Red, White and Liberal Read online

  This astounding and outrageous mistreatment of our military by our own government continued at least through the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The report, chaired by West Virginia senator John D. Rockefeller, went on to state: "Persian Gulf veterans were also given investigational vaccines and ordered not to tell anyone." The treatment of those who are asked to fight and die for our country is our nation's greatest shame.

  Furthermore, the Bush 43 administration continues the dishonorable longtime practice of failing to provide America's military heroes with proper benefits. Way back on May 27, 1944, Congress passed a law stating that retired soldiers would receive one dollar less in retirement benefits for every dollar spent on medical benefits. Those who were 100 percent disabled would forfeit their entire retirement pay. You would think an administration that talks so much about war would make it a priority to care for the souls who must fight those wars. But as the Washington Post reported in October 2002, "President Bush has threatened to veto the $355 billion defense authorization bill for the new fiscal year if House and Senate conferees do not eliminate new pension benefits for disabled military retirees that could cost from $18.5 billion to $58 billion over the next decade." According to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, we just have to get our priorities right: "This would divert critical resources away from the war on terrorism, the transformation of our military capabilities and important personnel programs such as pay raises and facilities improvements." What he's saying is, how can we take care of those who have fought our wars when we have new wars to fight? Isn't this bass ackwards? How can we keep asking our finest to participate in wars, when we don't properly care for those who've sacrificed up until now?

  The issue, which has become known as "concurrent receipt," has gained traction with both our active military and with veterans groups. Bob Manhan, assistant director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars legislative office, points out, "No other category of federal employee is required to relinquish a portion of their earned retirement pay simply because they are also receiving VA disability compensation." If you're a civil service employee and work in the Department of Defense, you're entitled to both retirement and disability pay, concurrently. Civil service is certainly noble but not as dangerous as serving in the military, unless, of course, your job involves using your hands in proximity to a paper shredder.

  Liberty and Justice for All?

  Given how many Americans have been injured and died to protect our flag, it's sad how politicized the love of our flag has become. Michael Newdow became Public Enemy Number One when a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court agreed with him that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools amounts to an establishment of religion because of the phrase "under God." I asked Newdow on the June 26, 2002, edition of Hannity & Colmes why he initiated this fight:

  COLMES; What prompted you to do this? What brought this on?

  NEWDOW: I'm an atheist, and the government's not supposed to impart its religion on society, and it does, and I tried to change that.

  I mentioned that, contrary to the predictable charge from the right that the Ninth Circuit is a "liberal court," two of the three judges on that panel were Republican appointees. We also heard from the right that this "super liberal court" had "declared the Pledge unconstitutional." This is not accurate. What the court said was that it's unconstitutional to say the Pledge in a public school. If you want to get up in the morning and pledge allegiance along with your morning coffee, no one is going to come into your house and arrest you. Pandering came from both sides. After the ruling, members of the House rushed to the steps of the Capitol to recite the Pledge (can you say "Photo op?"). The next day, the Senate voted 99-0 against the ruling (when does the Senate ever vote on court rulings?); and members of the House recited the Pledge after the morning prayer, making sure to shout out "under God," before giving themselves a standing ovation.

  The Pledge of Allegiance is now claimed as conservative property, and there is a fierce battle raging about two words it contains. The truth is that the original Pledge of Allegiance never included the words under God. In fact, it never contained the words United States. It was written in 1892 by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy to express the socialist Utopian ideals he shared with his cousin Thomas Bellamy and to promote the idea of state control of the economy. So when all these tax-cutting, antigovernment conservatives scream the Pledge of Allegiance, they ought to know they're paying tribute to socialists.

  The original pledge read, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands—one nation indivisible—with liberty and justice for all." It appeared in the September 1892 issue of Youth's Companion, a family-oriented magazine run by a couple of liberals. The word to was then added before "the Republic." In 1924 the words my flag were changed to "the flag of the United States of America" by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, against the wishes of Francis Bellamy. At the height of the McCarthy era, in 1953, the Knights of Columbus campaigned to add the words under God to the Pledge. This was approved by a joint resolution of Congress on June 8, 1954, and signed by President Eisenhower on Flag Day. According to John Baer, author of The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History 1892-1992, Bellamy's granddaughter says he would have resented this change.

  In a 1943 case, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring a pledge violates students' right to free expression, and that they don't give up their First Amendment rights when they go to school. Justice Robert Jackson, writing for the majority, said, "If there is a fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

  Isn't one of the things the flag stands for the right not to salute it? Isn't it ironic to force someone to say the words liberty and justice for all? Does recitation of a pledge make one more patriotic? David Kertzer, an anthropologist at Brown University whose specialty is political rituals, told me that pledges of allegiance are marks of totalitarian states, not democracies. "I can't think of a single democracy except the United States that has a pledge of allegiance," he said.

  As for those two words inserted in the Pledge in 1954, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Reverend Samuel Miller in 1808, wrote, "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."

  I agree with both Kertzer and Jefferson. The idea of a mandated pledge defies the spirit of freedom upon which our country was founded. And if you need Washington to affirm for you that we are "under God," perhaps you're not that secure in your own sense of the Almighty.

  The Great Divide

  According to many on the political right, there are two kinds of people in this country: liberals and Americans. In fact, former Reagan Interior secretary James Watt immortalized that sentiment when he said, "I never use the words Democrats and Republicans; it's liberals and Americans."

  Secretary Watt, this exemplar of conservative decency, a man who once said in essence, "We don't have to protect the environment; the second coming is at hand," was indicted on twenty-five felony counts for perjury and obstruction of justice. He pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of withholding documents from a grand jury and received five years probation, five hundred hours of community service and a $5,000 fine for influence peddling. So which of the "two kinds of people in this country" does he represent?

  If you believe conservatives, they are the sole proprietors of the flag and the sole practitioners of love of country. They own God, patriotism, the military, national security, and family values. They believe that points of view other than their own don't belong in America. Conservatives still proclaim, "My country, love it or leave it," just as they did to protesters during the Vietnam era.

  Amazingly, these are the same people who decried the former Soviet Union for ha
ving only one political party. Our forefathers, contrary to what today's right wing would have you believe, were not all Republicans. In fact, none of them were. Patriotism is not the province of the right. Why was it patriotic to speak out against Clinton, but unpatriotic to speak out against Bush? Why is supporting Bush's war ideas patriotic, but supporting Clinton's Kosovo plan enabling a lying adulterer? And why won't some conservatives respect points of view with which they don't agree? Why can't they acknowledge that those views are just as patriotic as their own? Is it unpatriotic to want peace? Isn't it possible that it's profoundly pro-American to hope that our armed forces aren't sent to fight what one believes is an immoral and unjust war?

  Is Peacenik a Dirty Word?

  David Horowitz, the son of Communist Party members, former Black Panther supporter, and former radical leftist, is now a radical rightist. About the left, Horowitz says, "Their goal remains the destruction of America's national identity and, in particular, of the moral, political, and economic institutions that form its social foundation."

  When hundreds of thousands of demonstrators showed up in Washington to protest the United States going to war with Iraq, Horowitz created an ad to solicit money to promote his "National Campaign to Combat the Anti-American Left." Charming. In this solicitation he claimed, "When your country is attacked, when the enemy has targeted every American regardless of race, gender or age for death, there can be no 'peace' movement. There can only be a movement that divides America and gives aid and comfort to our enemies." Horowitz went on to accuse the peace movement of being led by "the same hate-America radicals who supported American's totalitarian enemies during the Cold War."

  First of all, this antiwar demonstration was against war with Iraq, not against "The 'War' on Terror." The "peace movement" was an effort to direct our energies toward the real threats facing America, not what many considered an immoral and unjust war.

  This guilt by association is a McCarthyite game. It's easy to see why this former left-wing radical is such an angry right-wing radical now. Let me know, David, when you want to come home. I'm not quite as left as you once were, but I know people who know people, and I can get you back into "The Left-Wingers Club."

  From: FrankW.

  Sent: Wednesday, September 25,2002 10:27 AM

  To: Colmes

  Subject: Supporting the President

  Importance: High

  Alan;

  Heard the show last night, and you made a statement that "those who are not in lock step with the administration relative to the war on terror and plans concerning Iraq are somehow perceived as unpatriotic". I believe strongly that on those two issues you really are unpatriotic if you do not support the president 100% and that truth will be borne out at the polls in Nov. for Democrat and Republican alike.

  By the way, in case you care, I am a registered Democrat.

  Frank W.

  Detroit, Ml

  From: Colmes

  Sent: Wednesday, September 25,2002 I 1:48 AM

  To: Frank W.

  Subject: RE: Supporting the President

  Since when must you agree with a particular political party or president to be a patriotic American?

  From: 'Frank W

  Sent: Wednesday, September 25,2002 12:36 PM

  To: colmes

  Subject: RE: Supporting the President

  Alan;

  By not supporting the President you give aid and comfort to our enemy who would destroy us ... Alan, you have defined yourself, and you and like minded Democrats and Republicans are what you are i.e., unpatriotic.The president is right the Democratic controlled Senate does not care about the security of the nation and neither do you.Alan!

  Frank W.

  Detroit, Ml

  I don't think anything I could say would convince Frank W. that I'm as patriotic as he is. He, like many on the right, is convinced that because I didn't support the Bush policy in Iraq, I am an unpatriotic American. Were the Republicans who didn't support Bill Clinton's forays into Bosnia and Haiti unpatriotic? Of course not. Because they're Republicans.

  But not every American agrees with Frank W., and it would be a stretch to accuse every dissenting American of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

  From: Jonathan

  Sent: Saturday, February 15,2003 12:56 PM

  To: Colrnes

  Subject: You are a good man

  Dear Mr. Alan Colmes,

  Just to let you know, I think you are a good man. I believe in the things you are doing and saying regarding this whole Iraq deal.You speak as a man of peace would, and I personally thank you for that.When I listen to you, it is as if you are able to actually put into words that which I am thinking of.You are an asset to Fox news and people like myself who hope and pray for peace in this ever-changing world. May God bless you for being our spokesman.

  Good day!

  Jonathan, Arizona

  Liberals Are Americans,Too

  From: Debbie

  Sent: Tuesday, February 18,2003 2:04 AM

  To: colmes

  Subject: What are these protester true colors?

  Just what are these protester true colors?

  I see these protester but I can't believe what I'm seeing, just what do they stand for and what are there true colors? From my eyes it's not the RED, WHITE AND BLUE...

  Proud to be an American

  Debbie

  From: Colmes

  Sent: Tuesday, February 18,2003 1:34 PM

  To: 'Debbie'

  Subject: RE: What are these protester true colors?

  Red, White and Blue doesn't mean that every American must always agree with every other American or with American foreign policy.That there were hundreds of thousands protesting in America and millions world wide shows that there are many fine people on both sides of this issue who see it differently.

  Color me Red.White and Liberal.

  Alan

  Frankly, I can't think of anything more patriotic than speaking out when I feel my country is doing something wrong. Conservatives favor "tough love" in personal relationships, so why can't that also apply in our relationship with our motherland? I know this is what my e-mailers are aiming for. They care so much that they want me to better myself.

  From: Ralph

  Sent: Wednesday, February 19,2003 9:47 PM

  To: colmes

  Subject: Liberalism

  Colmes

  Liberalism is a mental disease and your are the virus, a traitor to American beliefs and a man with no common sense. An American Vet and Patriot.

  God Bless America

  Thanks for the tough love, Ralph. I know your goal is to make me a better American.

  Being a good American isn't a matter of agreeing with government policy, supporting a war, or favoring a particular party. It isn't something that can be spread by Madison Avenue bottlers and packaged like deodorant. I do believe, however, that patriotism can be exemplified by a love and concern for our precious environment, empathy and action for our less fortunate countrymen, and by making sure that those who serve in our military never, ever have to fight their government to get the care they deserve. Love of country can be exhibited by showing tolerance, if not respect, for those who don't buy into politicized recitations, who disdain organized religion, and whose philosophies and positions on the issues are very different from our own. This is an ideal I strive for even when it's sorely tested by people like Ralph. But even he and I can find common ground, for I do agree with Ralph on one part of his e-mail: God Bless America.

  TWO

  "The 'War' on Terror"

  Throughout this book you'll notice "The 'War' on Terror" with quotes around the phrase and around the word war. This is because I object to the use of "The 'War' on Terror" as a be-all and end-all catchphrase that has been used to justify everything from changes in our criminal justice system and national energy policy, to a war with Iraq. As for the inside quote around the word war, missions that begin with "The 'War' on ..." generally
fail, and the overuse of this phrase in our culture has rendered it trite. "The 'War' on Drugs" hasn't worked. "The 'War' on Crime" will never end, no matter how loud McGruff the Crime Dog barks. That's because there will always be crime. So since Bush 43 said he is not going to sleep until "The 'War' on Terror" is won, it is clear that his days of slumber are through. And let's face it, "The 'War' on Terror" is being used as a political tool. What Bush 43 really means is he's not going to rest until his next run for office is won, and that by hitching his presidency to "The 'War' on Terror," attention can be diverted from those pesky bread-and-butter issues like developing an economic plan that really benefits the middle and poorer classes, education, health care for the uninsured and, yes, "The 'War' on Crime."

  I know this next statement is going to upset some Americans. And you know, I don't want to upset you. I want you to be relaxing with a nice, soft beverage and enjoying the soothing words in this book. But before you spill that nice drink all over yourself, hear me out.