Tuesday, July 04, 2006

A great post on patriotism

Betsy Newmark has a great July Fourth post on patriotism. She begins with a link to a Lorie Byrd post, "Some thoughts on patriotism," in which Lorie discusses the problems many Libs have with patriotism. Betsy summarizes Lorie’s post along the way providing this dumber than dirt quote from Dixie Chick Natalie Maines:

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."
Of course, the whole country doesn’t disagree with Maines. To find that out all she needs to do is spend a little time in some MSM news rooms, go to a few “speak-outs” on college campuses or just listen a little more the next time she’s at a Hollywood Gala for Hillary Clinton or John Kerry.

There’s a lot more in Betsy’s post including a graph comparing Ds, Rs and Is agree/disagree responses from 1987 through 2003 to the statement: “I am very patriotic.”

My favorite part of the post comes at the end. Betsy’s commentary is in italics; the portion of Lincoln’s speech she quotes is indented. The bold is Betsy's.

At this time of the year when we are remembering the Founders, I like to go back to what Abraham Lincoln had to say about the founding. He firmly believed that the Declaration of Independence was the crucial founding document of our nation because it established the ideals of what our country could be, not what it was, but the ideal that all free men should strive for. In a speech in June, 1857 in response to the Dred Scott decision, he laid this out so clearly.
Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites.

Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration.

I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this meant.

They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.

They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.

The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.
And that is enough for me. I love the ideal of this country and that it was founded on those principles and even though I know we fall short every day, I still love being part of a country that, unlike any other country, had that ideal as its foundation.

So do I, Betsy, and so do many others. Thanks for a great July Fourth post.

0 comments: