Patriotism's Validity

Same rules.

A person should not follow his/her country if it denies rights to that person.

In 1791, men from Pittsburgh began a small insurrection against the newly formed United States Federal Government to protest a tax on whiskey. This event, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, sparked the first use of federal power against citizens. The result was the end to the rebellion and a debate over whether it was appropriate for troops to quash a rebellion when the federal government was actually causing the civilian's unrest. It was later decided, due to the youth of the country as well as the non-vital value of whiskey, that the federal government had power to do so. In essence, the government, so long as it serves its people, deserves their patriotism, but the people may rebel if the government ceases to do so.

Patriotism to one's country is a matter of respect granted in return for rights and opportunity. Without the support of its people, as in the Whiskey Rebellion, a government is unable to provide these rights and opportunities. As explained by John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, a country's government can be analogous to the purpose of a watchful parent. It must maximize the health and happiness of each of its children [Mill]. But just as a parent may not simply spoil their child, a government should not collapse to insignificant disturbances. In some cases, as in the usage of martial law, Mill explains that denying people of their happiness temporarily can be justified by their ultimate well-being. Furthermore, as Christian writers Ken Blanchard and Phil Hodges show in their book The Servant Leader, leaders must look for the best of their people in the long-run. In many cases, they may even have to sacrifice themselves for the best of their people. Followers of that leader will then return trust and obedience for their own safety and liberty [Blanchard and Hodges]. For a government, the relationship between it and its people is a mutual bond. When either one syphons power from the other, the bond is polarized and broken. And even though soldiers give their lives for a country, one must not forget that that country also supports their family and friends.

Nonetheless, it is all too easy for citizens of a nation to blindly follow their country as long as they are fed their basic needs. But here lies oppression. Hitler's Reich, for example, was not some great matter of brainwashing. The writer Todd Strasser explains in his novel The Wave, how an experiment in a high school demonstrated the lack of difficulty with which we can succumb to totalitarian regimes. While it appeared to be a positive fad, the Wave ended up a dangerous entity on the campus. Soon the Wave penetrated every aspect of students' lives [Strasser]. And the social saturation of government's influence is certainly a dangerous thing. While it might provide for the time being, Herbert Hoover's Rugged Individualism speech shows how quickly letting the government's tendrils into every niche becomes a breeding pool for socialism and its even worse oppressions against individual freedom [Hoover]. Thomas Jefferson, in writing the "Declaration of Independence", held in mind the fear of such a government. For when a government ceases to serve its people and the position is reversed, those people have adequate reason to "dissolve the political bands" that held them together [Jefferson].

The waltz of patriotism and totalitarianism requires much grace and balance. This dance holds nations and the people within at stake. George Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion sustained the government's ability to support its people at the cost of a few. Nothiadf l; hsj...