07PM|

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.

|6.7.09 @ 2:12PM|

I would gladly settle for a competent technocrat who no more "loves" the country than he would "love" any other complex and malfunctioning system which he has been hired to repair.

|6.7.09 @ 2:15PM|

This article is a canard. You can be critical of American policy and still love the country. You can be critical of American policy because you love the country. This Fox News jingoistic crap reminds me of those few horrible years when you were called an unpatriotic bastard for questioning the Iraq war. Or when those idiots on that very channel went after Ron Paul because he dared to stray from the simple minded/black and white analysis of the war on terror. Patriotism that is all-feeling and unthinking is lazy and devalues the great tradition of dissent and philosophical rigor upon which this country is based on.

ed|6.7.09 @ 2:25PM|

Could someone please point out the constitutional authority for a president to prohibit travel to any foreign country by an American citizen?

Carter had no authority whatsoever to unilaterally "boycott" the '80 Summer Games in Moscow. He applied heavy-handed political pressure to the U.S. Olympic Team, and they acquiesced. Just as in American foreign trade policy, the preliminary groundwork, long-term planning, capital investments, relationship-building, hopes and dreams of countless individuals--both domestic and foreign--may be dashed at any time by the whims of Congress and the President. Aided and abetted by a collaborative press, the movement becomes irresistible, a fait accompli.

BakedPenguin|6.7.09 @ 2:30PM|

This morning, I made the mistake of channel-surfing over to MSNBC for thirty seconds, as they swooned over the Presidential Imperial Itinerary.



One of the MSM channels had a "special" on Rahm Emmanuel. About how he really, really didn't want all that power (no, I'm not making that up), about what a great guy he is, what a "powerhouse" - always on the move, blah blah. I watched a little less than 2 minutes before becoming physically ill.

|6.7.09 @ 2:47PM|

Most communist spies 'loved' America, albeit a nonexistent communist utopian America that had yet to be created.

Similar Obama, like most left-wingers, loves the America he imagines. The America that actually exists, and has existed, gets in the way of his fantasies, though it is a useful and satisfying hate-object. I.e., he loves America as an abstraction, and vehicle for his political and ideological program. Though short-term exceptions will be often be made in cases of Democratic rule and policies. Of course, 10-20 years later, to the extent they aren't still useful to defend politically, those policies will mostly be the new hate-object for the next round.

ed|6.7.09 @ 2:47PM|

I watched a little less than 2 minutes before becoming physically ill.

How about Brian Williams' fawning fluffer-tour of the White House? I gagged after 36 seconds.
And what's with Williams' mind-of-their-own eyebrows? Is he a marionette's puppet?
I couldn't detect the strings. Maybe they're using a green screen.

|6.7.09 @ 2:51PM|

It isn't a love of the country. It's a love of the idea. And it isn't the love of the country. It's the love of the men and women who share your idea, even if you disagree with other ideas of theirs."

Then it's not patriotism. It's love of an idea, perhaps even at the expense of country. NTTAWT (depending on the country).

People dress up causes in fancy notions of patriotism because they realize how alluring and attractive it is. Most ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries were fractured by nationalism - as will most in the 21st century - unfortunately.

|6.7.09 @ 2:52PM|

I've yet to meet The Chosen One in person. Since I can't peer deep into his soul remotely, I really can't conclusiverly state whether he's trying to serve the country he loves or is just a self-serving egotist.*

I'm also unable to discern his inner beliefs on religion.

If Obama ever invites me for coffee, I'll do the mind scan thingee and get back to you.

* A self-serving egotist may overreach, have his/her head firmly planted between their butt cheeks, be unable to admit error and too ready to make decisions about things they're totally ignorant of, but they'll try to succeed. Nobody wants history to regard them as a failure.

the innominate one|6.7.09 @ 2:56PM|

But since there's more to making love than firm stances...

If your firm stance lasts longer than 8 hours, or becomes painful, contact your physician.

|6.7.09 @ 3:06PM|

There are advantages to a podesteria, but I don't know whether such a system would work for a great power.

BakedPenguin|6.7.09 @ 3:07PM|

How about Brian Williams' fawning fluffer-tour of the White House?



Might have been the same thing, I came in during the middle. "Fawning" might be a somewhat tame adjective for the love letter I saw.

|6.7.09 @ 3:18PM|

Speaking of MSNBC who names their fucking kid "Contessa?" Maybe they should have named her brother, if she had one, the Count or the Kaiser or the like.

Shannon Love|6.7.09 @ 3:23PM|

What I wonder is this: Does it matter whether or not a president loves his country? The office is set up along strictly rational terms, as a short-duration, limited-powers executive job. We don't expect every head of a company to love the company more than life itself, and in fact there are times when that would be a drawback.

That is a thought provoking question. Upon consideration, I think it is necessary that the President have a strong enough emotional bond to the country that he is willing to put its interest over his own, even unto to death.

The President isn't a CEO, he's primarily a soldier. Not to put to fine a point on it but the role of the executive is to execute both metaphorically and literally. The executive enforces the laws internally by maintaining the internal force monopoly and protects from external intrusion by commanding overt military force. More grimly, since the early 60's the President has held the sole authority to launch a planet wrecking nuclear attack.

It's best that the President has to have an emotional tie to the country such that he will think first of its benefit before wielding the enormous power at his command. He must not be quick nor to slow. He must be willing to sacrifice personally in order to serve the nation's interest. Good models for this would be FDR's secret and illegal war against Nazi Germany prior to Pearl Harbor or Eisenhower's willingness to let Kennedy portray him as an doddering old fool asleep at the switch so that he could secretly fight communism cheaply and effectively.

Unfortunately, the Presidency tends to draw narcissistic personality types who can seldom differentiate what is good for them from what is good for the country. Even so, it's better to have someone with a genuine emotional commitment than someone who wants the jobs just for the power and status.

Publicly held companies have to struggle constantly to keep hired executives from running the company into the ground to earn short term benefit for themselves. Beyond the division of powers, a President's emotional commitment is really the only safe guard we have against that happening on a national scale.

ed|6.7.09 @ 3:30PM|

"Fawning" might be a somewhat tame adjective

So you felt no tingle in your leg, BP? Political bias in the press is out in the open now. Everybody admits it. But Williams began his obsequious fluff piece on the defensive, stating that it was a long-standing "tradition" at NBC to present these tours to a presumably grateful citizenry. It's true that NBC's Bush Tour was respectful enough, but one senses from the lefty press that Obama is different, that His is The True Path, the Shining Light. And I think they truly believe it.

Elemenope|6.7.09 @ 3:44PM|

I'm personally curious at what point idle character assassination became anything more than grist for the bottom-feeders at NRO.

LarryA|6.7.09 @ 4:04PM|

As you turkey-bowl your way through the night shift at Safeway, do you take more comfort in knowing your manager would give her life for Safeway or in knowing that she's got a good head for numbers? Same question if you have the mixed fortune to be a Safeway customer.

What would really make me sweat is a manager that believes Safeway should be an organic, local-source, vegan, farmer's collective.

|6.7.09 @ 4:38PM|

What would really make me sweat is a manager that believes Safeway should be an organic, local-source, vegan, farmer's collective.

And had the power to force that business model on every grocery store in the state.

24AheadDotCom|6.7.09 @ 4:46PM|

I cast doubt on Barack Obama's patriotism seven months ago; unlike some others I actually had data points to back it up.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs delivered through sockpuppets, thereby conceding my points and showing the cowardly, childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

|6.7.09 @ 5:12PM|

Oh, I suspect Obama genuinely considers himself a patriot who loves his country. He may have even genuinely thought, when he took the oath of office, that his actions would defend and protect the Constitution. He probably still thinks all these things are true.

Is this denial or delusion? Or both? It certainly isn't patriotism, at least as I define it, which is an abiding interest in upholding the Constitution as written, and defending the individual rights of each citizen, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere, against the incessant attempts by the government and allied special interests to infringe upon those rights.

|6.7.09 @ 5:16PM|

7838, LoneWacko.

zoltan|6.7.09 @ 5:20PM|

It certainly isn't patriotism, at least as I define it, which is an abiding interest in upholding the Constitution as written, and defending the individual rights of each citizen, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere, against the incessant attempts by the government and allied special interests to infringe upon those rights.


That makes the number of presidents who were patriots like, one.

Elemenope|6.7.09 @ 5:28PM|

Stay classy, LW.

Elemenope|6.7.09 @ 5:31PM|

That makes the number of presidents who were patriots, like, one zero.

Which just goes to show, just cause it's writ, doesn't make it useful.

|6.7.09 @ 5:42PM|

Cavanaugh's Safeway metaphor is lame. The fact is that it's hard to stand up and defend something you don't love or believe in, isn't it? OHB loves OHB. No country needed.

|6.7.09 @ 6:04PM|

Patriotism is crap.

EJM|6.7.09 @ 6:11PM|

Cavanaugh's Safeway metaphor is lame.

Might a better metaphor involve (Safeway-owned) reply to this

SIV|6.7.09 @ 6:21PM|

"Bush nostalgia"is right around the corner.

Forty-Two|6.7.09 @ 6:47PM|

LoneWacko sat back from his keyboard, laced his fingers behind his head, and allowed himself a grim smile of satisfaction. His new postscript was sending the libertards into an impotent frenzy.

He grabbed an Oreo and crammed it into his mouth as a reward for his preemptive cleverness.

Fools! No longer would they tease him for his small manhood, his trans-sexuality, his Dodge Omni, and his home in Mommy's basement.

LoneWacko stood and turned to the full-length mirror on the wall. He brushed the cookie crumbs from his chest, and tucked his genitalia between his legs. "Would you fuck me?" he asked his reflection. "I'd fuck me. I'd fuck me hard."

|6.7.09 @ 7:04PM|

We should not have a president who is blindly patriotic. That is just as bad as hating the country because he is not able to see faults and fix problems then.

However, patriotism is an important part of being president because a patriotic president is more likely to have the nation's best interest at heart. Granted, that doesn't mean that he will always go through with the right things, but at least the person in charge is not actively trying to sabotage the nation.

Patriotism should not be the qualifying factor, but it should play a part in the presidency. Besides, being the manager at Safeway is not the same as being the president. You don't get a job at Safeway to make Safeway better, you do it to pay the rent. You shouldn't be getting into politics for money (though it does happen), a politician's motivation should be bettering the country.

BlueBook|6.7.09 @ 7:35PM|

It wouldn't fix everything, but having some monetary incentives to protect and improve the nation might be helpful. Like tying the President's pay (and future pension) directly to the GDP.

MNG|6.7.09 @ 8:10PM|

"He's also pulled a really shitty move on Israel by becoming a Hamas mouthpiece."

Bullshit hyperbole. Everything I've read by Carter on the subject is peppered with denunciations of the type of thuggery Hamas is involved in and as opposed to Hamas, which calls for the utter destruction of Israel (and in some cases Jews in general) Carter does not fail to call for the safety and security of Israel and its citizens. He's critical of Israel though, but that's not being a Hamas parroter, but just how the entire world outside right-wing sections of the U.S. feel.

MNG|6.7.09 @ 8:15PM|

The whole thrust of this post is a false dilemma; what's better a President who can be critical of past US actions or one who loves his country? This assumes that one can't do both.

Al Franken has said that a conservative loves his country the way a little boy loves his mommy: he thinks they are perfect and wants to fight anyone who says anything remotely to the contrary. A liberal loves his country the way an adult loves his mommy: realizing that she is a human being with some faults. How true...

MNG|6.7.09 @ 8:17PM|

forty-two at 6:47: hilarious.

Dodge Omni indeed...

|6.7.09 @ 8:36PM|

It's obvious that Obama does love his country. By which I mean, the US federal government.
He LOOOOOOVES the government. In fact, he loves it so much, he wants to shower it with power and money.

Elemenope|6.7.09 @ 8:54PM|

Al Franken has said that a conservative loves his country the way a little boy loves his mommy: he thinks they are perfect and wants to fight anyone who says anything remotely to the contrary. A liberal loves his country the way an adult loves his mommy: realizing that she is a human being with some faults.

For all his flaws, Franken occasionally comes up with a gem; I've actually used this one before.

On the "mother" scale, Libertarians are player-haters, and their moms are hoes.

Peter|6.7.09 @ 9:18PM|

Libertarians are like teenagers who just want their mom to leave them the f#ck alone!

BlueBook|6.7.09 @ 9:28PM|

A libertarian is like an adult wondering "who the hell is this crazy lady claiming to be my mother and demanding half my money?"

robc|6.7.09 @ 9:32PM|

Al Franken has said that a conservative loves his country the way a little boy loves his mommy: he thinks they are perfect and wants to fight anyone who says anything remotely to the contrary. A liberal loves his country the way an adult loves his mommy: realizing that she is a human being with some faults. How true...

Its true in the sense of not at all. Well, the conservative one has a bit of truth. The liberal side is complete bullshit. I would make the analogy of the liberal but it would be just as much bullshit as Franken's on the conservative - a small element of truth with a stereotype built around it.

His comment is the kind of "my team good - your team bad" bullshit that when said by an elected official (which he is, I guess) should lead to an assassination, for the good of the country.

robc|6.7.09 @ 9:33PM|


A libertarian is like an adult wondering "who the hell is this crazy lady claiming to be my mother and demanding half my money?"


Thread winner!

robc|6.7.09 @ 9:35PM|

BTW, the worst question in the history of the debates was the town hall where the guy, as part of his question, compared the government to the parental role.

That mindset needs to be stricken from America. I have a Momma and she aint in DC.

8th Orbital Army|6.7.09 @ 9:55PM|

Lefties are like teenagers who upon discovering that their mom is less than perfect, concluded that she is then the worst person in the world.

"OMG, like her boss, that she like HATES, called the other day, and she like instead of being like FU!!!!!, was all like, polite and even kind of laughed at some joke he made, OMG SHE'S SUCH A PHONY I HATE HER!!!!!!!!!!!"

|6.7.09 @ 10:05PM|

I am not sure that this question is applicable in the case of Hussein.

Why?

He is not an American citizen.

There is documented proof that he became a Muslim citizen of Indonsian in the 1960s when Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship.

He has written how he went to Pakistan in 1981 when the U.S. State Department did not allow Americans to visit Pakistan and Pakistan did not allow any non-Muslims into the country unless they were diplomats.

There has never been any evidence made publicly available by Hussein that he became a U.S. citizen after 1981.

He has kept all of his pertinent personal records from the time of his birth sealed. The BC on the net is a computer generated forgery of a birth certificate that does not show the doctor or hospital's name.

This document was also available by mail order to people who had previously lived in Hawaii for any children that they gave birth to.

So your question regarding Hussein is not applicable.
--------------

Theoretically it is always better for a leader to love or at least have a passion for the organization that he/she is leading everything else being equal; i.e. talent,skill etc.

Mad Max|6.7.09 @ 10:27PM|

Now do you see why I needed to insert that clarification about Obama being a U.S. citizen?

|6.7.09 @ 10:40PM|

Hmm, I would have to guess, Ex-Dictator Bushes mansion? LOL

RT
www.online-privacy.vze.com

|6.7.09 @ 10:46PM|

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs delivered through sockpuppets, thereby conceding my points and showing the cowardly, childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.



I'll stick up for the libertarians here. Just because their responses are sockpuppetty cowardly childish anti-intellectual ad homs doesn't make you right about anything.

Abner MacGillicuddy|6.7.09 @ 10:52PM|

Wow, Jon Galt, what perfect lunacy.

Better even than Lonewhackjob.

</a|6.7.09 @ 11:44PM|

In another well-deserved slap in the face to cosmotarians and leftists everwhere Right-wing and nationalist parties gain ground in the European Parliament.

Here's hoping for change and a return to sanity soon in the US too!

|6.7.09 @ 11:56PM|

Jon Galt,
I am still waiting for Lonewhacko to explain why, in terms of ethics, a person should have to be a us citizen. If you support the notion that individual freedom is of up most importance then why shouldn't I be allowed to vote for anyone I want? Would you care to answer this question Jon Galt? I would love to hear your pearl of wisdom on the subject.

Besides, Obama's mom was a citizen, so doesn't that automatically make him one as well?
Lastly, isn't the citizen requirement always been one of the vague/quasi enforced rules. If my memory is correct wasn't Grant born in a territory that later became a state (or something like that?)? I also thought Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory...again, what makes a "citizen" has always been a floating term.

GILMORE|6.8.09 @ 12:02AM|

What Episiarch (June 7, 2009, 1:21pm) said.

What the fuck was this post really about, anyway? Taking Rush and Hannity seriously for 2 seconds?

Get a grip, Tim.

Oh, and the Economist still owns you like a highschool football coach

|6.8.09 @ 12:13AM|

As an addendum to my previous post I found out that Grant (born 1822) was born in Ohio after it joined the union (1807). However, I still stand by my point. The first 6 or 7 presidents would not have been "citizens" under the requirements that Jon Galt and LoneWacko demand.

Still waiting for one of them to answer my questions.....

|6.8.09 @ 12:14AM|

Al Franken has said that a conservative loves his country the way a little boy loves his mommy: he thinks they are perfect and wants to fight anyone who says anything remotely to the contrary. A liberal loves his country the way an adult loves his mommy: realizing that she is a human being with some faults. How true...

A liberal loves his country the way a few "adults" love their mommy -- they fuck her really hard, and because it feels good to them, they can't understand why some other people are repulsed by this sordid, twisted "love".

|6.8.09 @ 12:49AM|

A liberal loves his country the way a liberal loves his mommy. They spend years in therapy ranting to their psychologist (and anyone else who will listen), about all the emotional and spiritual abuse she inflicted on them, and purposely espose the exact opposite of her values out of a misguided sense of rebelliousness.

Rosalynn Reagan|6.8.09 @ 12:56AM|

Al Franken enables liberals to feel comfortable with their prejudices.

|6.8.09 @ 1:13AM|

So LoneWacko will be the next Stoddlemeyer?

|6.8.09 @ 1:33AM|

In FOX'S view Obama hates the "conservative" traditions, intitutions etc of the country.

I think this is somewhat true.

the problem i have is that he hates the libertarian parts of this country....or more presisly the classicly liberal parts of this country...for example as a libertarian i like that the government can't simply take GM or Chrysler or its assets and give it to what it wants to....Obama hates that part of this county and he is tearing that part to shreds....so yes it does matter if Obama loves his country in that sense.

Daedalus|6.8.09 @ 1:40AM|

I'll stick up for the libertarians here. Just because their responses are sockpuppetty cowardly childish anti-intellectual ad homs doesn't make you right about anything.

execute Pattern matching algorithm:

[sock puppetry, cowardly, childish, anti-intellectual, ad homs]

Unit under examination is unaware of the recursion and reference in regard to an independent self in this tuple.

Tony != sentient.

Elemenope|6.8.09 @ 2:41AM|

I am a prototype of a much larger system.

|6.8.09 @ 2:42AM|

If you don't know by now that Obama and his wife Worf hate America, you haven't been paying attention.

In other words, you're a clueless Obama voter.

Elemenope|6.8.09 @ 3:28AM|

It's a bad article when the crazies come out to praise it.

Anonymous|6.8.09 @ 3:53AM|

It's a bad article when the crazies come out to praise it.



I loved the straw man, but I eventually had to leave him because he had no brain.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.8.09 @ 4:55AM|

Did you set him on fire when you left?

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.8.09 @ 4:57AM|

Does it matter if a president loves the country, or loves it more or less than another president?

Define "love".

I for one love the Middle East. It's all those crazy idiots throwing bricks and bombs and shooting at each other that I just can't stand.

KarlN|6.8.09 @ 5:54AM|

That article is so great!.. So realistic…I learn a lot, as a human being we do our own life .But aside from that breaking news did you know that the American auto industry is in dire straits, and there is an initiative for automakers to make vehicles with better mileage. Part of the quest for better mileage is new auto policies, and the bar is set at an industry average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. It is expected to drive up prices, and therefore the size of personal loans for new cars. The average car gets 25 mpg. The average is computed by taking cars and also trucks into account, and this raises the bar to 39 mpg for a car and 30 mpg for a truck, which means we all will need bigger installment loans in the quest for better mileage.

syllogist anarch|6.8.09 @ 6:36AM|

Obama hearts Obama, and therefore so must you.

Fluffy|6.8.09 @ 8:06AM|

Acting weak and admitting mistakes in some cultures is not the way to go.

So what?

The only question that has any importance whatsoever is whether Obama's statements were true.

If they were true, the issue of whether or not Obama "loves his country" does not arise.

The United States either did, or did not, sponosor a coup in Iran in 1953. It's a question of historical fact. You either admit it, or not, based on your relationship to reality. If you're a fucking liar, you deny it. If you're not a fucking liar, you admit it.

The United States either did, or did not, offer sanctuary to a mass murdering dictator in 1979.

I can admit to these things without it impacting the question of whether I love the "country" or not because Eisenhower and Dulles weren't the "country", and Jimmy Carter wasn't the "country".

Obama is a statist douchebag, and you might be able to use his domestic policies to prove to me that he doesn't love what I consider the "country", but you can't use his Cairo speech to do that. The admissions in the Cairo speech are either true or not true. If they are true, the national honor demands that we admit that they are true. And if "some cultures" would consider that "acting weak" I love my own country and culture to say Who Gives A Fuck About Those Cultures?

MNG|6.8.09 @ 8:10AM|

It's funny to see the libertarians here go ape-shit over the Franken line. Certainly libertarians are MORE critical of their country with the "whoa is me look where our nation is heading, we've never had a good President and a "real" market and "true" liberty and the stupid masses keep turning out for idiot number 1, 2 3, etc.". It's the conservatives who brook no criticism of their nation (when they do it's always a cabal of hijacking elites and not the "real America" that deserves criticism)

MNG|6.8.09 @ 8:25AM|

Can I remind libertarians that this country just was not created to be a libertarian nation. In the Constitution there is no protection of freedom of contract. Property is fair game as long as just compensation is paid and due process if followed. Commerce can be broadly regulated. The only condition on taxing and spending is that it be in the general welfare or for the common defense...Etc.

Anonymous|6.8.09 @ 8:36AM|

Commerce can be broadly regulated.



That's why it took a fascist court to declare "interstate commerce" to mean the exact opposite!

robc|6.8.09 @ 8:51AM|

In the Constitution there is no protection of freedom of contract.

9th amendment.

Xeones|6.8.09 @ 8:55AM|

Obama and his wife Worf

Holy shit, dude.

MNG|6.8.09 @ 8:59AM|

"The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

That's pretty broad. And of course your interstate commerce jab is meaningless, since intrastate commerce got no Constitutional protections from state government regulation...

Yawn

robc|6.8.09 @ 8:59AM|

The only condition on taxing and spending is that it be in the general welfare or for the common defense...Etc.

Not true, it can only be on the items specified in (primarily) Article 1, Section 8.

There would have been no need for the long list under the comdef/genwel line if that was sufficient.

Fluffy|6.8.09 @ 9:03AM|

The only condition on taxing and spending is that it be in the general welfare or for the common defense...

That's false. The "general welfare" reasoning is bootstrapping by courts seeking to rationalize state power, nothing more and nothing less.

The preamble reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



The most important words in the preamble are "in order".

The preamble says, "We have certain goals we wish to achieve, and in order to attain those goals we're creating a government with certain powers."

The only plausible grammatical reading of the preamble is that the powers granted in the Articles that follow were specifically chosen because they were seen as the best ones to promote the "general welfare" and the other outlined goals. Any reading of the preamble that assumes that additional powers can be assumed because they might also promote the "general welfare" is absurd on its face and just another example of the way the courts have been willing to betray the Constitution in order to allow the advance of statism.

robc|6.8.09 @ 9:03AM|

That's pretty broad.

Not broad enough to extend to pot growing in someone's house for personal use. And yet....

robc|6.8.09 @ 9:04AM|

Fluffy,

To be fair to MNG's misreading, the general welfare clause reappears in article 1, section 8, line 1.

Fluffy|6.8.09 @ 9:10AM|

That's pretty broad. And of course your interstate commerce jab is meaningless, since intrastate commerce got no Constitutional protections from state government regulation...

Actually, I would freely grant that the Constitution gives the Federal government the right to regulate the passage of goods and services between states and over the national border.

Many of the permitting and regulating powers the Federal government has assumed, however, either don't involve the actual movement of goods and services over such borders, or pretty plainly violate Article 1, Section 9's prohibition on the granting of titles.

Fluffy|6.8.09 @ 9:13AM|

To be fair to MNG's misreading, the general welfare clause reappears in article 1, section 8, line 1.

Yes, but it just repeats the usage.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



"The Congress has the power to collect whatever taxes it needs to collect to allow it to execute all these nice powers we have given it, as long as it imposes those taxes in a uniform way."

Peter|6.8.09 @ 9:15AM|

"Obama and his wife Worf"

This. Is. Awesome.

As for the article, I don't think it matters if a President in their first term loves the country or not because they are just running for reelection 24/7 for 4 years. The second term is where it really matters, without love for the country (or with blind love) a President can really screw stuff up.

MNG|6.8.09 @ 9:16AM|

"The Congress has the power to collect whatever taxes it needs to collect to allow it to execute all these nice powers we have given it, as long as it imposes those taxes in a uniform way"

BS fluffy, it literally says that it can collect taxes to spend as long as it is for the common defence or general welfare.

<a/|6.8.09 @ 9:17AM|

That's pretty broad. And of course your interstate commerce jab is meaningless, since intrastate commerce got no Constitutional protections from state government regulation...

You really are a moron, aren't you?

The constitution is not a list of things the federal government may not do, it is a list of things it may do.

If a power isn't explicitly granted, the government doesn't have it.

Further, you will note that the words "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" are note a blank check, they are followed by a very specific list of things the government may do in pursuit of those ends.

MNG|6.8.09 @ 9:17AM|

It can lay taxes in order to pay debts and provide for the common defence or general welfare. Your paraphrase is wishful thinking.

MNG|6.8.09 @ 9:19AM|

#
You must be the moron, because as robc has mentioned I'm talking not about the preamble but the specific power to lay taxes to pay for debt and the common defence or general welfare.

And another one of the things Congress "may do" is to broadly regulate all foriegn and interstate commerce. That's hardly libertarian.

Fluffy|6.8.09 @ 9:24AM|

BS fluffy, it literally says that it can collect taxes to spend as long as it is for the common defence or general welfare.

No, it doesn't.

Actually, even a cursory review of the discussions surrounding this clause at the time of the Constitution's enactment would show you that the real reason the words "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" are even included [since they are redundant] was to sneak the word "debts" in there. A chief goal of the Federalists was to get the new government to pay off government debts, some of which dated back to the Revolutionary War. They were afraid the new government would consider itself a new entity and disown existing debts. This section of the article is establishing the taxation power and making sure that everyone knows that it applies to old debts as well as new government activities. It's not creating an open-ended Congressional power to do whatever it wants as long as it costs tax money to do it.

robc|6.8.09 @ 9:25AM|

MNG,

because as robc has mentioned I'm talking not about the preamble but the specific power to lay taxes to pay for debt and the common defence or general welfare.

But as I already pointed out, the Article 8 usage is still limited to the further list of things in article 8.

It must be "for the common defense and general welfare"*1 AND "on the list below"*2.

ComDef/GenWel is a necessary but not sufficient condition for any spending.

*1 quoting the con
*2 quoting me

robc|6.8.09 @ 9:28AM|

MNG,

No one is making the argument that the constituion is libertarian. I know if I were making the list of allowed spending in Section 8, it would be much shorter.

A strict following of section 8 is still much bigger government than a libertarian one, although much closer to a minarchists dream than our current government.

But that is not the same thing as saying the constitution is libertarian. It has libertarian aspects, but it isnt libertarian in its totality.

Fluffy|6.8.09 @ 9:29AM|

It can lay taxes in order to pay debts and provide for the common defence or general welfare. Your paraphrase is wishful thinking.

For your reading to make sense, we'd have to assume that the rest of Article 1 was included for literally no reason at all.

robc|6.8.09 @ 9:32AM|

For your reading to make sense, we'd have to assume that the rest of Article 1 was included for literally no reason at all.

Before MNG makes his counter-argument, see my "necessary but not sufficient" argument. That allows for the preamble/A1S1L1 to have meaning.

robc|6.8.09 @ 9:33AM|

A1S8L1

|6.8.09 @ 9:50AM|

No one is making the argument that the constituion is libertarian.

A national government that adhered to the Constitution as written would be a hell of a lot more libertarian than what we have now.

And, I will reinforce the point that the general welfare clause is not an independent grant of authority. It is a limitation on the power to tax - taxes can be laid only to support expenditures that benefit the general welfare, and not expenditures that may be within the enumerated powers but do not benefit the general welfare. IOW, taxing/spending to benefit the general welfare is "necessary but not sufficient."

Jake Witmer|6.8.09 @ 9:55AM|

A few thoughts on "Patriotism" and Obama.

Obama's presidency is a good opportunity for cosmotarians (or anarchists acting on political action for a limited amount of their time, as a change of pace from actual civil disobedience, or other more radical tactics) to manipulate policy on a few fronts:
1) immigration
2) drug policy
3) jury rights

#3 was included there, simply because at any given time, a concerted focus on jury rights and procedural law by the libertarian community has the greatest chance to move us toward a significantly more libertarian society. (No other subject effects every other subject as much as jury trials. Jury trials are the primary remaining impediment to state punishment.) Moreover, since even most libertarians are ignorant of jury rights at a deep level, the general public is nearly completely ignorant that the subject even exists. Therefore, the subject has not taken a strong anti-freedom stance on jury rights, as of yet.

The path is then clear: in the domain of "individual issues" we should push hard for an elimination of the border walls, and a reduction in obstacles to travel. (At the highest level, we should pressure the Obama admin for a redress of grievances on this subject, found here: http://www.papersplease.org )

As far as drug rights, there is a combined effort underway to press the issue in Texas to repeal the drug laws via informed jury nullification of law. (This effort is just beginning, but it will soon grow exponentially.) The two websites most useful to this coming movement are: http://www.kopbusters.com and http://www.electbarrycooper.com

As far as economic freedom, Obama is against it. Antagonism towards Obama should be directed at his economic policies. Keeping that in mind, the gains from opposition are less to be had than the gains from cooperation, subversion, and slight redirection of existing efforts.

As a footnote to the prior point, there is one place where Obama's "momentum" (the hordes of misguided Obamatons) could be directed in an intelligent manner, on economic policy. The continual "educational comparison" of the Federal Reserve to slavery. Ron Paul touched on this, but in a half-hearted and unemotional way. (He lacked the passion and fire of a young man, and came off as intellecual and detached for Obamatons to pick up on his message. He also referred to "Austrian economics" a lot, which the public was unfamiliar with, and hence ignored.)

But the best argument against the Fed (the underlying cause of the "housing bust" and all economic instability) is that the Fed = Plantation Slavery. In that regard, I have reached a lot of black Obama supporters by pointing to a parallel in Frederick Douglass's "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave".

Douglass's slavery didn't involve beatings, after the point at which he stood up to the "slave breaker". The slave breaker failed to sell him down the river to a harsher existence, largely because he was a profitable "resource" as a skilled worker, and because of blind luck. So Douglass had it pretty good --especially as a ship caulker, in Maryland--, in comparison to those slaves who were more enslaved. He could travel freely, find his own work, and keep a portion of his earnings.

Just like we can, now that we all work for the Federal Reserve.

If you make the "Plantation Scrip" comparison to Federal Reserve notes, and you have about 15 minutes or a half hour to explain your position fully, you can often times flip a switch in an Obamaton. Obamatons don't understand economics, or they wouldn't have supported Obama, after reading "The Audacity of (Chicago Machine-Style Politics called) Hope".

But many of them do disagree with slavery.

If you can show them how slavery is economic servitude, more than it is whippings and racism, you can often create someone who is anti-system from someone who previously supported the system.

In this way, it looks like the Federal Reserve Masters really screwed up. Because in America, they make a lot of money off of keeping blacks in a separate legal system, via prejudicial enactment of universal prohibition laws. This means that blacks are always ready to rebel at a more emotional level than whites are.

So, of course, I naturally still favor decreasing the economic focus of libertarianism, and increasing the social tolerance and equality (under the law) focus of libertarianism. The best way to defeat Obama socialism is to agree with it and redefine it, since Obamatons are terrible with definitions (or they wouldn't be Obamatons).

So when you hear an Obamaton arguing against the rich, agree with them, but then make a distinction: (I'm not against someone who's rich if they got their money through hard work, but I am against people who are connected politically who have laws that prevent us from competing with them. I'm against the born privilege of the central bankers, and their control of congress.)

In this last way, I am promoting the "agorist" or market anarchist view of "class warfare", without their prohibition on political involvement.

I hope this was interesting to someone, somewhere.

-Jake

|6.8.09 @ 10:25AM|

BS fluffy, it literally says that it can collect taxes to spend as long as it is for the common defence or general welfare.

Of course, this reading renders the list of enumerated power superfluous.

Kreel Sarloo|6.8.09 @ 10:54AM|

Its interesting how many people think the "general welfare clause" authorizes a welfare state.

What it really means, of course, is that in addition to spending being restricted to the enumerated powers, it also had to be for the general welfare. In other words, even if spending was on something authorized, it couldn't benefit just one individual person, group or faction.

The operative word is general not welfare.

That said, the CoTUS does allow for considerably more sweeping government power that most libertarians are comfortable with.

Zeb|6.8.09 @ 11:06AM|

The US has done a lot of shitty things historically and I think that some more acknowledgment of that would be a good thing. Before we start making resolutions about Turkish genocide against Armenians, we should probably acknowledge our own (far more successful) genocide against American Indians.

Jake_Witmer|6.8.09 @ 11:08AM|

Part of my argument is simply recognizing that many people are totally superficial, and attempting to direct their superficiality in a constructive direction. If you can get ten people to an anti-Fed Rally holding signs that say "End the Fed" and wearing gadsden flag shirts, then it makes it less likely that the police will be able to successfully prosecute the guy wearing the gadsden flag shirt and holding the sign who organized the whole thing. Basically, I advocate bringing non-libertarians into the libertarian movement, because they are there for the beer and the camaraderie, and they serve a useful purpose: white noise generation, votes, passive support, meme transfer (they are the wires/transer media, we are the servers).

LOL. A lot of people on this board are familiar with Murray Rothbard's "For a New Liberty". In the final chapter of the revised edition, Rothbard talks about strategy. But he doesn't go into detail about tactics, rather saying: removing the existing power base from power is the domain of the tactician, and it changes with the times.

Well, tactics are where the LP and the libertarian movement fall grossly short (at least for most of the prior 37 years). In one area, we are starting to ramp up: media access.
("Freedom Watch", bureaucrash, freetalk live, anarchme.ning, freedomain radio, the internet in general, kopbusters.com, youtube, etc...)
Specifically, we fail in the areas of traditional political organizing (and not because we lack the ability: we lack the interest in doing it right, with feedback, and systematically using metrics to gauge our success. The Wyoming Free State project is headed in the right direction, with the political portions described in Boston T. Party's book: "Molon Labe")

Primarily though, libertarians fail to talk to non-libertarians in situations where talking to them matters. Moreover, they fail to call forth libertarian sympathies in times/places where those sympathies would do some good. Specifically:
1) courthouses - educating incoming jurors
2) college campuses - setting up campus groups and showing educational videos, and teaching college libertarians how to thoroughly walk political districts, and have an effect there. (by using email signup sheets, and maintaining individual voter information in databases)

Opposition to the libertarian movement excels in these areas. Typically, libertarians have alternate interests, and can't be bothered. In that way, they are like slaves who can't be bothered to learn to read and write.

Luckily, Frederick Douglass learned to read and write, and once he had learned to do that, he realized he could forge a permission paper to travel, which he then used to escape to freedom.

Systematic interaction with the system is necessary, and once you have interacted with the weakest portions of the system, you then understand how to defeat the system.

Nowhere is the whip of the slaveowner more obviously displayed than on college campuses and courthouses. Nowhere is free speech more restricted than in these two locations ( campuses: http://www.thefire.org http://www.shadowuniv.com and courthouses: http://www.votefrankturney.com

Bo Darville|6.8.09 @ 11:31AM|

I bet Obama roots against the Americans in the Olympics.

Kreel Sarloo|6.8.09 @ 11:33AM|

Zeb @ 11:06am

America's failings, both with respect to the treatment of Indian as well as the sordid history of slavery and the Jim Crow laws, have been subject to some of the most open and extensive discussions and national soul searching ever. The like of it is rarely seen in other countries.

People are sent to prison for long terms for bringing up the Armenian genocide in Turkey.

|6.8.09 @ 12:07PM|

"America sucks because" doesn't work, so Osama leads with "too often..."

JB|6.8.09 @ 3:09PM|

Who cares if he loves or hates America? His actions speak louder than his words or thoughts. He is destroying this country; he is more dangerous than Al Queda. Did they quadruple the largest deficit in one year? Nope.

|6.8.09 @ 10:04PM|

MNG,
Do you really think that the government can do whatever ever it wants to promote the general welfare?

If so, why even bothering enumerating specific powers? EVERYTHING could be considered the general welfare. if the framers meant to give congress the power to do WHATEVER THEY WANT, they would not have bothered with the rest of the document.

Leave a Comment

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:


(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2012, Reason Magazine