Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on November 19, 2006, 05:45:42 pm
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc
Remember when everyone was scared that Bush might re-instate the draft, and when this prospect was a major talking-point against the GOP? Well, guess what, now some Democrats want to start drafting people to boost troop levels. I feel sorry for America. You have two parties who are trying to out-hawk each other. I guess this is the fabled spirit of bipartisanship...except it's unity for war and more war.
"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.
Has anyone bothered to tell him that's he's supposed to be against the war?
-
I could be way off, but this seems like a calculated move to make the war even less popular. That quote almost makes it sound as though he's trying to paint the war's supporters into an uncomfortable corner. I can't imagine it would be particularly effective, but that's what it looks like.
-
The original move to bring back the draft was sponsered by the Dems too; this is nothing new. It's a scare tactic, nothing more.
-
I could be way off, but this seems like a calculated move to make the war even less popular. That quote almost makes it sound as though he's trying to paint the war's supporters into an uncomfortable corner. I can't imagine it would be particularly effective, but that's what it looks like.
It's pretty much that.
1. Politicians don't want a draft, it would be complete suicide, because
2. Civilians don't want the draft for obvious reasons.
3. Military doesn't want a draft because they trust in volunteer force.
It's a scare tactic and reverse psychology at it's finest.
-
hehe... Well let me play devil's advocate and say it might just get passed, with a majority of Democrats in the house and the senate now. Funny how some of these war-hating Democrats will come around to bite you in the ass huh.
Dems: Pull out of Iraq now! De-fund the war now! US Military soldiers are murderers! *insert your favorite excuse here*
Rangel: Institute the draft! Here's a bill! Put more people in the war!
Real tactful.. oh yes, lets just do the opposite of what your leaders of your party want to do. Intelligence? I think not.
-
What the hell?
Oh, right. Nevermind, Charles Rangel's just a nut. If this goes anywhere, Democrats can pretty much kiss 2008 goodbye.
The original move to bring back the draft was sponsered by the Dems too; this is nothing new. It's a scare tactic, nothing more.
So, after a hard-fought campaign resulting in many very narrow victories, the Dems think they can continue to act like ****ing pricks.
Amazing.
-
There is very little different between the two parties. They have slightly differing platforms and bases of power but they both have equal numbers of far out crazies to both left and right.
-
Political parties will be the destruction of modern day government.
-
I'd say he's just scare-mongering. Using the idea of conscription as an electric prod to remind people that war isn't something that happens to other people, as it could be you that might be called up to fight. His agenda is to prevent people from undertaking or supporting wars that really don't need to be started or supported, and talking about conscription is a sure way to keep people wondering if its really worth the fight.
-
What the hell?
Oh, right. Nevermind, Charles Rangel's just a nut. If this goes anywhere, Democrats can pretty much kiss 2008 goodbye.
The original move to bring back the draft was sponsered by the Dems too; this is nothing new. It's a scare tactic, nothing more.
So, after a hard-fought campaign resulting in many very narrow victories, the Dems think they can continue to act like ****ing pricks.
Amazing.
Not all are, but thats pretty much what they are in general. Rangel thinks he knows whats good for our young people, he says?
I mean, give me a break! This is the party that calls our soldiers murderers, rapists and torturers, AND wants to institute a draft? At least with the Republicans in power, we had some sort of normalcy....
-
Not all are, but thats pretty much what they are in general. Rangel thinks he knows whats good for our young people, he says?
I mean, give me a break! This is the party that calls our soldiers murderers, rapists and torturers, AND wants to institute a draft? At least with the Republicans in power, we had some sort of normalcy....
Nobody calls the soldiers murderers, rapists, or torturers, and I don't know where you're getting that. And, as has been stated in more than one post in this thread, Rangel isn't blindly contradicting himself; he's making a point, which is that if the more fortunate in our society had to worry about their children being sent off, perhaps we wouldn't be so hasty to enter wars like twenty-dollar poker games.
-
Kerry has on multiple occasions, Murtha has used it as a basis for his arguements against the war in Iraq. The media itself has shined the spotlight upon one individual who actually did rape and murder innocent Iraqi's, and you KNOW that they absolutely were dying for such a story. How about the mother who lost her son in Iraq, that wack-job Cindy Sheehan? The media gives her a pass each and every time she opens her mouth! The media rarely covers anything GOOD that happens over there, because the whole complex wants the public to think that it's a bad thing. Freedom of the press? More like the wills of the people who own the Media, of those most are against the war for ludicrous reasons.
And, IMO, that's a ****ty point to make. Threatening the entire youth of America just cause we entered a war he opposes? If he's trying to psych-out the public with a bill like this, it's an underhanded way to do it. Just as I said before, it's just funny how the Dems will turn around and backstab (actually, **** on) their fellow americans. Rangel isn't contridicting himself, yes, but it's the entire Democrat party who's contridicting itself. They're split down the middle, the Blue-dog democrats who lean towards staying the course in Iraq, to the real threats to stability and peace, such as Rangel, Murtha, and McGovern.
-
Perhaps we shouldn't go down this road, again. We've all heard your
rants opinions on the politics and 'liberal media bias', and frankly most of us don't really care. Let's just keep on the subject, rather than getting into another pissing match.
-
Kerry has on multiple occasions, Murtha has used it as a basis for his arguements against the war in Iraq. The media itself has shined the spotlight upon one individual who actually did rape and murder innocent Iraqi's, and you KNOW that they absolutely were dying for such a story. How about the mother who lost her son in Iraq, that wack-job Cindy Sheehan? The media gives her a pass each and every time she opens her mouth! The media rarely covers anything GOOD that happens over there, because the whole complex wants the public to think that it's a bad thing. Freedom of the press? More like the wills of the people who own the Media, of those most are against the war for ludicrous reasons.
All you're doing is implying is that the act of reporting atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers is tantamount to insulting the entire military. You've given nothing to which I can concretely respond.
And, IMO, that's a ****ty point to make. Threatening the entire youth of America just cause we entered a war he opposes? If he's trying to psych-out the public with a bill like this, it's an underhanded way to do it. Just as I said before, it's just funny how the Dems will turn around and backstab (actually, **** on) their fellow americans. Rangel isn't contridicting himself, yes, but it's the entire Democrat party who's contridicting itself. They're split down the middle, the Blue-dog democrats who lean towards staying the course in Iraq, to the real threats to stability and peace, such as Rangel, Murtha, and McGovern.
Why is this underhanded if you support the war? That's his point. How can you support a war, but be unwilling to help if the government needs to fill the ranks? Most people in the middle and upper classes who supported the war didn't have to come to terms with this, because their children weren't the ones going. His point in suggesting a draft is to make them think about it. Don't get me wrong; I oppose what he's doing, but I categorically oppose any war that has the slightest potential for involving me, so my conscience is clear.
-
Bunch of whiners... The country is at war. What happened to patriotism? The cold fact is that US is in deep ****. Politicians will pay for in a couple of years, I'm sure. The military has already paid for it, along with their friends and families. Now its up to the rest of the nation to do their part. The american people brought this on themselves, yay democracy.
My people have fought on their own soil against an alien nation. I guess that's why draft really doesn't evoke strong emotions in me. Bottom line is that yanks should suck it up. No more happy consumers life with big cars and greasy burgers. You wan't that oil, then go get it yourself.
(Disclaimer: I have previously stated that I have nothing against the average US citizen. That still is my stance. But I can't help but enjoy the irony. I forsee great things in the future.)
-
Eh, thanks, that was helpful. But may I remind you that a lot of us didn't want this war, and that Mr. Rangel knows just as well as everyone else that this bill can't pass.
-
What? It hasn't even passed yet? I should read those articles more carefully...
Damn it. Nothing has changed.
-
You're right, I won't go down this road anymore, because any time anyone shows a shred of patriotism, or just because they have Republican ideals, they get blasted. To this day, I've never seen anyone seriously critique a Democrat on thier position. Rangel wants to introduce something which will inject more troops into a war that no one wants, and he's defended, not criticized. Bet if a Republican proposed the bill, everyone would be *****ing this exact arguement, putting more troops into a war they do not want. Talk about the double-standard, again. To hell with it. It's not worth my time.
-
Rangel wants to introduce something which will inject more troops into a war that no one wants, and he's defended, not criticized.
That's because you're doing the same thing here as you were doing over that Kerry thing a few weeks ago; you're taking this by face value alone and making snap judgements without actually thinking about what's going on. It's been stated several times already what this guy's probable motives are, and it's painfully obvious that they are not as sinister as your purport.
Patriotism is all well and good, but blind support is not patriotism, and is in fact detrimental to the very values you claim to support.
-
Patriotism is all well and good
Not really. Patriotism = anti-thought. :(
-
Patriotism = National loyalty. Patriotism as propagated by US Gov as of late = Anti-thought.
-
What is a country? Is a country good or bad? Can a country do good or bad things? Is a country a government, or a people? Are these good or bad? What happens when a government and a people conflict? Are they the same country? Is one good and one bad? One really the country and the other false pretenders?
Patriotism paints over the reality of a country, comprised of multiple groups and identities and values and beliefs, with a monolithic entity that somehow is capable of being 'good' and 'worthy.'
It's not fair to say that America invaded Iraq, and that is a bad thing, and America is therefore bad (hey, my example, my morals), because it's more complicated than that. A specific administration called for the invasion of Iraq, and various groups of people had different reactions ranging from support to opposition. Making a moral judgement for each of these individual groups would be incredibly difficult and time-consuming, but that doesn't make it okay to be lazy and simply say 'America did it.'
The same applies to the traditional fodder of patriotism. So Britain won the war against the Nazis? Okay, except that Britain then isn't the same as Britain now, or Britain 300 years ago, or Britain in late antiquity. And Britain isn't some pug-faced boxer wearing Union Jack shorts and bopping Adolf right on the nose, but a complex series of peoples with varying amounts of power and influence on the actions of the nation of Britain.
Reducing the incredible complexity and variety of a nation to a simple 'big-country-man' is silly; very, very silly. Yet that is what patriotism does. It disallows nuances and distinctions through love for the mother-country. It discourages further investigation into the reality of a country. It's anti-thought.
-
What is a country? Is a country good or bad? Can a country do good or bad things? Is a country a government, or a people? Are these good or bad? What happens when a government and a people conflict? Are they the same country? Is one good and one bad? One really the country and the other false pretenders?
Coutry is people, goverment serves and represents both the country and the people. Being good or bad is irrelevant since everyone can be bad or good. And bad and good are relative.
Patriotism is more than hailing the flag. It can be loyalty to your coutrymen, homeland, culture and heritage. Relative to those, country and goverment are only superficial concepts since they can chance but land and people tend to stick. But one may still believe in them and extend patriotism in to them. Patriots often stand for people and land. If a goverment represents those people and their land, a patriot may defend that too.
-
In 2010 (when I'm 19) i'm voting Democratic Socialist... I like their ideas and it makes a message that we need to fix our own society before trying to fix other societies...
Democrats and Republicans can duke it out... eventually one or both will be surpassed by a third party. One or two elections where the third party pulls in a good number of votes (like 10% at least) and both parties decline steadily.
It seems to me that the Republicans are more anti-war then the Democrats are...
-
So once you think you are getting better with your new choice of government representatives, you get f*cked in the arse. :lol:
-
Quite basically...
the democrats are :pimp:-ing somethin strong... they dont kno to deliver what they advertise... sorta like giong to wal mart to buy a pair of shoes and you get a blender instead.
-
What is a country? Is a country good or bad? Can a country do good or bad things? Is a country a government, or a people? Are these good or bad? What happens when a government and a people conflict? Are they the same country? Is one good and one bad? One really the country and the other false pretenders?
Yet a country must exist in some form. Indeed they do exist, or your taxes are going to support the equivalent of the Tooth Fairy. Are they a perfect system? No. Neither is any other system. Are they a good system? Probably, they seem to work or there wouldn't be so many that have been around for so long.
There is patriotism and there is patriotism. Paying your taxes is, believe it or not, a patriotic act, since you are supporting your country with them. Voting, assuming your country allows you to, is also patriotic. Is that, too, anti-thought? Is believing in your country's system of government, after having considered all reasonable alternatives, anti-thought? You vastly oversimplify to make your point. There is blind loyality and there is loyality with open eyes and full understanding. There are yes-men and there are members of the loyal opposition.
-
Well, while I think that trying to play mind-games with American Senators is like playing asking King Herod to run the Bethlehem playgroup, I think his other quote gives some of his intention away....
Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.
I'm still amazed he suggested it though, it's a Micheal Moore technique gone horribly horribly wrong.....
-
Coutry is people
What people? White people? English people? Patriotic people?
The 'people' of a country are of many different kinds and have very different wants. The 'people' of Britain can be divided and sub-divided into many different ethnicities and identities. There are the English, the Welsh, the Scottish, the Northern Irish, even the Cornish; new ethnicities, born abroad or in Britain, who range from the Polish to the Indian; people from the North and from the South, and people from London too; people from this town and that village, mountain people and coastal people; poor people in council flats, rich people in mansions and old aristocracy in crumbling palaces; old people from the Second World War, young people from the 1980s; Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics; angry young leftists and old-school Trotskyists, dynamic new conservatives and grumbling Daily Mail readers (*shudder*); grubby workmen and slick City bankers; bewildered students and confused pensioners; people who did French from Year 7 to Year 9 and people who did German; people comfortable with mobile phones and people with no idea how to use them; motorists, cyclists and pedestrians; authoritarians who want to be tough on crime and touchy-feely sissies; men and women; gays and straights; people who go on protest rallies and people who sleep in; amateur dramatists and professional thespians; people who have libraries in their studies and people who watch Big Brother; people who can get Channel 4 and people stuck with S4C; Radio 4 listeners and people who listen to local radio; rural market-farmers and urban supermarketers; people who like fish'n'chips and people who like a curry; lager-drinkers and ale-drinkers; men with beards and men without; women who shave and women who don't; vegetarians and carnivores; people who say 'thanks' when you hold the door open for you and people who don't; people on the 'Net and people on the street; people like me and people like you.
Yet a country must exist in some form.
I'm not saying that countries don't exist, or that you should not support your country; I'm saying it's not a useful concept.
Think about it. What *is* a country? It's a fragmented collection of independent, conflicting identities presided over by some supreme armed power who all live on the same plot of land for economic reasons. In that understanding, what does 'America' actually mean? What does Britain, or France, or China, or Ghana, or Venezuala or any other country actually consist of? What is it that you're actually supporting?
-
Coutry is people
What people? White people? English people? Patriotic people?
The people are the naturalized citizens of the country and those who have been born within the territorial restraints of that country.
It's not a difficult question; yes, you can divide it among hundreds of thousands of different ethnicities, religions, sects, and other factions, but the people as a whole fit that definition nicely.
Yet a country must exist in some form.
I'm not saying that countries don't exist, or that you should not support your country; I'm saying it's not a useful concept.
Think about it. What *is* a country? It's a fragmented collection of independent, conflicting identities presided over by some supreme armed power who all live on the same plot of land for economic reasons. In that understanding, what does 'America' actually mean? What does Britain, or France, or China, or Ghana, or Venezuala or any other country actually consist of? What is it that you're actually supporting?
This is a bit more of an abstract question. Everyone can define what their country is to themselves; to many people, it's the government, to others the ideals that it has come to stand for (the US for example, would stand for democracy and capitalism, among other things), or even to a certain religion/ethnicity. Religion/ethnicity is much less common in developed European and Western Hemisphere nations (except in the US, where God has become synonymous with the Republican Party), but much more so in areas such as the Middle East.
-
It's not a difficult question; yes, you can divide it among hundreds of thousands of different ethnicities, religions, sects, and other factions, but the people as a whole fit that definition nicely.
Except that they don't. Reducing it simply to citizens of the country doesn't account for the variety of beliefs and desires you can find in a given population.
See: say Britain is thinking about war with Iran. On the one hand, the right-wingers and imperialists are all for showing Johnny Foreigner what-for. On the other hand, the left-wingers and Muslims have knee-jerked their way into bleating opposition and insults. Also, for the sake of argument, let's say nobody's neutral on the issue, although in real life there certainly would be some.
If the people of Britain consist of both pro- and anti-war enthusiasts, and if patriotism is about loving and supporting your people... then which side is a British patriot to choose? Who really counts as 'the people' of Britain? The one who can throw enough patriotic rhetoric at the other first?
Also, while we're here, I don't buy the 'they're both patriotic as they're both participating in the democracy etc.' Democracy is not a property of a country; you can't say that it's patriotic to support democracy because democracy doesn't belong to your country, it's an independent political ideology, common across much, if not all, of the West. Maybe if you were an Ancient Greek you could say democracy belonged to your country, or city-state to be precise, but otherwise it's like saying wanting to protect the enviroment makes you Swiss because enviromental protection is part of the Swiss constitution.
-
It's not a difficult question; yes, you can divide it among hundreds of thousands of different ethnicities, religions, sects, and other factions, but the people as a whole fit that definition nicely.
Except that they don't. Reducing it simply to citizens of the country doesn't account for the variety of beliefs and desires you can find in a given population.
See: say Britain is thinking about war with Iran. On the one hand, the right-wingers and imperialists are all for showing Johnny Foreigner what-for. On the other hand, the left-wingers and Muslims have knee-jerked their way into bleating opposition and insults. Also, for the sake of argument, let's say nobody's neutral on the issue, although in real life there certainly would be some.
If the people of Britain consist of both pro- and anti-war enthusiasts, and if patriotism is about loving and supporting your people... then which side is a British patriot to choose? Who really counts as 'the people' of Britain? The one who can throw enough patriotic rhetoric at the other first?
There's a difference between supporting the people of your country and just supporting the people you choose to agree with. Many members of the US military I've spoken to have said that they enlisted to defend the US and its people, no matter how extreme or unappreciative some may be.
As Edward Abbey once said, "A true patriot must be willing to take up arms against his own government." As Mefustae said earlier, a true patriot isn't the same as a blind nationalist. What you have with your example are two groups that believe they know what is right for their country; one advocates war with Iran, the other not. The beauty of factions, especially when applied here, is they counteract each other's ambitions and allow for more exchange of ideas before such a critical decision is reached.
Also, while we're here, I don't buy the 'they're both patriotic as they're both participating in the democracy etc.' Democracy is not a property of a country; you can't say that it's patriotic to support democracy because democracy doesn't belong to your country, it's an independent political ideology, common across much, if not all, of the West. Maybe if you were an Ancient Greek you could say democracy belonged to your country, or city-state to be precise, but otherwise it's like saying wanting to protect the enviroment makes you Swiss because enviromental protection is part of the Swiss constitution.
First of all, very few countries in the West operate under a democracy as the Ancient Greeks did. The Greek political system of direct democracy differs greatly from the US's representative democracy or the UK's parliamentary democracy. In direct democracy, citizens participated in every decision-making process. The US and other Western nations practicing democracy today operate through representatives, as it is nearly impossible for all of America's 300+ million people to voice their opinion on every issue.
So, if Americans wanted to say that they stand for democracy, they would say that they stand for a sort of liberal, representative democracy. The British could say they stand for parliamentary democracy, but it all boils down to the fact that each country can adopt a political system as its own, as they are unique in their own ways.
And what isn't patriotic about participating in democracy? How is my saying "they're both participating in the government, and therefore being patriotic about it," invalid? To some extent, most things a citizen can do to be patriotic involves political participation; voting, petitioning the government, and addressing concerns to representatives are all avenues a citizen can take to alter a government they feel is not doing what is right for their country.
-
It's funny, because the thread title says "So...now the Democrats want to bring back the draft." while only one democrat proposed this. ::)
-
Yet a country must exist in some form.
I'm not saying that countries don't exist, or that you should not support your country; I'm saying it's not a useful concept.
Think about it. What *is* a country? It's a fragmented collection of independent, conflicting identities presided over by some supreme armed power who all live on the same plot of land for economic reasons. In that understanding, what does 'America' actually mean? What does Britain, or France, or China, or Ghana, or Venezuala or any other country actually consist of? What is it that you're actually supporting?
At the risk of sounding like...screw it, I don't know what to describe it as.
I could point out that you have of course already defined a country, and one need only tinker with the definition to apply to it different examples.
But more basically a country is a concept, or set thereof. Some countries spell them out. Some don't. Some aren't honest about it. There is more unifying factor than you give credit for. The type varies, so does the degree to which it unifies. A common culture, religion, langauge, condition, idea. Pick one. Pick several, or others I haven't named.
-
And what isn't patriotic about participating in democracy? How is my saying "they're both participating in the government, and therefore being patriotic about it," invalid? To some extent, most things a citizen can do to be patriotic involves political participation; voting, petitioning the government, and addressing concerns to representatives are all avenues a citizen can take to alter a government they feel is not doing what is right for their country.
If patriotism is about 'the people,' where does participation in government come into it? I don't think that it does, but then again I don't buy into the whole democracy shebang anyway. Surely participation in government is about supporting a political viewpoint? It sounds dangerously like you're making patriotism something meaningless; by casting a vote, you're somehow 'helping your country,' regardless of whether you give a damn about it in the first place. Also, what about patriots of countries which aren't democratic? How are they patriots, if they are at all?
I think we're deviating somewhat from my original point, which is that patriotism clouds terms rather than illuminates them. A patriot loves and supports his country, but that country consists of many contradictory things. I think you are wrong when you say the country is the people, since, as you also say, those people are represented by the government; ergo, the government is the country as well. Those terms, too, contain much detail that simply calling them 'the people' or 'the government' leaves out a hell of a lot.
You can go into tremendous detail, picking out all the nuances of country and people and government, and the problem with patriotism is that it precludes that by reducing the thousands of identities, centuries of history and millions of acts into 'America,' or 'Britain.' It's equivalent to having one word for politics - you can no longer discuss the difference and make distinctions between communism and socialism, between economic and social freedom, between the religious right and the economic Republicans, so on and so forth because they're all called 'politics'. That's why it's anti-thought.
There is more unifying factor than you give credit for.
Yes, this is true. But the failure of patriotism is not accounting for the disunifying factor. That's why it's anti-thought: the language of patriotism precludes further distinction.
-
I think an important point upon which Blaise Russel's argument is predicated is that patriotism is an emotion, not the summation of one's actions. One's actions don't constitute an emotion, they can only suggest it. I don't have to feel love for my country in order to vote, because whether or not I love the U.S., the issues that affect it still affect me. And furthermore, I can care about other people in my society without the context of our shared nationality. "America" is just a name for a historical thing. I can't find it in me to feel love for that, and I certainly couldn't die for it. That's something I can only get from the immediacy of individual people. And, at the risk of being presumptuous, I think that if more people gave patriotism a second thought, they would find that the same thing is true of themselves.
-
It's funny, because the thread title says "So...now the Democrats want to bring back the draft." while only one democrat proposed this. ::)
Don't worry, I'm sure when some republican (note: singular, not plural) posts something controversial, there will be someone at the ready to quickly post a OMG LOOK WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING NOW LOL thread.
-
From my point of view, this is like the 2004 election.
The only reason we have one, is because the other one was worse.
Democrats =? republicans
Do you want this to go wrong, or this to go wrong?
-
And what isn't patriotic about participating in democracy? How is my saying "they're both participating in the government, and therefore being patriotic about it," invalid? To some extent, most things a citizen can do to be patriotic involves political participation; voting, petitioning the government, and addressing concerns to representatives are all avenues a citizen can take to alter a government they feel is not doing what is right for their country.
If patriotism is about 'the people,' where does participation in government come into it? I don't think that it does, but then again I don't buy into the whole democracy shebang anyway. Surely participation in government is about supporting a political viewpoint? It sounds dangerously like you're making patriotism something meaningless; by casting a vote, you're somehow 'helping your country,' regardless of whether you give a damn about it in the first place. Also, what about patriots of countries which aren't democratic? How are they patriots, if they are at all?
I'm not saying participation in the government automatically or is the sole reason for making one a patriot. As you said, people can vote and not give a damn about the process (especially in compulsory service/voting nations, like Australia), and then there are those who vote and care. The latter group can be further divided down into two categories: the natural rights crowd, and the civic virtue crowd. Those who vote with their own benefit and well-being at the absolute forefront would qualify for the natural rights group. The civic virtue crowd would include those who may vote without their personal good at the forefront of their mind in order to push a candidate or group they see as being the best for their nation as a whole. There can be some gray area betwen the two, but I digress.
As for other nations where citizens aren't granted immediate political rights, the greatest patriotism they can display at the time is to push for greater rights for themselves. While it may sound somewhat selfish or opposed to the common good, patriotism also extends to seeing what is wrong in that nation's society and being willing to correct it. Again, as you said before, they could be doing this and not giving a damn about their country, but all about themselves, and, while I'm not refuting that as an option, I tend to believe that the root cause of many civil rights movements is the underlying desire for a group to be fully-recognized as citizens of a country they feel some obligation to.
I think we're deviating somewhat from my original point, which is that patriotism clouds terms rather than illuminates them. A patriot loves and supports his country, but that country consists of many contradictory things. I think you are wrong when you say the country is the people, since, as you also say, those people are represented by the government; ergo, the government is the country as well. Those terms, too, contain much detail that simply calling them 'the people' or 'the government' leaves out a hell of a lot.
I'm afraid you've lost me here, as nowhere did I say government = people. The basic principle of a democracy as seen in most European countries and the US is popular sovereignty and the consent of the people. A legitimate government cannot rule without the consent of the governed. While the people form a necessary cornerstone in democracies with regards to participation, they are in no way the same as the government. A man can be loyal to the people of his country, yet oppose the government ruling over them.
Governments change drastically; the people in Western nations have the power to alter their leadership to the point of having an entire different end of the political spectrum take power, as seen in the recent American elections. Still, the people born in the borders of a nation or otherwise naturalized and give their consent to be governed comprise the people of that nation--that never changes. The people is where the citizen's loyalty must lie, not with the government.
You can go into tremendous detail, picking out all the nuances of country and people and government, and the problem with patriotism is that it precludes that by reducing the thousands of identities, centuries of history and millions of acts into 'America,' or 'Britain.' It's equivalent to having one word for politics - you can no longer discuss the difference and make distinctions between communism and socialism, between economic and social freedom, between the religious right and the economic Republicans, so on and so forth because they're all called 'politics'. That's why it's anti-thought.
While what you say is true, in the thought that patriotism combines people of all ethnicities, philosophies, and backgrounds into one group, it is not nearly as detrimental as you make it seem. Belief in all people equal under the law is what spurs special interest groups and other citizens to fight for the rights of minorities and Guantanamo detainees. When people see the Constitution or citizenship as being their unifying factor that sets them as equals, they will show concern for those who aren't being treated as such by their government. Patriotism in this sense doesn't abolish individualism; rather, it strengthens it by promoting that all philosophies, ethncities, and beliefs are equal in the eyes of law.
[/quote]
-
Political parties will be the destruction of modern day government.