It seems to me that patriotism is perhaps best defined as a strong regard, love even, of the principles and standards of ones country, and a belief that they are worth defending. Thus a Russian in the 80s could be every bit as patriotic as his American counterpart, even though they may have been polar opposites ideologically. Indeed, love of country is perhaps unique in its capacity to be shared amongst such a disparate array of conflicting ideologies.

Given the fact therefore that the typical US patriot claims to stand for the American way of life, way of doing things etc (and this nowhere more so than on the Right), couldn't the Republican party over the past few years, and especially the Bush clique within it, be accused of being grossly unpatriotic?

America has long been viewed both by her own citizens and many around the world as a beacon of liberty and freedom, the "city on the hill" shining the light of its example across the globe. The founding fathers are rightly lauded for their scripting of a Constitution which heralded life and liberty above all else, and which, for the first time, made a genuine attempt to balance the over-arching interests of the state with the individual rights of the totality of the citizenry.

Yet recent years have seen a gradual on American liberties with the publication of the Patriot Act, the extension of the wire tapping programme, Guatanemo Bay etc. In light of all of this therefore, is it not a bit rich for those on the far Right to sling brickbats at people who, rather than exploit their patriotism through relatively empty gestures, seek instead to defend and cherish the principles on which the Republic was founded? Is that not true patriotism?

Republicans don't buy in to 'gay rights', 'abortion rights', or voting against religion. You would have to get them to parrot stuff that simply isn't true to make a Jew out of them.

It is certainly true that it is 'a bit rich for those on those on the far right to sling brickbats' as you mentioned above. That is unfortunately however, an accepted standard in politics. Politicians make unreasonable accusations and appeal to peoples emotional responses rather than their intellectual consideration. It is pathetic, but it happens.

As to your mention of the degradation of the very principles on which the republic was founded, citing P. Act, wire tapping and G. Bay, I think it is impossible to objectively judge the total value of such undertakings as a contemporary of them. It is certainly possible to weigh their value as you have fairly done so, as a degradation of civil liberties. That is not their total value however. It is dreadfully hard to measure their positive value, or if there even is any.

It must be remembered that another Government had taken not wholly dissimilar actions. Not removing habeas corpus from non-citizen 'enemy combatants' (whatever that is defined as), but from citizen non-combatants whose only 'crime' was dissidence. I don't know that many Americans would argue that President Lincoln was unpatriotic, but he certainly did degrade civil liberties and many of his contemporaries argued against it and rightly despised the injustice. Those degradations were temporary though, and worked towards an outcome that history regards as 'good'.

Of course, an inability to accurately measure the total value of an action or group thereof is no reason not to cast judgment over it. In fact it makes it all the more important to offer careful consideration, as the truth of the matter is not immediately obvious. So while it is certainly villainous to accuse a citizen of the republic as unpatriotic simply for voicing dissent, I think it is also disingenuous to accuse a government of being unpatriotic for taking a course of action that temporarily degrades civil liberties for a supposed and overlaying 'patriotic' objective. That is at least, until it is no longer 'temporary'.

Then we should all agree that mainstream liberal policies - numerous rules, regulations, and taxes are un-patriotic. For example, DNC's desire to keep our pensions under government control are much more harmful to our liberty than Guatanamo Bay. And as far as Obama goes - he solidly supports dramatic extension of the government powers. Ergo - Obama is unpatriotic.

gringo_911:

Then we should all agree that mainstream liberal policies - numerous rules, regulations, and taxes are un-patriotic. For example, DNC's desire to keep our pensions under government control are much more harmful to our liberty than Guatanamo Bay. And as far as Obama goes - he solidly supports dramatic extension of the government powers. Ergo - Obama is unpatriotic.

Or we could disagree with you totally.

John McCain wants to maintain the Iraq war, and possibly start a new one in Iran, therfore bankrupting the U.S. Ergo - John McCain is unpatriotic.