John McCain on Patriotism in Time Magazine (tip to Adler):
Patriotism means more than holding your hand over your heart during the national anthem. It means more than walking into a voting booth every two or four years and pulling a lever. Patriotism is a love and a duty, a love of country expressed in good citizenship.
Patriotism and the citizenship it requires should motivate the conduct of public officials, but it also thrives in the communal spaces where government is absent, anywhere Americans come together to govern their lives and their communities —- in families, churches, synagogues, museums, symphonies, the Little League, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Salvation Army or the VFW. They are the habits and institutions that preserve democracy. They are the ways, small and large, we come together as one country, indivisible, with freedom and justice for all. They are the responsible exercise of freedom and are indispensable to the proper functioning of a democracy. Patriotism is countless acts of love, kindness and courage that have no witness or heraldry and are especially commendable because they are unrecorded.
The patriot must not just accept, but in his or her own way protect the ideals that gave birth to our country: to stand against injustice and for the rights of all and not just one's own interests. The patriot honors the duties, the loyalties, the inspirations and the habits of mind that bind us together as Americans. . . .
And those of us who live in this time, who are the beneficiaries of their sacrifice, must do our smaller and less dangerous part to protect what they gave everything to defend, lest we lose our own love of liberty.
Love of country is another way of saying love of your fellow countrymen — a truth I learned a long time ago in a country very different from ours. Patriotism is another way of saying service to a cause greater than self-interest.
If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you are disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. I hope more Americans would consider enlisting in our armed forces. I hope more would consider running for public office or working in federal, state and local governments. But there are many public causes where your service can make our country a stronger, better one than we inherited.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Service Nation States that It Does Not Support Mandatory National Service:
- McCain's Time Magazine Essay on Patriotism Touches on Service.--
- McCain Campaign “studying options for national service.”--
- Why Mandatory National Service is Unconstitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment:
- The Mainstreaming of Forced Labor:
- Service Nation, Part III: Mandatory Community Service is a Basic Assault on Anglo-American Liberty.--
- Service Nation, Part II: The Goals of Its Leader.--
- Service Nation, Part I: Time Magazine Announces Public Service Campaign.—
The "greater than self-interest" language is actually a false dichotomy when serving a cause that includes oneself, such as one's own family, country, et al., but is of course common enough. That said, I'm not sure following this false dichotomy in the Randian direction is a fruitful course, politically or morally.
Opposing compulsion is where the most purchase can be found, and I see nothing in McCain's statement that even hints in that direction.
All the while McCainites blast Obama for not having enough face time in Baghdad like the one last Nov. where McCain, posing with dozens of unseen snipers on rooftops, Apaches circling overhead, and 200 troops in harms way for his photo op while he smilingly spouts, "These markets are just like shopping at home."
Some patriot.
Thank God Obama, in his recent trip to Iraq, did not choose to risk the troops in the Red Zone so he could pull off a Baghdad marketplace photo session.
Of the people, by the people, for the people.
The problem is either:
(a) working for the government in a capacity not enumerated in the Constitution, such as for the purpose of having one's "justice nerve" turned on.
(b) when such servitude is involuntary
True. Also, the difference is obvious, as you point out, and obvious in the plans of the two candidates.
Why is it, do you think, that some seem to think they're equivalent?
God bless.
Gee, I wonder.......
*Somebody affliated with Obama talks about national service*
the reaction here is "Obama clearly favors Rangels plan for a national draft and this is clearly unconstitutional forced labor and makes Obama nothing better than a nazi"
*McCain talks about national service*
"Obviously McCain only favors the totally voluntary kind of national service that I'm in favor of and this is obviously a good thing"
This kind of open and obvious cognitive dissonance doesn't even make you a tiny bit skeptical?
My guess is that McCain's plan is so benign that comparing O's plan to it is designed to make O's plan look not so bad.
Or, to say that, even though O's plan upsets a bunch of people, McCain wants the same thing, so that's a wash.
Perhaps because he was cleared of any wrongdoing? I guess it's taboo because lying is taboo, ordinarily.
The key points of Obama's plan appear to be increasing the size of the Peace Corps and Americorps, creating a $4000 tax credit for those who do 100 hours of public service, establishing (presumably) Department of Education guidelines for Public schools to have service hour plans, as well as changing work study requirements to involve public service type work rather than the busy work that work study students typically do.
I'm not supportive of such an initiative, but it doesn't make me "angry." Both my private religious high school and my Private College had Service Hour Requirements, and I never found it to be a terrible burden. Heck, my state bar requires a number of hours of pro-bono service or a "donation" to legal aid every year in lieu of service.
Typically schools usually even arrange their own events for service hours, they'll have a road clean up Saturday or a food bank saturday or something and that will take care of most of them for the semester.
On the other hand Rangel has a plan for a draft, that also happens to involve "service" for those who don't wish to do military service. It's been soundly defeated or tabled every time it's been introduced and will likely never pass.
The presentation here has been pretty close to saying that Obama's plan is the equivalent of Rangels, which is pretty disingenuous.
I do think you're right in that Obama and McCain have similar ideas on service, but they do also come from different places. McCain is duty and patriotism oriented, Obama's is I think more locally oriented. Whether or not they go to the same place is an issue for speculation, but I don't see so much difference between the two.
Therein lies the difference between the two.
( Oh, for the record, I support having no plan for national service )
Quote from Wikipedia, "McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981.[7] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful[12] political contributions from Keating and his associates.[13] In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln."
Sounds innocent to me...
I eagerly wait for Obama's plan's supporters to to discover that their compulsory voluntary organizations may be quite useful in uncovering anti-social behavior and other reactionary modes of thinking to the proper authorities when children report on their parents and neighbors.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.