The American Patriot

There has been a lot of talk about patriotism lately, from the local to national levels, from the quietest conversations at the coffee shop to the loudest babble on the cable "news" shows.

Patriotism emerges as a topic of conversation in our society from time to time, usually to be dusted off and to have its best rhetoric shined up for important occasions, such as Independence Day or hotly contested political races.

Understand, please, that I do not mean to malign or cheapen discussion of patriotism and what it means, in both historic and contemporary contexts. Open and frank discourse on the nature of patriotism, of our rights and responsibilities as citizens, is a crucial element in maintaining the health of all levels of civic life in our republic.

The problem, as I see it, is that the loudest voices speaking out on what it means to be an American patriot today are far more concerned with political one-upmanship than they are with exploring and conveying the true notion of civic love and commitment.

Most of the public discourse on patriotism that you will hear today is concerned primarily with determining who can lay more claim to patriotism, who has claimed the bragging rights for loving America more than the other side, who loved America first, who loves her most, who can display the largest collection of patriotic pins and banners (made with pride in China).

If you haven't witnessed this immature trivialization of American patriotism, I invite you to tune in to your favorite or least favorite cable news network and bask in the glory of competitive patriotism, an incredibly dignified exchange only rivaled by the social dynamics of a third grade playground.

But, the most disturbing trend in American discourse on patriotism isn't the inane squabbling over who waves the biggest figurative flag, but rather the ever-increasing tendency to equate patriotism with a blind and unquestioning reverence of political power.

Somehow, somewhere along the way our society has largely come to define the patriot as the one who poses the fewest questions and raises the least objections to policy, party and government in general.

This has created a very tidy dichotomy in American patriotic fervor: those who unfailingly agree with me are patriots, those who venture down a different path of political thought are, at best, less worthy to bear the name 'American.'

It is sadly ironic that this denigration of American patriotism has reached an all-time high on the eve of our two hundred and thirty-second observance of Independence Day, a day to commemorate the fact that our forefathers completely rejected a form of government to which they had previously been loyal adherents.

On July 4th, 1776 the signers of the Declaration of Independence, all highly respected and successful members of British colonial society, risked everything to advance a simple and yet daring proposition: that the people have the constant right and obligation to question and demand accountability of their government and, when necessary, to effect fundamental changes in the composition and course of that government.

In spite of the rhetoric that America is bombarding itself with today, the honored title of patriot is not to be withheld from those who scrutinize the government, who ask difficult questions and dare to publicly disagree with the powers of the day.

Patriotism, as it was defined and declared at our nation's founding, demands that each of us constantly question the government that we have created, that we keep our eyes on the path ahead and keep at least one hand on the reins that guide our republic.

As we set out to celebrate this Independence Day, then, I would urge that we view the day as not only an observance of our nation's historic birth, but more importantly, as an opportunity for all of us to reaffirm our obligations as custodians of American liberty.

Our forefathers declared our independence. We must bear the burden of continuously enacting that declaration, of ensuring that government continues to serve and survive at the will of the governed. Only then do we deserve to drape ourselves in the vestments of the American patriot.

A Culture of Giving

'Inner Republic' is written from my perspective as a small town reporter and columnist and relative newcomer to this rural community, and it reflects on the peculiar dynamics of this microcosm of American life.

Please read, share and feel free to send me your thoughts and feedback.Some of the statistics in this post are from last year, but the point remains the same.

--originally published in the Fairview Republican on August 9th, 2007.

Hundreds of participants and supporters came out for Fairview's Relay for Life recently, and all together raised funds for the American Cancer Society to the tune of $73,000.

If we assume that three quarters of the money came from residents of Fairview that works out to about $20 for every resident, and that's counting the kids and jobless.

That average may be skewed one way or the other, but the important point is that a tremendous amount of money was raised for an important cause from a relatively small population base.

And the generosity of our community does not start or stop with Relay for Life. From benefit dinners to church fundraisers and charity auctions the people of our community just seem accustomed to giving.

It is also important to remember that our giving does not stop with monetary donations. We give our time to civic organizations, nonprofits and our neighbors. It's virtually impossible to take on a project in Fairview without someone stopping by to offer advice, sometimes a lot of advice, and to pitch in and help.

I know that Kate and I could have never made the transition to Fairview without the invaluable help of family and friends, help we could have never afforded in another town.

But, what seems to come so naturally to us is still a bit of a mystery to some segments of our greater society.

In a 2007 report the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), a federal agency, found that "the spirit of volunteerism is thriving in the heartland, but not so much on the coasts."

Thankfully, the federal government is there to create an agency with a $921 million annual budget to figure that one out.

Now, in defense of my brethren on the right coast, I will say that there are many small rural communities on the eastern seaboard where civic responsibility is alive and well. Who knows, there are probably even some on the west coast.

I think the CNCS findings would be even more pronounced if they compared rural and small communities with civic involvement in our nation's cities.

I haven't applied for a multi-million dollar federal grant to prove this, but I'm going to hazard a guess that the rate of civic involvement is higher in small towns.

And yet, the formula for "volunteerism" and civic involvement remains a riddle within an enigma that can only be unlocked by billions of dollars in federal research and assistance programs.

Last fiscal year the federal government doled out $2.5 billion in community assistance grants through the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI). Incidentally, the OFBCI falls under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, so next time you attend a Lions Club hamburger fry you can take pride in the fact that you're doing your part in the War on Terror.

Given the importance of pumping money into creating a sense of "volunteerism" that we apparently already have, you may say to yourself, "Self, $2.5 billion isn't really that much money, especially when we spend $6 billion a month in Iraq."

I propose to you that $2.5 billion is a lot of money. And, if you see any of the folks from the OFBCI, DHS or the federal department of redundancy department doling out money on the streets of Fairview, please let me know.

But, I don't think you'll find any of them around. And why should we care? Because we're footing the bill for communities that can't decode the mystery of helping themselves.

I'm not suggesting that a greater nation-wide sense of civic responsibility would eliminate our $400 billion deficit, or eliminate the need for federal and state social programs. Realistically, the weight of social needs in large cities is probably too great to rely solely on individual philanthropy.

But a renewed national sense of self-reliance, in place of our current culture of paternal entitlement, would go a long way to creating better communities and a stronger society.

All we can do here is continue to build on the culture of giving already evident in our communities.

We're probably not going to save the world, or the whales, or even the spotted gray titmouse. But by teaching our kids to take care of themselves and their neighbors we might just save our own little slice of this rock we call home.