Parsing Patriotism

Defining the bounds of acceptable political rhetoric is child’s play.

National Journal
Ron Fournier
Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
Feb. 21, 2015, 9:57 a.m.

Child-de­vel­op­ment ex­perts cau­tion par­ents to choose their words care­fully when ad­mon­ish­ing their kids. Say your teen­ager is mis­be­hav­ing in school and bul­ly­ing class­mates. You could say, “You’re an ass” or “You’re act­ing like an ass.” Both in­sults are hurt­ful, but the lat­ter will do less harm.

Vil­i­fy the be­ha­vi­or, ex­perts say, not the child.

Now let’s ex­tend that ana­logy to an­oth­er group of kids — Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat­ic politi­cians and the pun­dits who feed off them (yes, in­clud­ing me).

In 2008, Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate Barack Obama cri­ti­cized Pres­id­ent George W. Bush for adding $4 tril­lion to the U.S. debt. “That’s ir­re­spons­ible,” he said. “That’s un­pat­ri­ot­ic.”

By fo­cus­ing on the ac­tion rather than Bush as a per­son, Obama’s for­mu­la­tion is the rough equi­val­ent to a moth­er telling her child, “You’re act­ing like an ass.”

Sim­il­arly, I cri­ti­cized Re­pub­lic­ans in late 2013 for root­ing for the Af­ford­able Care Act to fail, adding on MS­N­BC’S “Daily Run­down”: “And I frankly find that un­pat­ri­ot­ic. The law’s been passed. We should all be do­ing what we can to make it work.”

I called the act of un­der­min­ing a law passed by Con­gress and signed by the pres­id­ent un­pat­ri­ot­ic. I did not call Re­pub­lic­ans un­pat­ri­ot­ic.

Still, that’s not what many con­ser­vat­ives heard. My dis­tinc­tion made no dif­fer­ence to people who now think I ques­tioned their pat­ri­ot­ism.

I re­gret that. I need to be more care­ful with my words.

Go back to our par­ent­ing ana­logy. “Over time, chil­dren be­come who we tell them they are, so we have to be very care­ful with our words,” says Steph­en Gray Wal­lace, au­thor and school psy­cho­lo­gist who runs the Cen­ter for Ad­oles­cent Re­search and Edu­ca­tion (CARE). “It’s one thing to identi­fy the be­ha­vi­or. It’s an­oth­er to then ascribe your dis­pleas­ure to a per­son.”

“So you might say to a kid, ‘I don’t think you’re work­ing as hard as you could.’ That’s very dif­fer­ent than, ‘You’re lazy.’”

Wal­lace says the polit­ic­al ana­logue on Obama­care would be for me to ar­gue that Amer­ica is at its best when we share re­spons­ib­il­ity for mak­ing laws work, even when we dis­agree with them. Obama might have spoken to the cross-gen­er­a­tion­al value of fisc­al san­ity rather than call Bush’s ac­tions un­pat­ri­ot­ic.

In polit­ics and life, cer­tain words in­flame and should be avoided. Like “lazy” and “ass” for a par­ent — and “un­pat­ri­ot­ic” for a pres­id­ent or pun­dit.

An­oth­er loaded word is “lie.” I’ve used it on oc­ca­sion to de­scribe what I be­lieve to be a know­ing de­cep­tion by mem­bers of the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion to jus­ti­fy war in Ir­aq. I don’t think Bush him­self lied, but Judge Laurence H. Sil­ber­man re­cently quoted me mak­ing that ac­cus­a­tion on FOX News.

I could quibble with the quote. I could say I mis­s­poke. I could make the dis­tinc­tion between the Bush and his ad­min­is­tra­tion. But, again, I ask my­self: Can I choose my words more care­fully? Yes.

Which brings me to Rudy Gi­uliani. The former New York may­or and hero of 9/11 has nu­mer­ous con­cerns about the dir­ec­tion Obama has taken the coun­try. Wheth­er you agree with Gi­uliani or not, no fair-minded per­son would deny him the right to strongly cri­ti­cize Obama’s stance to­ward Is­lam­ic ex­trem­ism and his policies to fight IS­IS.

Gi­uliani could have said Obama’s ac­tions and policies are en­dan­ger­ing Amer­ica or, step­ping it up a notch, “The pres­id­ent’s policies to­ward IS­IS are un­pat­ri­ot­ic.”

In­stead, he made it harshly per­son­al. He jumped the rails: “I do not be­lieve the pres­id­ent loves Amer­ica.”

Nobody knows what’s in an­oth­er per­son’s heart. The pre­sump­tion is that every Amer­ic­an loves this coun­try un­less it can be proved oth­er­wise — and there is a high bar for es­tab­lish­ing treas­on.

The worst you can say about Obama is he’s a bad pres­id­ent. Go ahead, say it. But don’t say he’s a bad Amer­ic­an un­less you’re will­ing to be judged just as shal­lowly, even dan­ger­ously, by people who don’t share your ideo­logy.

Ask any par­ent: Our cul­ture is coarsen­ing. Ci­vil­ity is erod­ing. The In­ter­net eas­ily re­in­forces and amp­li­fies hate­ful lan­guage. Nobody wants to live in a coun­try where the sin­gu­lar meas­ure of pat­ri­ot­ism is that you agree with me.

Gi­uliani isn’t a de­plor­able man. His words were.

What We're Following See More »
CITE NEW REGULATIONS ON NON-PROFIT REPORTING
Dems on Finance Committee Get Cold Feet on IRS Nominee
2 hours ago
THE LATEST
THE QUESTION
How Much Will Trump's Military Parade Cost?
2 hours ago
THE ANSWER

About $12 million, according to an initial estimate shared with CNN.

Source:
"NOT FOR LONG," HE SAYS
Trump Lashes Out at EU for Google Fine
3 hours ago
THE LATEST
ARMS CONTROL, SYRIA WERE DISCUSSED
Russians Refer to "Verbal Agreements" with Trump
14 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Two days after President Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, Russian officials offered a string of assertions about what the two leaders had achieved. 'Important verbal agreements' were reached at the Helsinki meeting, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, told reporters in Moscow Wednesday, including preservation of the New Start and INF agreements," and cooperation in Syria.

Source:
WAS "GRUDGINGLY" CONVINCED
Trump Was Shown Proof of Russian Interference Before Inauguration
15 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election. The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation. Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login