Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Here's the one flaw I see consistently in her reasoning.
What is "treason"?
To what are we beholden?
If I believe that my country is pursuing a path that will lead it to harm, and my actions in response are guided by a sincere desire to keep my country from that harm, can my anti-administration actions and words be deemed "treason"? Do I owe my allegiance to the current leadership of my country, or to my country? If I take actions or speak words that lead to a short-term harm to my country, but generally result in my country moving in a direction that I deem to be more healthy, and more likely to leave my country improved and less harmed overall, am I not truly serving my country?
I think her flaw is her fixation on "treason". I don't think that what she describes in her columns is treason. I think she could use the word "stupidity" and be far more accurate and far less offputting. Her message gets lost because she riles in too visceral a way.
I'm sure every person who thinks that our war in Iraq is horribly wrong, and who is fighting politically to end that war, is serving their conception of what our country is, or, at least, should be. I could use the "treason" label easily on a Galloway, or on any American counterpart actively serving anti-American interests for personal gain. But, just as we weren't treasonous in the sixties or seventies as we (stupidly, and without placing the proper value on educating ourselves to reality) fought to end a war, so too the current dissent isn't treason.
|
Her point is that doing things that do harm a war effort, not because you feel the war is wrong, but instead because you feel it will you get votes in some future election, is wrong.
She asks the question whether the vote in the house might not show that the "anti-war" movement doesn't really believe what it says.
Of course, the insulation is that most dems are staying pretty silent on the issue and letting the extremes carry their water. That way they can shift position when the polls show (See today's WP poll) that the cut and run arguments are not gaining public support.
It is perhaps not treason to keep quiet in such circumstance, but is it the behavior we should expect from the leaders of a party that will ask to lead the country in a few more years?
