“I Still Believe In My Country And Party”

[Last year we published several articles under the category “Define Your Patriotism.” In light of the NFL controversy and other major issues, such as proposed tariffs and the upcoming North Korea Summit, we felt that revisiting several articles in this category would be helpful at a time when many of us might be questioning our patriotism.] 

My first association of patriotism with myself comes from my family history of military service. All of my brothers, my sister, my uncles and aunts, grandparents and great aunts were in the Army. The vast majority served in wartime, and so did I. How I was raised undoubtedly framed how I’ve thought about my country, and I’m not afraid at all to say that I’m very, very inclined to side with my own country over the World. However, I do feel that our position gives us a responsibility to have an impact in the World. American values – freedom of expression and religion, human rights, property rights, self-determination, and the idea that those rights are worth dying for – for all people – frame how I think about my country and the World.

Related: “Patriotism Is A Dirty Word”

The last few years of politics in the street have been hard to watch, but I still believe our core ideals (though we may not always follow them) are the best in human history, and our system will ultimately bring us back to our ideals. Populism has its place in the center of a democracy, but the Bill of Rights is there to keep the majority from oppressing the minorities. An electoral college makes sure our leadership reflects both the will of all people and the importance of consensus of the different ways of life across our many states and districts. The three branches of government are there to keep any one branch of government from dominating the others, and the Bill of Rights contains the elements that keep all branches of government from ever wrestling power from our citizens. That’s the brilliance of American democracy.

I believe in promoting our values overseas, and the idea of our ideals making possible again Reagan’s idea of the “Shining City upon a Hill”. We are still the country that brought down the Soviet Union with a steady and orchestrated combination of military and economic might, and I believe the US still has a leadership role to play in the World that we should not surrender to Europe, China or a global coalition.

The daily politics of the past few years has bothered me a lot. It feels like a bulk of the country thinks about either “I want this, or I need this, so I have a right”, or “mine is mine”, or at least each side frames the other that way- very successfully. Natural rights aren’t things people have to do for you, they are things they can’t do for you. Citizens have the right to be treated equally before the courts, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether they catch happiness or fail is up to their desire, determination and ability, and failure is part of life. Collective healthcare may or may not be a good idea, but it’s a privilege and not a right that one person (regardless of their means) provides that care for another.

By the same token, far too many with means focus only on “what’s mine is mine”. The free markets of the US, the roads we drive on and the infrastructure of safety and order that predicate the wealth-creation of our country require that everyone in the US must have an opportunity to succeed and a place in society. Without that, the environment of order that makes our economy great doesn’t work. Furthermore, whether inside or outside of government, our duty to our fellow man isn’t one we can forget by pushing others away. It may be that’s not the job of the government, but if it’s not, it’s because we private citizens instead make the active effort to create that opportunity for others on our own. If you say it’s the private market’s job because the private market is more efficient (as I do believe), you are placing that responsibility for your fellow citizens holistically on your church, your private organization or on yourself. You can’t say “I already pay my taxes so I’m good” and then just fight for lower taxes.

Conservatism didn’t use to be just about saying “no.” It used to be a vision for the US that our founders’ ideals were superior – that America has a dominant place in the World- and a vision with a place for all people.   We were the ‘Party of Lincoln’ when we were the first to foster the idea that “all men were created equal” really meant all men- and then all humans. We were the ‘Party of Reagan’ when we believed in our special role with a duty to defend the World and promote democracy globally. I still believe in my country and my party, and it’s my hope that in the coming years, my patriotism will help me guide those I care about in making sure that our next evolution in conservatism is not simply the ‘Party of Me.’

How do you define your patriotism?

Subscribe for free to receive LCR perspectives. 

This article was originally published on 3 July 2017.

The Life And Times of Bowe Bergdahl

Bergdahl is going home. Getting to that answer has taken the Army more than three years – after the Obama administration traded him for five of the worst terrorists in Guantanamo. There’s a lot to unpack in this.

Working backward:

Bowe Bergdahl was a dumb kid who did dumb kid things. While that’s true, sometimes dumb kid things get you killed or land you in prison in awful places of the world – just ask Otto Warmbier who went to North Korea against all advice, was imprisoned for stealing a poster from his hotel hallway and was released by the DPRK after 17 months in his final days after what seems to have been massive brain damage from torture. Neither Bergdahl nor Warmbier deserved such consequences, but that’s beside the point – sometimes the costs of bad decisions are too much to bear. I don’t fault the military judge who decided five years in the awful place Bergdahl was locked away was enough. That military judge was making a decision based on facts and circumstances and American justice. I probably would have given prison time, but that isn’t the painful issue to me. The painful issue is that we traded to get Bergdahl back at all.

The decision to trade him back fits with President Obama’s core beliefs. They are beliefs I don’t demonize, but in this application, I deeply disagree. President Obama pardoned or commuted huge numbers of people whom he believed were US citizens who were in jail beyond the bounds of justice. This fits solidly with that tenet of justice he holds dear. It’s a good concept, and while I may not have made those commutations, the decision to do so is not outrageous and is consistent with much of his world view. The decision also fits with President Obama’s longstanding view that Guantanamo should be closed. Releasing five of the worst inmates in the entire place certainly seems to reduce the level of need on many of the other members. Again – his concept of American justice is not invalid, but in practice these people were there because short of murdering them, there seemed no other way to remove them from a world of free people those individuals were determined to kill and maim. They were not in prison to serve time, but to keep them away from those they would harm. In one stroke, the president moved closer to both of those objectives which were noble in concept, consistent with good values and extremely dangerous to the long term safety of Americans and the West.

Most of those prisoners in Guantanamo were captured at great risk to American lives. By all rights, they should have died on the battlefield in Afghanistan rather than being captured. That we went to such pains to take them alive was due to an over-arching need for information about the attacks they had just unleashed on the US and a sense of fear that they had more already in planning. In trying to learn what we could from them, we did a number of things America says it doesn’t believe in – including torture and indefinite extra-judicial detention. That was misguided and horribly unfortunate, but we are at much greater risk for their release.

Also at issue is the precedent we set by trading so many high profile people for such a marginalized soldier – captured by his own criminal act of desertion for reasons that still seem either frivolous or simply disingenuous. Such actions show that the way for terrorists to engineer further releases is through further capture of American citizens. In the coming years we will likely re-learn what the hostage negotiators of the 60s and 70s learned about negotiating with terrorists: it breeds more negotiation with more terrorists.

Bowe Bergdahl didn’t deserve another term in a US prison, but he did deserve to spend whatever time was due with the Taliban until a US force could find him and mount a real rescue operation that kept those evil men we had separated from society in a place where they could do no more harm. It wasn’t the prison Bergdahl deserved, but it was the right and rational consequence of his circumstances. The “Taliban Five” are already largely back plotting death and destruction to the West – and they are among the few free, living people alive who remain from the pre-9/11 days who are really, really good and experienced at doing just that.

Additionally, we’ve set the precedent that any American traveling abroad is a living, breathing ticket to release the worst terrorists ever to speak the words “Death to America.” President Obama did truly act in a manner that’s consistent with most of what we value as Americans in making what I’m sure was a hard choice. Unfortunately for us, I fear no good deed will go unpunished.