True patriotism is measured by the extent to which one believes in, and is willing to fight for and defend [not just in the military sense], the defining values and core principles of one's country.
-- Glenn Greenwald, How Would A Patriot Act: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok (p. 74)
Since I am a loyal reader of his blog as well as others that address similar subject matter, Glenn Greenwald's book seemed a bit redundant. After all, there is a virtual cottage industry of books of this nature, so much that we can now divide them up any number of ways, including by political ideology. Furthermore, the blog supplies more up to date (and in depth) discussions on the material, events after c. April 2006 also only making things clearer. Finally, you have the benefit of often informative blog comments.
OTOH, it is short (more of an booklet, really, at under 130pg) and cheap (about $10) way to get a flavor of the issues. I bring up the price -- though the library had it -- since it was put out by Working Assets, "a wireless, phone, credit card and publishing company that, through its services, generates donations to progressive causes." Jennifer Nix, a young publisher, is the one who brought the idea to Greenwald, convincing him to write the book. A book, again encouraged by Nix's insights, that achieved great success via online sales -- a way around traditional (and perhaps more conservative, in various senses of the word) publishing firms. Conservatives, often funded by the usual big money suspects, use this technique as well. Clearly, there is a way to do it without funding from selective millionaires.
There are obvious various subjects for which there are many books, so it is useful to look at particular ways that the authors cover the material. As well as the authors themselves. Glenn Greenwald promotes himself as being a mostly apolitical (he didn't vote in 2000*) lawyer, who thought things were and would continue to go pretty well, and thought so even after Bush became President. Sticking by him after 9/11 (a resident of NYC, it hit him with special force), GG was dubious about the Iraq War, but warily stood by him ... until too much evidence came out that this was impossible shortly thereafter. Thus, it was particularly notable -- as is the case for various conservative opponents who in various cases find GG on point -- that GG turned into such a forceful opponent.
First, I have to say that until to Bush Administration, I too basically saw things as okay -- not ideal, but basically acceptable, especially since there was a healthy balance in government at large. But, though I'm not saying he's exaggerating, this seems to be bending over backward in support of the guy. I have a few "where were you when JFK was shot" moments in my adult life. One amounts to a triad. I know where I was when I thought Gore won the presidency.** Where I was when it was "too close to call." And, when the Supremes stopped the count. (The announcement of the ruling isn't so clear in my mind.) From then, Bush was in effect dead to me. And, no, nothing much that he did afterwards really impressed me. The NYC mayor -- who had did various things that concerned me -- did.
Bush didn't. I didn't suddenly support him because "he was the only President we got" -- how pathetic. I was not just "dubious" about the war. So, GG took me a bit aback by those sentiments. Also, GG didn't put in something that sort of changes the "everything went swimmingly" theme, things that set off a few alarm bells before mid-2003. For instance, the President originally didn't tie the authorization of force to the 9/11 attacks -- Congress, the Senate being controlled by Democrats (remember why?) might have been a factor here. Other warning bells about the heavy-handed royalist sentiments of the Bushies can be added. So, the book actually wasn't totally strong enough.
The book was as much a brief against "the President run Amok" as a sort of instruction booklet on patriotism. OTOH, you can see it as a warning sign, a sign of what not to do. For instance, attacks on the media and members of Congress (including so-called moderates, yes, even Chuck Hagel) not willing to do even token oversight underlines the problem. Also, an important chapter discusses how true patriots -- see the original bunch -- did not let their fears (exaggerated fear at that ... this is not the Civil War, that's in Iraq) overwhelm their patriotism, using it as an excuse to give the executive royalist powers. This includes one of those rarely cited Federalist Papers (surely some were used here!), No. 8.
To be more safe, they, at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.
The net message of those papers is that freedom is also necessary for safety ... the loss of liberty, after all, led to the Revolutionary War in the first place, right? A true patriot ... though it might not seem so immediately ... is aided by the fact that patriotism is not only the path to happiness, it is ultimately probably the safest way as well.
Finally, a comment is made that we in effect have a government that we deserve. Do we? Many do not have power in this country, or enough power to really justify that statement. On some level, yes, we can do things (which will combine to form "public opinion" in some sense like that "hidden hand" of Adam Smith) to affect national policy. Consider how public opinion affects equality -- racial, sexual, etc. Al Gore, as noted recently on GG's blog, suggests the advancement of online blogs etc. has already affected how the public obtain information. This perhaps is the best way to approach that question, and we can demand a lot more from our fellow citizens in that department.
But, I am wary about being THAT cynical about us "deserving" this fate. Maybe, if we don't learn from ongoing problems -- and the 2006 elections suggests many did -- at some point it will have more validity.
---
* GG seems to be libertarian, wary about the lengths that the modern Congress goes in carrying out its powers, especially respecting "interstate commerce" and the drug war. He also, though one wouldn't know it except for some passing comments related to attacks on him personally, has a long time male companion (that sounds "gay," doesn't it?) ... one doubts, that is, that he found Bush ideologically a great guy, even if he did not vote for Gore etc.
** It is fitting therefore that I also picked up How To Steal An Election by David W. Moore, a pollster view of how things were f-ed up in 2000. (2004 was not stolen per this account, again, this is my view.) Also pretty short and easy reading, a discussion of "an historical observation," not a "partisan charge." It is thus particularly forceful.