Look who is questioning patriotism now. After nearly two years
of the political left whining about the political right questioning
their patriotism, the left has picked up the anti-patriotic cudgel
to use against Republicans.
Exhibit A is Howard Dean’s recent remark, “John Ashcroft is not
a patriot. John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy.” This
remark is far worse than anything any politician on the right has
purportedly said. Dean is not just questioning Ashcroft’s
patriotism, he’s categorically denying that it exists. That the
leading contender for the Democratic nomination for president can
largely get away with making such comments also speaks to media
bias. Were John Ashcroft to say, “Howard Dean is not a patriot,”
the media would…well, I don’t really need to finish that
sentence.
This notion of patriotism-questioning is largely the product of
the left’s desire to claim victim status as a gambit to gain the
political high-ground in the debate on the War on Terrorism. With
the exception of some zealots like Ann Coulter, right-wing pundits
have been fairly circumspect in playing the patriotism card.
Nevertheless, it has not stopped the likes of Hillary Clinton from
engaging in shrill histrionics.
Nor has it stopped New York Times columnist Paul
Krugman. In a column from September, he railed that President Bush
“impugns the patriotism of anyone who questions his decisions.”
Krugman’s example? Not surprisingly, he didn’t offer one.
Nevertheless, Krugman feels we should all be increasingly alarmed
at the Bush Administration because — in addition to its reckless
tax cuts, huge deficit, war profiteering, and needless war on Iraq
— it bashes its opponents patriotism every chance it gets.
Which leads us to exhibit B. In last Friday’s column Krugman had
a field day with the evolving Wilson-Plame scandal. “Unlike the
self-described patriots now running America,” Krugman wrote, “Mr.
Wilson has taken personal risks for the sake of his country.”
Regarding Wilson’s opposition to the war to liberate Iraq, Krugman
states: “Many patriots in the military and the intelligence
community agreed with him then; even more agree now.” Got that?
Those in the Bush Administration are patriots in only their own
eyes. A true patriot is defined by one’s opposition to the war on
Iraq. What was that about impugning the patriotism of those who
disagree with you?
Krugman then proceeds to lecture us about what the definition of
patriotic is: “the true test of patriotism isn’t whether you are
willing to wave the flag, or agree with whatever the president
says. It’s whether you are willing to take risks and make
sacrifices, including political sacrifices, for the sake of your
country.” While that definition is about accurate, Krugman is
completely oblivious to the fact that by implying patriotism is
defined by opposing the Iraq war he has imposed a false test of
patriotism on President Bush. He is also unaware that he is making
a case that President Bush is very patriotic. Given his recent
slide in the polls, Bush’s decision to invade Iraq is turning out
to be a political sacrifice made for the sake of his country.
The irony is so thick you can practically choke on it. Politicos
on one side of the ideological spectrum howl at the top of their
lungs about the largely non-existent use of a political tactic by
the other side. Yet, when that same side sees the first opening to
use that same political tactic, they exploit it to the hilt.
Krugman noted in his column that “The hypocrisy here is
breathtaking.” Indeed it is.
