DLCer Will Marshall’s “Valuing Patriotism” (a lecture to Dems on putting the war on terror first)

[Emit]

Please read this carefully...

Marshall’s “Valuing Patriotism”
Democratic Leadership Council

Blueprint Magazine

July 23, 2005

By Will Marshall

Since 9/11, patriotism has become the most potent “values issue” in U.S. politics. To compete in America’s heartland, Democrats must challenge Republicans’ claim to be the authentic voice of American patriotism.

The problem for Democrats is that an important part of their base—upscale white liberals—seems torn about the meaning of patriotism. Republicans are ruthlessly effective in exploiting this ambivalence. Questioning Democrats’ patriotism has been an ugly, but undeniably effective, GOP tactic from last year’s “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” campaign against John Kerry to Karl Rove’s recent canard that liberals counseled “therapy and understanding” rather than retaliation in response to al Qaeda’s attacks on America.

~snip~

The right answer to GOP jingoism, however, cannot be left-wing anti-Americanism. Of course, progressives can criticize their country and still be patriotic. Indeed, one of the highest forms of patriotism is being honest about your country’s flaws and taking responsibility for fixing them. But it is what’s in your heart that counts. Are your objections rooted in a warm and generous affection for your country, or in a curdled contempt for it? Too many Americans aren’t sure if the left is emotionally on America’s side. And that’s a big problem for Democrats.

~snip~

Intellectually, of course, it’s possible to separate Iraq and the war on terror. But as University of Maryland professor William Galston observed after the 2004 election, “President Bush succeeded in transforming the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism into questions of basic values and American national identity.” And that, Galston wrote, exposed old fissures among Democrats:

“While Republicans stood united in their belief in American exceptionalism, Democrats were badly divided, as they have been since Vietnam. President Bush was able to rally his party by sounding the trumpet of American virtue on the global stage. By contrast, John Kerry struggled to bridge the gap between Tony Blair Democrats, who agreed with the president’s principles but deplored his inept policies, and Michael Moore Democrats, who rejected, root and branch, the idea of a global fight against terrorism and for democracy.”

A recent Century Foundation study found that just one-half of Democrats say dismantling al Qaeda should be among America’s two top foreign policy goals ...

Such attitudes aren’t likely to allay voters’ doubts about Democrats’ resolve to make them safer from terrorist attacks. Neither are demands by left-wing Democrats and the anti-war group, MoveOn.org, that the United States withdraw its troops from Iraq. Rather than offering fresh fodder to Karl Rove, the party would do better to heed Sens. Joe Biden, John Kerry, Evan Bayh, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who have set an example for responsible, progressive patriotism. They have balanced blunt criticism of the Bush administration’s blunders with concrete suggestions for relieving the strain on U.S. forces in Iraq, broadening international support for the Iraqi government, and speeding up the pace of reconstruction.

~snip~

As they catalogue the administration’s many mistakes, Democrats should also attend to the other side of the balance sheet. That side shows that our forces and their allies have toppled one of the world’s most odious tyrants; upheld the principle of collective security; liberated a nation of 24 million; made possible Iraq’s hopeful experiment in representative self-government; and changed the strategic equation in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

~snip~

... Unfortunately, the Armed Forces have long been estranged from Democrats in general and liberal elites in particular. So another key task for progressive patriotism is to close the cultural gap between Democrats and the military.

~snip~

How can Democrats start healing this breach? For starters, they can speak out against colleges that ban military recruiters or the Reserved Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) from their campuses. Thirty years after the Vietnam War ended, such Ivy League campuses as Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth continue to ban ROTC. The message this sends is an offensive amalgam of class bias and anti-military prejudice: Service in the Armed Forces might be OK for dumb-ass Southerners or small-town kids with limited prospects, but it’s not a smart career move for our best and brightest. Democrats should demand an end to this disgraceful legacy of the Vietnam protest era, by denying public funding to schools that deny the Armed Forces access to their campuses ...

~snip~

Democrats ought to insist on a major expansion of the military, by as many as 100,000 troops. Some of these troops should be channeled into the post-conflict and nation-building specialties that we have been chronically short of in Iraq: linguists, special forces, psychological operations, civil affairs, and economic reconstruction. ...

National service and shared sacrifice. ... In wartime, not everyone can fight, but everyone can find ways to sacrifice for the common cause. Bush has sent U.S. troops into battle, but he hasn’t challenged the rest of us to do our part.

~snip~

Democrats should rediscover one of their own best ideas: national service. During the last decade, the AmeriCorps program President Clinton launched has put more than 400,000 volunteers to work. ...

One way to put service on more young people’s radar screens is to replace the Selective Service System with a new National Service System. Such a system would sign up women, as well as men, and encourage them to volunteer for military or civilian service.

Another way to enlarge Ameri-Corps would be to link federal student aid to national service. Under such an arrangement, only those who agree to serve would be eligible to receive Pell Grants or to apply for subsidized student loans. ...

By putting the war on terror first, ending the party’s alienation from our military, and issuing a new call for service and sacrifice, Democrats can define a more compelling patriotism than the GOP’s chauvinist bluster.

Patriotism is the ultimate values issue. Democrats need not be embarrassed by it. And they ought not to let Republicans monopolize the emblems of national pride and honor. Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe. ....

http://americanfuture.net/?page_id=1824

[tularetom]

1. Wow that douchebag is really scared shitless of the "unpatriotic Dems"

bullshit. He really believes people love this fucking dumbass war.

Wonder how often he gets out into the "heartland" he claims to understand so well.

I must be a Michael Moore Democrat. Wonder of Mr. Marshall has served in the US military himself? I have.

[MisterP]

2. how cute, a Bushreagan Dem. think he'll go to the convention and yell

"kike!" or just call us McCarthyites?

[Emit]

8. Bushreagan Dem, lol

fitting

[whatchamacallit]

3. Can't beat them? BECOME THEM!

Is this shit for real? The DLC can **** my ****!

[Emit]

10. It's for real and these are the folks Clinton is beholden to

and I'm hoping Obama continues to distance himself from the DLCers, but, sadly, I remain skeptical that he will.

[tularetom]

4. I've checked Will marshall's bio. He doesn't seem to have served

either in any branch of the military or in the National service corps he touts so enthusiastically. He seems to have spent most of his career whoring himself out to various corporate interests, politicians and think tanks. He really does not appear to be someone you'd want your kids to emulate.

Here's another interesting opinion of Mr Marshall:
http://www.nypress.com/17/48/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

[ShortnFiery]

9. Too funny = stereotypes. I'm a left of center military veteran democrat.

I love my country but it's not blind love but a warmth and commitment.

I don't need to wrap myself up in the flag to KNOW that I'm patriotic.

My dad, like Obama, would "stand at attention" during the Pledge of Allegiance. I never specifically asked my dad why he didn't do the customary "hand over the heart" but since he was battlefield commissioned in Italy during WWII, I'm 100% sure it had nothing to do with lack of patriotism. I theorize that the military always stands at "attention" or "salutes" during ceremonies but it's just my guess. Alas he has passed so I can't get this answer. :(

After 9/11 I saw all sorts of upper middle class right wingers feign "patriotism" and I was not impressed. Those who serve in the military, especially in combat zones, are truly but not the ONLY Patriotic Americans.

It's IMO, a big lie that the military OVERALL "lives for war." Most soldiers love their training and their buddies, but no one who is basically humane truly wishes to be tested "real time." Senior Officers and NCOs can get war mongering because SENIORS are not the ones who go out "on patrol" and are nurturing their career (lifer) status.

Thank goodness that although I'm proud to have served my country in the military, I've been able to convince my daughter NOT to sign up during these seemingly warmongering times.

If we get a democrat in the WH who will VALUE our men and women in the military, I would rethink my views but not now.

I hope the above conveys that, although we are in the minority, there are LIBERALS who have served on Active Duty Some of us even have made careers out of military service. After all, the military is supposed to be apolitical.

[tularetom]

11. Me too although I served somewhat reluctantly

since I was conscripted into the service of Uncle sam, being at the time a marginally employed and aimless young slack jawed yokel.

But I did learn one thing that I've observed over the over 40 years since - grunts in the military share the same opinions of the competence of their management that grunts in any civilian organization do - namely that those in charge have their heads up their asses and We (the grunts) could do a far better job of running things.

The unfortunate Mr Will Marshall appears to be an overeducated fool who never had the opportunity to learn this.

[ContinentalOp]

5. Hmm, I was wondering who this republican idiot was...

and wikipedia came to the rescue:

"He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion."

[Emit]

7. Ya, except he sports a D behind his name.

Pfft. Dems my ass.

[Emit]

6. Shortly after this piece was written, Hillary Clinton assumed the leadership

... of a DLC-sponsored initiative aimed at developing a more positive policy agenda for the party.

~snip~

The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkeley, Calif., which called Clinton's speech "truly disappointing" and said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party

~snip~

Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, said Clinton had badly miscalculated the current politics inside the Democratic Party and argued that she could pay a price for her DLC association if she runs for president in 2008.

"There has been an activist resurgence in the Democratic Party in recent years, and Hillary risks ensuring that there's a candidate to her left appealing to those activists who don't much like the DLC," he said.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson tried to deflect the criticism. "Her point was simply to say that the goals and issues that divide us are less consequential than are the ones we share in common, and that unity is needed in the face of our shared challenge," Wolfson said.

~snip~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601645.html

[woo me with science]

12. This part is true.

"The right answer to GOP jingoism, however, cannot be left-wing anti-Americanism. Of course, progressives can criticize their country and still be patriotic. Indeed, one of the highest forms of patriotism is being honest about your country’s flaws and taking responsibility for fixing them. But it is what’s in your heart that counts. Are your objections rooted in a warm and generous affection for your country, or in a curdled contempt for it? Too many Americans aren’t sure if the left is emotionally on America’s side. And that’s a big problem for Democrats."

Some of the policy recommendations are questionable, but that paragraph is spot on. It is entirely relevant to the election climate right now and explains why Michelle Obama is getting savaged for her remarks.

[jackson_dem]

13. Exactly and I can't believe why Obamites can't understand this

[Armstead]

19. How are Obama supporters anti-American?

[Emit]

17. Michelle Obama is getting savaged for her left-wing anti-Americanism?

Go figure.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

22. And pride and patriotism are not synonymous

Some synonyms for patriotism are chauvinism; jingoism; allegiance, constancy, devotion, faithfulness, fealty, loyalty, staunchness, steadfastness; fervency, fervidness, passion, per Websters. Nowhere is pride mentioned as a synonym.

Pride, as defined in Websters: a: inordinate self-esteem : conceit b: a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c: delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental pride>

Pride is subjective -- it necessarily depends on one's experience - it is born from experience as defined above, as reasonable or justifiable; delight or elation arising from some act.

Patriotism and loyalty to one's country is like an oath or commitment. It is a love for one's country - not pride.

Michelle Obama did not say, "For the first time in my adult life I can feel loyalty to my country. She did not say, "For the first time in my adult life I can feel patriotic." No, Michelle Obama said that for the first time in her life she felt really proud about her country. How different must Michelle's experience have been from Cindy McCain's? I can't even imagine Michelle's experience, let alone judge her. Who among us is qualified to judge Michelle Obama's pride, or lack thereof, in her country?

[Armstead]

18. That paragraph is junk

It is typical of what is so inherently wrong with the so-called centrist DLC.

First of all, he is making the same damn assumption that the GOP does, by automatically linking "the left" together as some monolithic force. It is not.

There are Democrats on the left who are extremely moderate. There are leftists who have nothing to do with the Democratic Party, and would not want to have anything to do with the Democratic Party. There are extreme leftists who "hate America." It is NOT all one monolithic group, which is how the GOP and Faux News characterize everyone on the left half of the spectrum.

Seeing Democrats engaging in the same process of marginalization and demonization of "the left" is one of the reasons the Democrats have been so weakened.

Secondly, who the hell is he to presume what is "in anyone's heart?"

I remember standing at an intersection in -3 degree winter weather to protest the rush to War on Iraq. I and most of the others standing there were average people who believe that our country was about to engage in a reckless and destructive mistake. Average people with an opinion. No more, no less.

[Emit]

21. You are channeling

John Podhoretz, the son of Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter, a second-generation neoconservative.

Second, it suggests the Obama campaign really does have its roots in New Class leftism, according to which patriotism is not only the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the first refuge as well — that America is not fundamentally good but flawed, but rather fundamentally flawed and only occasionally good. There’s something for John McCain to work with here... (This was recently posted on DU, btw)

I expect more scrutiny on DU. *sigh*

[AntiFascist]

29. This is complete bullshit...

true patriots want the criminals out of government, period! There are plenty of Independents and fiscally conservative Republicans who are feeling this way as well - its not just for leftists anymore!

[Emit]

31. Good point, AntiFascist

To adopt the GOP claim that all who criticize Bush & Co. are loony lefty liberals and aren't 'emotionally on America's side..' is as outrageous as it is just overtly enabling the GOP. It is just another tactic at silencing the dissenters, IMHO -- and it's worse because it's within our own ranks - the Trojan Horse.

[NorthernSpy]

34. actually, that's abusive paranoia...

But it is what’s in your heart that counts. Are your objections rooted in a warm and generous affection for your country, or in a curdled contempt for it? Too many Americans aren’t sure if the left is emotionally on America’s side. And that’s a big problem for Democrats."

Big Brother suffered from a similar paranoid obsession as to whether his subjects really, in their heart of hearts, loved him or not.


Think about that for a while.

[Emit]

35. !

[Emit]

14. !

[Obamaniac]

15. Fortunately, Will Marshall's days are numbered.

Let us at least celebrate that.

[Emit]

16. The DLC is a machine

it's not going away just because the torch is passed to the outside

[tekisui]

20. We need to declare the waronterra over.

It is bullshit. It has been from the beginning.

[Emit]

23. And notice Marshall's comments on Iraq

From the OP:

"... our forces and their allies have toppled one of the world’s most odious tyrants; upheld the principle of collective security; liberated a nation of 24 million; made possible Iraq’s hopeful experiment in representative self-government; and changed the strategic equation in the Arab-Israeli conflict..."

There is no apology there, or in the entire essay, no criticism about why Bush & Co. took us into Iraq from the start, no honest assessment of pre-emptiveness on Bush & Co.'s part. It's all about criticism of Bush for how he did it, not why or even whether it was appropriate. The DLC is there give a nod to Bush & Co. and to ensure the 'waronterra' will continue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. "Patriotism is the most foolish of passions, and the passion of fools." Schopenhauer

All the DLC wants is for the Democrat Party to become the Republican Party.

[bunnies]

25. heh. If you like that one, you'll LOVE this one:

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | July 22, 2005
Liberal's War
By Peter Ross Range


(snip)

Think about it: The jihadist campaign is not some generic explosion of terrorism, but rather a calculated attack on all that liberals hold dear: tolerance, diversity, women's rights, the fundamental freedoms and protections of democracy, even trade unionism. In short, liberal values. That's why the liberal left makes a profound mistake if it concedes this war to George W. Bush and the right.

(snip)

My liberal friends are quick to point out that the left's chief grievance is with the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. But what does it do for the image of the Democratic Party -- not to mention the thinking of rank and file Democrats -- when some of our most skilled commentators use a moment of unambiguous terror to first find fault with an American policy (unseating Saddam Hussein) rather than first condemning the terrorists? It's both morally wrong and politically dumb. These musings in the left-wing blogosphere may be read regularly by only a few thousand people, but they seep into the intellectual bloodstream of the Democratic Party. They once again place Democrats on the wrong side of the ultimate issue of our time: winning the war on terror.

(snip)

Perhaps most wrongheaded of all were those who used the bombings to call for an immediate, or imminent, withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. They do the liberal cause a disservice. Those who hated the war the most should be the strongest supporters of helping Iraqis get on their feet, politically and economically. And those who believe that the daily carnage in Iraq is mainly directed against the American presence in the country are simply not reading the numbers: Vastly more Iraqis are being killed than Americans. The insurgent cause is against the establishment of Iraqi democracy, not the presence of U.S. bases or troops. Just listen to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the main insurgent leader. He announced on Jan. 22 that "we have declared bitter war against the principle of democracy. ... Those who vote ... are infidels. ... If a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed ..."

What more do progressives need to know?

enjoy: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253452&kaid=127&subid=171

[Armstead]

26. Oh those damned liberals.

They screw up the Democratic Party every time.

Jeezus, it's not bad enough they opposed the Holy War in Iraq.

But they don't say the Pledge of Allegiance every time they open their mouths.

[bunnies]

28. Indeed. The DLCers are the *real* Dems.

And if we Liberals would just stop wrecking everything, the Democratic party would be way better off. Just imagine... without the Liberals the party would be so much like the GOP that it would be hard to tell the difference! wOOt! :bounce:

[Emit]

30. !

spot on :rofl:

[Avalux]

27. I'm sick of Republicans deciding the meaning of patriotism -

and idiotic 'Democrats' like him who allow it to happen. x(

[Emit]

32. And now Obama may face grilling on patriotism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4726328

[NorthernSpy]

33. Get bent, Marshall. I'm sick of having to reassure the insecure.

Needing to be told all the time that you're unsurpassably great isn't patriotism. It's insecurity, and it's very, very annoying.


Our failure to find the spine to stop pandering to this insecurity is how we got sucked into Iraq. Mass slaughter because we couldn't put our foot down on this nonsense.