Back to the Churn

Churning out papers, that is! ;) For anyone who enjoys reading strange papers on obscure topics, you're in luck. Anyone else can stop reading and go do something enjoyable with life :D

Question: "Out of deep opposition to the war in Iraq and its aftermath, a candidate for the House of Representatives makes the following statement in a campaign speech: 'The United States is an oppressive, imperialist, war-mongering bully, and the principal goal of international politics today must be to restrain this Great Satan so that it cannot impose its wicked designs on innocent peoples.' Did this candidate go beyond the limits of acceptable rhetoric and breach an obligation of loyalty? Cast your answer in the form of a scholastic disputation."

Whether this candidate overstepped the bonds of loyalty

Objection 1: It would seem that this candidate did not commit treason or betrayal.  While calling the United States an “oppressive, imperialist, war-mongering bully” is not complimentary, it also gives away no treasonous secrets to enemies and does not attack the country in any way other than verbally, which form of attack is protected under the right to free speech in the constitution of this country.  The government need not appreciate or approve of everything said by its citizens; the provision of the right to free speech shows that such occurrences are actually expected.  To this purpose, while candidates for Congress would generally be expected to speak with at least some show of allegiance to country, this is not a legal necessity. The candidate’s speech was an expression of opinion, not an act of disloyalty.

Objection 2: Further, language is not always an accurate way to determine loyalty.  Rhetoric allows more freedom of speech than ordinary language because it ought not to be taken quite literally, and the speech here is clearly an example of rhetoric.  The words may have caused offense to some members of American society in expressing a view that was not popular or in line with the opinion of those listening.  However, it is impossible that every person agrees with everything said by every other person.  If this speech offended sensibilities it was not specifically obscene; and while many people might not agree with what was said, it did not ‘shock the conscience’ with suggestions of drastic action to be taken against the United States.  Neither governmental appreciation of a suggestion nor general agreement on a particular point of view by the American populace are prerequisites for a condition of an attitude of loyalty.  As such, the candidate’s rhetoric cannot be taken to be an expression of disloyalty against the United States, as it is simply a personal opinion, dramatically put.

Objection 3: Further, there is a distinction between patriotism and loyalty, and it is the decision of the individual as to if their loyalty is equivalent to the patriotism that they express toward the current governmental policies.  A person can be loyal to a person (or, in this case, to an institution such as a government) and speak out against them without overstepping loyalty – on the contrary, loyalty to an ideal can require that harsh truths be spoken.  This rhetoric is nothing more than an appeal to “the divine spark of reason shared by all human beings” (158) spoken of by Kant.  By emphasizing the plight of those ‘innocent peoples’ who are being put upon by the United States government, the candidate is showing loyalty to the common brotherhood of humanity.  If this comes across as being less-than-patriotic to country, that is unfortunate: on the contrary, this candidate is actually showing a concern for the protection of people who are being imposed upon.  It is conceivable that this loyalty would, in the future, also include the American people, should this candidate feel that they were being imposed upon as well. The immediate concern for foreign people should not be taken to be a lack of concern for domestic affairs, but instead a realization that international issues are more pressing at the moment and domestic ones may well come later and would at that point be addressed.   

On the contrary, “External events are not important in themselves.  They have moral significance only so far as they provide evidence to confirm or disconfirm the inner sentiment” (47).

I answer that, Had the candidate called out in his speech for reform from within the House and made that a part of his campaign, that would have been acceptable.  Under free speech, the candidate has the right to say what he thinks, and there was no treason, obscene talk, or slander involved.  The law was not broken.  However, it is not necessary that loyalty and obedience follow the same lines. Just as obedience can be forced and that is not loyalty, so a lack of treason is hardly an expression of loyalty.  The candidate’s view that ‘international politics’ must become involved is where he crossed the line.  He could have shown loyalty to his ‘true country’ through showing a kind of ethical loyalty: using his platform to show how he was planning to ‘restrain’ the United States, and showing loyalty by making it a better, more moral place to live.  In the setting of a campaign speech for a government job, however, the appeal to international versus domestic politics is either being made against the very people to whom it is directed, or else is an attempt to incite the American people against their government.  In either case, the candidate is taking his grievance out of the appropriate context and simply speaking against his country to a pointless end.  This is disloyal, not edifying toward some distant good.

Reply to Objection 1: While it is true that the candidate did not break the law and commit a form of treason and betrayal, the lack of loyalty in his speech is apparent.  The words used were harsh against the country: had he possessed loyalty he would have been phrasing his concerns in a way that were constructive and suggesting policies for change, instead of flat criticism without an obvious solution in mind. Even if the words spoken were legal under the constitution of the United States, there is a difference between legality and loyalty.  The lack of crime does not portend loyalty, and as such this candidate’s words should not be taken to be some skewed form of patriotism for a far-off idealistic good but instead for the disloyalty that they are.

Reply to Objection 2: Regardless of the apparent fact that the candidate was using rhetoric and perhaps even being carried away by the flow of words, this does not excuse the speech and certainly makes no case that the candidate was in fact loyal.  Even if it were consistently true that rhetoric is an exaggeration, this candidate would be found to be exaggerating in the wrong direction.  Taken to an extreme on the outside, calling the country a “Great Satan”, does not prove betrayal - but does show a (perhaps milder, but not necessarily so) internal sentiment that is contrary to the government and therefore to loyalty.  The argument that loyalty was being shown to humanity and therefore even to United States citizens is a valid one, but the question is not if the candidate is or is not lacking in loyalty at all but if he has gone too far in speaking against the United States and the loyalty due his country.  To that end, the general loyalty argument does not apply and his disloyalty is evident.

Reply to Objection 3: This candidate is lacking even the barest minimum of patriotism, and even if the words are not outright treason or betrayal, the sentiments of loyalty are also missing.  There is not even a hint of hoping to work with the United States to reform government policies, but instead an outspoken belief that it has “wicked designs” to impose upon “innocent peoples”.  This cannot be imagined to be patriotic language, and in the context of a campaign speech to Americans, the suggestion that we must go elsewhere for help is nothing less than disloyal to the sensibilities and common citizenship of the American people.  “The moral challenge for every devotee of a cause is to find the proper balance of loyalty and independent moral judgment” (35).  The cause of international justice may well be a valid one, but in the case of this candidate patriotism is lacking, the balance was not found, and the candidate stepped past loyalty.  

*Quotes taken from G.P. Fletcher, "Loyalty"*