Views » September 12, 2008 » Web Only

Country First

By David Sirota

Let’s say that you enjoyed watching last week’s Republican National Convention on television.

Let’s say you drank in the almost uniformly white faces and the regimented revivalism, you clapped when speakers belittled Barack Obama’s work organizing impoverished communities, indeed, you cheered with Rudy Giuliani’s zinger, “Drill, baby, drill!”

Let’s further stipulate that you were not at all discomfited by the convention’s incessant “Country First” mantra that defines loyalty to America as lockstep fealty to the Republican Party.

Let’s say — for sheer argument’s sake, of course — all of this is true. What, then, of the substance? Stripping away the partisanship, passion and propaganda, what about the veracity of the claim that the GOP puts this country first?

Well, let’s just say it’s a little dicey.

On national security, the Republican Party advocates continuing to force thousands of young Americans to risk life and limb refereeing Iraq’s civil war. Though the party’s slogan hearkens back to conservatives’ “America First” isolationism, the GOP nonetheless supports spending $12 billion a month on the war — money needed at home.

Same story on economics. In 2004, the Republican White House called outsourcing “a plus.” In 2006, the Republican commander-in-chief okayed the sale of critical infrastructure to foreign dictators. And today the Republican presidential nominee is demanding more NAFTA-style trade pacts that eliminate American jobs. This, says the GOP, is putting our country first.

But who is the “country”? According to the Census Bureau, it will soon be mostly non-whites. That is, the demographic groups who the alleged “country first” party regularly disparages, whether it’s Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) yearning for a return to segregation, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) scapegoating Latinos, Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) celebrating Japanese internment, President Bush genuflecting to Bob Jones University’s white supremacists, or Ronald Reagan echoing bigoted rallying cries at the scene of Mississippi race murders.

Maybe, you insist in your post-convention fervor, I just don’t get it. Maybe “country first” really does mean refereeing foreign civil wars, spending billions overseas while cutting domestic programs, exporting jobs and bashing ethnic groups that will soon comprise the majority of the nation.

But I don’t think so. More likely, Republicans have simply taken the famous parable to heart — the one about patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels.

As a political strategy, it’s not stupid. Following the Bush-DeLay-Abramoff era, many Americans rightly think Republican politicians are scoundrels. And so those politicians are trying to make sure “this election is not about issues,” as John McCain’s campaign manager said this week, but about a hideous hypernationalism only Joe McCarthy could love. Employing flag pins, war stories and Bible-thumping social conservatism, former P.O.W. McCain and Christian fundamentalist Sarah Palin hope their red-white-and-blue phantasmagoria will hypnotize America into voting Republican.

Such desperation leads to seeming incoherence at times. For instance, when anti-war protestors at the GOP convention demanded lawmakers actually put country first by bringing the troops home, Republican delegates responded like an entranced mob of cultists, mindlessly chanting “U.S.A.”

Then again, in the Karl Rove age, every televised scene — no matter how absurd — is part of sculpting an election victory with a mallet of jingoism and a chisel of intolerance.

On the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities, the Republican convention reminds us of what Barry Goldwater suggested 44 years ago: Terrorists are not the only ones who believe extremism is “no vice.” And, as the old aphorism warns, when the most virulent extremism attacks our country, it won’t be shrouded in Islamic fatwas - it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

Sadly, the when is now. McCain is the flag, Palin is the cross — and Americans will have to decide whether we believe their zealotry puts country first.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Sirota is a great writer, but here is a point that he has not stated explicitly enough: Patriotism is another word for NATIONALISM. That whole business about “U! S! A! Num! Ber! One!” is an ugly part of our culture. Even Obama, who surely knows better, is forced to keep saying “America is the greatest country on earth” because otherwise he has no chance of getting elected.  Greatest at what?  Imperialism, I guess. Ionesco’s play “Rhinoceros” seems to be out of stock at the local bookstores, so I guess I’ll have to order a copy.

  Someday I hope to see national borders disappear. They don’t seem to have much use except as an excuse for starting wars. You and I have more in common with the workers of another country, than we have with most politicians of either country. Of course, my dream of erasing borders involves rule by us masses, not by corporate takeovers such as NAFTA and SPP.

  Posted by LeftyMathProf on Sep 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM

  David     I don’t disagree with your comments above about the
  Republicans but I am disheartened that you have come out in support of Obama knowing fully well that the Democrats,  and Obama himself, are rife with special interest money, lobbyists on staff, who back off issues such as public financing and FISA and other progressive issues.
  If you support them then to some degree you have to defend the very things one could lodge at McCain and the Republicans and justify it by virtue of saying we will vigilantly put pressure upon and have a better chance of getting what we want in an Obama Presidency.  I’m not convinced of that .  We like their (Democrats) positions better so we can justify and excuse the amount of money the Obama campaign has taken from Wall Street (whereas we’ll crucify the Republicans on it)  and somehow expect we’ll get the results we hope for,  how?  I have not made a decision yet for whom I’ll vote for and I agree with some of your pieces that I’ve read that McCain of 2000 and 2004 has lost his way while pursuing the Presidential nomination these past years but I also can’t ignore the fact though that I have seen action in his record and accomplishments in his record and bi-partisan work in his record that I do not see at the top of the Democratic ticket.  I agree with Huffington when she says Obama is really running against two McCains.

  Posted by alpaig on Sep 12, 2008 at 6:02 PM

  Alpaig, I don’t know if David reads the comments on his articles, so I’m going to take the liberty of responding for him. I think his position is similar to mine:  The Democrats are not blameless, but the Republicans are not worse. And electing Democrats will not solve our problems, but at least it will reduce the rate at which new problems are being created. Ultimately it is up to us, the Movement, to solve those problems.

  Have you read his book, THE UPRISING ? It’s a great book. Among other things it paints very clearly the love-hate relationship between the Democrats and the Movement. The Democrats say “you have no choice but to side with us, because the Republicans are even worse.” And there is at least some truth to that. But David explains it better than I have.

  Posted by LeftyMathProf on Sep 12, 2008 at 6:07 PM

  Alpaig,

    If I understand your post correctly, you are unconvinced that having Obama as president would do more to enact the social and economic reforms that Leftists support than would a McCain administration.

    I can assure you, sir, that nothing could be further from the truth.

      You base your opinion on the fact that Obama, a staunch opponent of the lobby, has allegedly compromised his integrity by accepting the financial and tactical aid of individuals that either are, or, as is more frequently the case, were at one time, involved in lobbying.
      While I fully understand why this apparent contradiction gives you pause, Obama has already responded publically to these criticisms and has largely put the matter to rest. The way I see it: yes, some of his money has come from lobbyists, but he is less beholden to them because he has so consistently rebuffed them.

      Though McCain may claim also to oppose the lobby, his positions are almost perfectly antithetical to Obama’s on the vast majority of substantive policy issues both foreign and domestic. I urge you not to let your rosy memories of the once-centrist McCain, or his periodic attempts to impersonate that spectre,  fool you: a McCain White House would be every bit as alligned with the corporate-capitalist elite as any recent Republican president before him, and would be equally disinterested in the increasingly desperate plight of America’s own working poor, to speak nothing of the world’s.

  A final word of caution:

    He is not the sheep in wolf’s clothing that you imagine him to be. Quite the opposite, in fact, and that, as is always the case with such loathsome creatures, is exactly what makes him so dangerous.

  Posted by joshuao on Sep 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM

  I agree with LeftyMathProf that Obama has been forced into a role where he has no choice but to embrace the mindless patriotic prattle that has come to define US politics.  Its unfortunate that even progressive politicians have to play by the neo-con rule book in order to advance past GO.  I think its safe to say that placing a great deal of hope in any politician to change anything in this country is a frustrating waste of time.

  Frankly, I’m coming to a point where I’m ready to let this ship sink so we can all get a fresh start, after having learned the painful lessons of our ancestors.  Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before you realize where you went wrong, and that’s exactly where the republicans are taking us.  I’m not advocating for McCain by any means, but my feeling is that an Obama presidency will only delay the inevitable.  Am I the only one that’s thinking this? 

  Let me also qualify my statements by saying that I am in no way advocating to just sit around and do nothing.  I think there is a lot of work to be done if we hope to ever get it right.  We should all stay involved and informed… just don’t be too depressed when USA1.0 falls apart.  I hear USA2.0 has a lot of promise… hopefully they will have worked out all those bugs from the previous version (end cheesy software metaphor).

  Posted by diciteco on Sep 13, 2008 at 5:31 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 11 posts.

Also by David Sirota

• We Are What We Trade and How We Trade It
  Trade and globalization--when not referencing blockbuster sports transactions or raucous street protests, debates… morePosted on November 7, 2009
• TARP on Steroids
  I recall that September day like it was yesterday--the explosion so stunning, so… morePosted on October 31, 2009
• A Party With No Punch
  Three parables for progressives and the Grand Old (Democratic) Party. Posted on October 26, 2009
• A Tale of Two Supermen
  For better or worse, our American Idiocracy has come to rely on athletes… morePosted on October 24, 2009
• Say It Ain’t Snowe
  I don't get it. I know that's the simplistic refrain of every 10-year-old,… morePosted on October 17, 2009