We've all heard humorless America-haters promote themselves by announcing, As Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
The first problem with that self-righteous bull is that Jefferson never said it. On the contrary, he warned of the dangers of political dissension carried to extremes.
The earliest traceable provenance of the slogan goes back to an obscure 1960s lefty who just made it up (long before activist-historian Howard Zinn commandeered it).
My fellow Americans, let me ask you: Were Abby Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Sen. Barack Obama's Weatherman Underground pals (who bombed their own country) really more patriotic than those who served in Vietnam? Was trashing the campus records office truly the "highest form of patriotism?"
Dissent can be patriotic - it's essential to have an ongoing public debate about the major issues confronting us. But that dissent must be based on facts, not sloppy emotions.
Instead, we get dissent worn as a fashion statement. And fanatic dissent (as Jefferson noted) is the enemy of a democratic system.
This bumper sticker sentiment is for those who want a little smug self-congratulation for their own criticisms of the government. For all the talk of how dangerous George Bush has been to freedom of speech we haven't seen anyone actually arrested for criticizing Bush. Mostly they just receive approbation from their like-minded pals. I just came back from a book store in suburban Boston and the public affairs section was packed with anti-Bush books. Somehow I don't believe that the highest form of patriotism involves career advancement and book contracts. I would think that the "highest form of patriotism" would involve some sacrifice rather than just appealing to all your friends who agree with you that the President stinks.
What could be higher than those who are willing to sacrifice their own lives for their patriotic beliefs? It doesn't have to be a soldier. I believe that those civil rights workers who risked their lives to protest civil rights abuses in the 1950s and 1960s because they believed that this was not the true America were real patriots who, by endangering their own lives, worked to make this country better.
Next, Peters takes on the emptiness of the "audacity of hope" slogan and says exactly what I'd been thinking, although he puts it much better.
My fellow Americans, there is nothing audacious about hope. Hope is what makes people buy lottery tickets instead of paying the bills. Hope is for the old gals feeding the slots in Atlantic City. It destroys the inner-city kid who quits school because he hopes he'll be a world-famous recording artist.
Yes, hope can work to positive effect, sustaining us in the face of grave misfortunes. But there's nothing audacious about it. "The audacity of hope" is blubbering gobbledy-gook.
Audacity is for innovators, risk-takers and crusaders - for those willing to stand in the fire of public opinion and tell a million people they're wrong and here's why. Audacity's not for the passive mob hoping government will fix everything (while blaming government for everything).
Hope is the opposite of audacity. It's passive, an excuse for inaction.
Medicating ourselves with fuzzy hopes, instead of rolling up our sleeves and fixing things, has wasted countless lives and entire cultures. As Gen. Gordon Sullivan, a former Army chief of staff, used to put it, "Hope is not a method."
What on earth does the "audacity of hope" mean? Nothing. It just sounds good.
Bingo. It is not hoping that is audacious; what may take audacity is actually trying to act to achieve what you're hoping for. Without action, hope is flaccid.
