Unquestioning Allegiance?

As I sat in front of the television in the Canaday common room on Sept. 20, I had to ask myself, “Am I unpatriotic?” President George W. Bush was delivering what many have called an inspiring speech to a joint session of Congress. After it was over, pundits compared it to the epochal performance of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Class of 1904 and a former Crimson executive, following the attack on Pearl Harbor. For me, however, it felt shallow.

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, America has witnessed an upsurge in what is universally referred to as patriotism. But is it a shallow patriotism?

While Wal-Mart may be selling out of cute little American flags, a $40 billion appropriations bill was rushed through Congress with little objection, and the Justice Department has arrested scores of people in one of the most extensive investigation in FBI history—some for minor traffic violations. Yet even some of the most trenchant of Bush’s opponents announced that they “stand behind the president.” In the week following the attacks, Congress seemed ready to rubber stamp anything the president asked them to, no matter how costly or ridiculous. To do otherwise might have looked unpatriotic or even pro-terrorist. But is it truly patriotic to simply lust for Afghan blood and attach an American flag to your car?

True American patriotism demands a close evaluation and debate of the Bush administration’s policies. It is participation in this debate and the exercise of our constitutional rights—not unquestioning allegiance to all-too-human leaders—that make us patriotic.

While a sense of national unity is a positive thing, it is dangerous to assume that the president and his administration can do no wrong. Fortunately, members of Congress are beginning to assert themselves. Representatives from both sides of the aisle are, appropriately, beginning to realize the complexity of the situation. House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) recognized that even security comes with a price. He told The Washington Post last week, “This is about how we equip our anti-espionage, counterterrorism agencies with the tools they want while we still preserve the most fundamental thing, which is the civil liberties on the American people.”

Indeed, Congress is now reexamining legislation proposed last week by Attorney General John D. Ashcroft that would strengthen the Federal Government’s authority to wiretap phones, monitor e-mail and raid terrorists’ “financial infrastructure.” Congress is right to take a serious look at the long-term consequences of legislation now, rather than inviting future constitutional battles in the courts.

Even now constitutional issues are cropping up. Gerald H. Goldstein, counsel to Albader Al-Hazmi, a material witness said to be detained incommunicado for six days until he was allowed to see a lawyer, observed to The Post, “This is a good lesson about how frail our processes are... It’s how we treat people in difficult times like these that is the true test of the democracy and civil liberties that we brag so much about throughout the world.”

According to the Post, as of Sept. 25 the Justice Department has detained a total of 352 people in its investigation, 98 of whom are being held on immigration charges. Others are being held for identification fraud and even traffic violations. In light of these numbers, it seems that the Justice Department is detaining these individuals for minor crimes while they search for new evidence. While we all yearn to see those responsible for the attacks brought to justice, evidence should be collected first and arrests made later. The Bill of Rights says we are innocent until proven guilty, not arrested and then proven guilty.

Some may think such criticism is inappropriate, that we should put aside politics and speak with one voice. But it seems to me that the time to be most critical of the president and his administration is now when so much is at stake. His solutions should not be the only ones considered. The American system of government was set up to ensure that no one man can control the national agenda, as many Americans would have it right now. If we are truly patriotic, we will welcome debate on Capitol Hill and allow our democratic institutions to work properly, not hinder them for the sake of a necessarily ephemeral national unity.

Stephen W. Stromberg is a first-year in Canaday.