Robert Reich: The Dangers Of “Exclusive Patriotism”.
Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and current University of California Berkeley professor had some startling things to say in an op-ed for the San Francisco Gate (http://www.sfgate.com/) on June 29, just in time for Independence Day weekend.
It should come with very little surprise to most readers of my blogs that I would disagree with Reich on just about everything. This recent op-ed by Reich is no different. I find myself in a position of continuing to disagree with the conclusions Reich makes because I believe his conclusions are established by making false arguments.
He claims that there is two types of patriotism, an exclusive patriotism and a inclusive patriotism and he warns that the exclusive patriotism is somehow dangerous.
This inclusive patriotism prides itself on giving hope and refuge to those around the world who are most desperate — as memorialized in Emma Lazarus’ famous lines engraved on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
By contrast, we’re now hearing a strident, exclusive patriotism. It asserts a unique and superior “Americanism” that’s determined to exclude others beyond our borders.
Reich feels that the “exclusive Patriot” is somehow without compassion and tolerance but then again Reich has always been known for his skillful perversion of American History. Notice that he uses Americanism in relationship with people living outside our Borders.
From our inception we understood that we had to have rules regarding immigration. America, if it was to hold fast to it’s form of government, required a process of assimilation…something Reich completely ignores. The argument is not to be built around an asserting that Americanism is Unique any more than the rules which Govern other Countries would make them Unique. Superiority is a perspective. I happen to think the Constitutional Rule of Law in America is Superior to other countries. Just because illegals and legislators choose to ignore that rule of law doesn’t make the Constitutional Rule Of Law bad. It is supposed to make them criminals. If we followed the Constitution as it was intended, America would be a better place for all of us.
He goes on to say:
Exclusive patriotism tells us to fear foreign terrorists in our midst — even though almost every terrorist attack since 9/11 has been perpetrated by American citizens or holders of green cards living here for a decade or more.
He again ignores that the progressive agenda in ignoring the rules of law concerning immigration that allowed these terrorists on American soil to begin with is the reason for the increase of terrorist attacks on American soil. I find it odd that Reich has no qualms with identifying terrorists on American Soil as Americans but nowhere in his op-ed does he refer to these terrorists attacks as a by-product of ISIS which is alien, completely incompatible, with our Unique and Superior Constitution. Yes I said it….unique and superior Constitution!
It is a Constitution that prevents the murder of another individual because of sexual orientation, the public stoning of women through Patriarchal rule, and the sexual abuse of children that is prevalent in Isis controlled areas of the World. It also doesn’t allow for acts of genocide based on differences of faith practices. Robert Reich may not think that makes us unique or superior but I would disagree. Americanism already excludes these behaviors and that’s a good thing that I would never want to see sacrificed in the name of inclusivity.
If we extend terrorist attacks to include every attack on any individual in this county by a person here illegally Reich’s statement doesn’t bear the weight of evidence. A terrorist attack doesn’t have to be limited to large numbers of people. Furthermore, the number of terrorist attacks committed by radical extremist Muslims who have refused to assimilate into American Culture and see America as an enemy further refutes Reich’s claims.
The Orlando Attack demonstrates that it wasn’t the principles of embracing American justice that caused the shooter to go into a gay nightclub and open fire….it was his refusal to assimilate into American culture. He was the exclusive to the point of determining he had the sole right to terminate any life that violated what he wanted. That’s not an inclusive viewpoint.
Entering this country illegally doesn’t make you an American anymore that breaking into a bank or a
home means you now own that bank or that home.
That is the type of inclusive patriotism that Reich appears to be embracing, one where the right of property it completely ignored. Then again, as a socialist, that position would be perfectly in alignment to the socialist world view.
Our Constitutions are unique protections to the rights of the legal citizens of the states and this country. They extend no further except as a beacon of liberty: an example for other countries to do the same for those legally abiding in their own countries.
Just Law is supposed to be established in a nation as a restraining force against doing harm to others that includes violating the rights of property. The offender is entitled to due process but once determined guilty many of the rights of those individuals are suspended until they have paid their debt to society. That’s not being exclusive. That is applying justice.
The reason for this is simple, by deceitfully, illegally and forcibly violating the protected rights of another individual the offending individual has broken a contract with society in the mutual respect of the rights of others. We can not simply ignore the fact that the individual violated the law and call that inclusive. What about the individual whose rights were violated?
Either we are all accountable to the same law, which is the only just way for a society to be inclusive, or we are not. If we aren’t than some have exclusive protections from the law and, in my opinion, completely destroys any validity to the points that Reich is making.
In an inclusive nation the law is established to be applied to everyone equally. Then we have equal justice. When we exclude a group from accountability to the law we no longer have equal justice….we have “social justice”.
Social justice is then an oxymoron in that while claiming to be justice, by limiting it to a application determined by some and forced on everyone else violates both the principles of a Democracy and a Republic. It is a contradiction in terms. You can not limit justice to social boundaries and still call it justice. It must apply equally to all or it can apply justly to none.
Those who come here illegally, forcing their way into our nation, have no more right to do so than America would have a right to simply proclaim that our Constitutions must apply to everyone no matter where we live in this world. There are difference in the Constitutions between the states and that is the way this nation was intended when it was formed. It is why we have both the 9th and 10th Amendments in our Bill of Rights.
I find Reich’s comments to be insulting to the common sense application of the Rule of Law. In order for real justice to prevail to be inclusive requires an action on all those to be excluded, in other words, it must also be exclusive….at least to those who refuse to assent to the basic rules of law seeking to disrupt in total disrespect of the rights of others. Their refusal to be inclusive regarding the rights of others according to the Rule Of Law requires that they must be excluded.
Whenever we apply the word social to limit the meanings of words like justice or equality we negate the meanings of justice and equality by allowing for special exemptions to the Law based on injustice and inequality.
To the contrary, inclusive patriotism confirms and strengthens the “we” in “we the people of the United States.”
This is the process of selective quotes of the progressive left. The words that follow “we the people” are equally important.
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Notice that the purpose is ensure to Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. It is limited to the confines established in the Constitution that applies only to American citizens.
Our Constitution is for the United States of America, not for immigrants who have come here illegally.
The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to declare our separation from Great Britain and to establish the just reasons for doing so.
By separating we were recognizing the unique nature of being an American and sought to preserve that spirit of Independence from willful control and exertion from a foreign source.
Reich would have us ignore these truths to embrace his socialist perversion of American history which he feels entitles him to redefine our language to suit his own needs.
America is an inclusive nation that extends it’s openness to those willing to come here and become a part of the unique American Experience. That requires an adherence to the Rule of Law.
That is not to say that it is not without it flaws. We have a process which allows laws to be changed. Until that process is finished however, the law remains the law.
The real question would then be, are the laws regarding legally entering this country unjust ?
Reich chooses to completely ignore that debate. Perhaps because he knows it refutes everything he claims in his op-ed. That is yet another tactic of the progressive, ignore the rational to focus on the emotional with disregard to anything that may contradict their so-called compassion.
My home is my home. No stranger has a right to enter that home to claim my home as their own to govern as they please.
Since we are a nation founded on delegated authority (the consent of the Governed), we can only delegate authority which we possess. Anything a legislator does beyond that is a usurpation of power.
I have no right to open the doors of my neighbors home to allow others in to do as they please anymore than I can delegate to a legislator the right to do the same to our state or our Nation.
I have no authority to mint my own currency that others must be forced to accept or establish my own laws that all other must follow. Neither does anyone else. That isn’t being exclusive; that is justice. The same applies to immigration.
One thing is certain, if this is the policy that Hillary Clinton embraces then she is a further threat to the security of America than she has already proven herself to be.
You can read Robert Reich’s complete op-ed here: