Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
I have been thinking about the sentiment “my country, right or wrong” as well as many potential variations (e.g. “my party, right or wrong,” “my parents, right or wrong,” or “my company, right or wrong”). What I have been thinking is that such a statement of unquestioning loyalty is ripe for abuse and manipulation.
I took the time to look up the origin of that statement and found that the actual toast by Stephen Decatur that it is supposed to be quoting was “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!” This statement is still loaded with loyalty or patriotism, but it contains an important sentiment that is left out of the popular remnant “may she always be in the right.” I think that phrase is overshadowed by the statement of ownership that follows – “right or wrong, our country.”
As right as that true statement of loyalty is, a more dependable variation was uttered by Carl Schurz which he calls “the watchword of true patriotism”- “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” This is truly my brand of loyalty, whether to my country or to any other organization.
It is the sentiment of the original statement of unconditional ownership that convinced me to avoid party affiliation. I did not wish to allow any perception that I was dedicated to anything that was changeable. At least with my country it is arguable that my citizenship, and living here make it mine even when I disagree whereas with a party my disagreement while maintaining membership might seem incongruous.
As I came to realize that my strident independence was hobbling my ability to contribute to the actual work of government I had to reconcile myself to the idea of participating with one party or another. I have already expressed the fact that I was seeking to decide what party to work with. Now, having come to the conclusions of Schurz’ true patriotism (even before I found his statement of it) I am able to join a party without reservation.
I have chosen the Republican party as my political vehicle not because it is without fault, but where there are faults I will strive to set it right. Likewise my choice not to join the Democratic party – despite my ardent desire for a healthy balance of parties in this state – is not because that party lacks virtues in its members or its stated goals. My conclusion is that the stated positions of the Republican party more closely align with my own internal values overall than the stated positions of the Democratic party. I have also come to the conclusion that the Democratic party, locally and nationally, has stayed closer to their core values in recent years than the Republican party has to their core values (especially nationally).
I will be working to help the Republican party live up to its ideals and I will hope to see others working to build up a strong and vibrant Democratic party in our state – especially in areas like Davis and Utah counties – which will challenge the Republican party and push us to stay true to our principles because I honestly believe that regardless of the policy differences between the parties each party is built up mainly of people who love their country and want what is best for their fellow citizens.
4 replies on “Loyalty . . . Right or Wrong”
Thank you for expanding on the truth behind that common sentiment of loyalty. Love and ownership of country does not — indeed should not — imply that she should be followed without question (certain situations excepted for military personnel). I believe that patriotism entails setting our country aright when she goes wrong, as all human institutions do at times.
Credit the expansion to Carl Schurz – or even Stephen Decatur. The short and undesirable version is just a function of our soundbite culture.
Ultimately, our loyalty should be to the truth as we see it. But that interpretation of truth is always conditional. If new evidence contradicts what he hold as truth, we should be loyal to the weight of evidence, not faith in things not seen or substantiated.
What we should never be loyal to, is the notion that there were someone in the past whose wisdom was unimpeachable. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and many others have made truly inspiring statements. But those statements stand on the inherent wisdom of those statements, not on the individuals who uttered them.
Great men make great statements, but they also sometimes make illogical ones. Our job is to intelligently filter those ideas with merit, from those without.
Ultimately, our wisdom, not our loyalty to individuals from the past, is what we should be loyal to.
Best regards my friend and Happy Thanksgiving.
Well said Obi wan. Any con man knows the value in telling a little truth to build trust and even the wisest of men are prone to make mistakes (or to say unwise things before they learned some bit of wisdom). We have to always hold to the truth (or lack of it) in a statement rather than simply holding to our perceptions of the speaker.