Reading through The Northeastern News last week, I was disgusted to find two letters to the editor entitled “Beyond patriotism” and “Taking things for granted” dedicated to bashing a previous letter entitled “Nothing to be patriotic for.” Perhaps the most amazing thing was that Michael Glennon never went ‘beyond patriotism’ and Justin Ellsworth seems to take a whole lot for granted.

In “Beyond Patriotism” Glennon’s argument seems to focus mainly on name-calling, accusing the author of “Nothing to be patriotic for” of being a socialist, which he is, and accusing him of being unpatriotic, which is fairly obvious. He goes on to argue that patriotism is defined as love for our country, our freedoms, and family values, independent of the government and the decisions it makes. The problem with this argument is that patriotism is now and has always been a tool of governments to silence dissent and to divide the people of the world along narrow national lines. So when the U.S. goes to war it becomes ‘unpatriotic’ to oppose it, as evidenced by the accusations of the Bush administration. When workers stand up against their bosses to win better wages and a better life for their family, it becomes ‘unpatriotic’ for them to continue their fight, as evidenced by Bush’s use of Taft-Hartley to break the West Coast dockworkers strike last year. Patriotism is used to make us identify with our government, even while they cut education, health care, and social services, and to make us side with the U.S. against the Iraqi people resisting the occupation of their country. But, in truth, ordinary Americans have more in common with ordinary Iraqis than they ever will with Bush, and Bush has more in common with Saddam Hussein than he ever will with us. It is for this reason that we should reject patriotism in favor of internationalism.

In “Taking things for granted” Justin Ellsworth rolls out the old slogan of the reactionary right that all those who oppose the government should leave the country. He says that people have died for our right to free speech, and thus … we shouldn’t use it. Intriguing. Though not the most convincing argument I’ve heard, Ellsworth does make a very important point, Americans have died for our rights. What he gets wrong, however, is that these people didn’t fight and die for our freedoms by subjugating defenseless third world nations, engaging in superpower battles over profit and power, or overthrowing governments across the globe, later replacing them with U.S.-friendly dictators. No, they fought and died here in this country on strikes, demonstrations, and picket lines. The freedoms we have in this country were not won by the U.S. government, they were won despite it. The eight hour day, the end of slavery, rights for people of different races, rights for women, social security, welfare, affirmative action, abortion rights, rights for gays, and the right to speak freely against the government, all of these rights were won by ordinary people taking to the streets in opposition to a government which always has, and continues to this day, to infringe upon them. We could heed Ellsworth’s advice and leave the country, but if the people who have fought and died for our rights had taken this advise themselves, we would be living in a slave holding society where women can’t vote and gays and immigrants have no rights, working our fourteen hour day at the local sweatshop for credits at the company store barely sufficient to feed ourselves, never mind a family. Ellsworth’s jingoistic call for unquestioning support of the U.S. government is the logical result of unswerving patriotism, a firm position behind all things reactionary and against all things progressive in this country.

– Matthew Boucher is a junior history major and a member of the International Socialist Organization.