Print Window   
 
The Independent Institute
Commentary

Liberty Versus "Patriotism"


Dozens of people have been arrested under the Stolen Valor Act, which punishes, by up to a year in jail, the wearing of any unearned military medal. It is still a crime even if no effort was made to profit from the adornment or dissembling about earning it. This law is now being challenged in the courts as a violation of the First Amendment’s free speech right. Let’s hope that the judicial system acknowledges the clear violation of this amendment. But, of course, many times the courts choose the wrong answer, especially when questions of “patriotism” and the military arise.

The ancient Greeks and the men of the 18th-century Enlightenment, which included the American founders, differentiated between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism to both of these groups meant a responsibility to fellow citizens and devotion to humanity and the common good. Fealty to the nation-state and its government—nationalism—was an entirely different concept. In fact, the original U.S. patriots fought the American Revolution against the British nation-state and its government to preserve the traditional Englishmen’s rights in the colonies, which were under attack from the British crown.

Unfortunately, in the 19th century, the concepts of patriotism and nationalism blended. On top of that, after World War II, U.S. foreign policy became permanently militarized and public guilt about some mistreatment of returning Vietnam conscripts has led to excessive post-Vietnam adulation of the U.S. military. The public also feels sheepish about its lack of sacrifice—for example, sitting in lazy boy recliners watching the Super Bowl—while young men and women fight the government’s wars.

Such excessive admiration of things military is quite the opposite of what the founders believed. They, almost to a man, were suspicious that large standing armies, such as those of 18th-century European monarchs, would be a major threat to liberty. Given this American history, the adoption by the House, unanimous passage by the Senate, and signing by the president in 2006 of the clearly unconstitutional Stolen Valor Act indicates that demagogic nationalism by politicians knows no bounds.

Wearing an unearned military medal falls under none of the traditional judicial limits imposed on First Amendment free speech—that is, obscenity, libel, or imminent danger to others. That is, the courts have ruled that the First Amendment protects almost all speech that doesn’t harm another person. Also, as Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the Washington Post about the act, “Half the pickup lines in bars across the country could be criminalized under that concept.” Taking the absurdity even farther, a kid could be arrested for wearing old military medals as part of a Halloween costume.

Of course, if anyone attempts to profit from saying that they won an unearned medal, or by actually wearing one, he or she could still be charged with fraud.

Liberty, for which our military men and women are supposed to be fighting, should trump nationalism, faux patriotism, and militarism. In fact, all of these things probably harm the U.S. military more than a wannabe hero making false claims about earning a martial medal. All of these maladies, usually promoted by guilt-ridden expedient civilians, usually get military people killed in unnecessary wars—certainly more disrespect to the nation’s armed forces than faking a few medals.


Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.

New from Ivan Eland!
NO WAR FOR OIL: U.S. Dependency and the Middle East

The grab for oil resources has been a major factor behind many conflicts and military deployments because of its perception as a strategic commodity. This book debunks the notion that oil is strategic and argues that war for oil is not necessary to secure the flow of petroleum. Learn More »»