_______________LIBERALISM IS AS PATRIOTIC AS APPLE PIE BY JOE CONASON (07/07/98)
	I don't question that liberals can be patriotic, but Conason's attempt to prove it falls flat. Weakest is his notion that the Founding Fathers were "a cabal of left-wing radicals." His argument rests on the fact that they were revolutionaries, opposed to monarchy. But if Conason would look beyond the fancy duds and impressive titles, he would realize that monarchs are the ultimate proponents of big government and enemies of freedom. What were the Founding Fathers fighting for, after all? It is most typically summed up as an end to "taxation without representation," but take that as an unjustified intrusion by government on the freedom of its citizens. Remember that it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "The government that governs least governs best." This is in stark contrast to the redistributionist ethic of the liberal, which can be summarized as "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." It is the Joe Conasons and Hillary Clintons of the world who would recast themselves as monarchs, albeit benign ones in their own estimation, who paternalistically presume to know what is best for all of us and would enforce it through governmental fiat. The true philosophical and political heirs of the Founding Fathers are those today who are fighting to reduce the power of government, particularly at the federal level, and return it to the people. That doesn't make liberals unpatriotic, but it does suggest that they are out of touch with the principles upon which this country was founded. -- Mark Finkelstein Ithaca, N.Y. Thanks to Joe Conason for his article about patriotic liberalism! I also resent the fact that I have read Thomas Paine's writings, actually know the Constitution, have read Ben Franklin's autobiography out of sheer fascination, know and have read the Federalist Papers, have studied the Revolutionary War in no small depth and feel nothing but deep love and admiration for the founding fathers -- and yet my patriotism is in question; whereas the patriotism of what his father called the jelly-bellied flag-flappers isn't. What sort of nation are we where the patriotism of people who actually believe in and understand the principles on which the U.S. was founded is suspect, and the patriotism of a bunch of narrow-minded illiterates who haven't ever sat down and read the documents behind our nation is sacrosanct? Narrow-minded conservatism is not patriotic. People who scream bloody murder at liberal self-expression and who then turn around and mouth their love for the Constitution aren't patriots -- they're hypocrites, plain and simple. -- Janis Cortese While I am as nauseated as Joe Conason with the right wing's claims that they are the only "true" patriots, I must point out that he sows a tremendous amount of confusion while trying to claim the moral high ground for the left wing. First, the founders of this country were indeed the opposite of Tory/Conservative; in fact they even called themselves Liberal. But the meaning of "liberal" has changed tremendously since that time. Then, it meant that every individual should have the right to self-determination -- which is far from the modern "liberal" who argues that people are too stupid to be allowed self-determination, and that the federal government should be all-powerful to compensate. Second, the Civil War was not about ending slavery. Read what Lincoln said at the time. It got whitewashed that way after the fact, and in fact it did end slavery, but that wasn't the reason the war was fought. I think of it as the "American Counterrevolution," because in centralizing federal power and trampling on the Bill of Rights, it mostly dismantled the positive results of the American Revolution. Third, just because a lot of right-wing loonies were fellow travelers of the "America First" movement doesn't mean that isolationist sentiments were wrong. The very founders who Mr. Conason claims as his ideological forebears were emphatic in their insistence that America never get involved in Europe's disputes. We mostly got involved in WWI because of our leaders' intense desire to reshape America into an imperialist power. Our involvement in WWII is more complicated, but imperialism is certainly mixed in with all the other motives. Finally, Korea and Vietnam (and numerous other, smaller "police actions") were applauded by the right wing, certainly. But they were all part and parcel of the "world policeman" (read: imperialist) role that Mr. Conason applauds -- when promoted by politicians he personally approves of. I believe that Mr. Conason should read more history. -- Tom Biggs Thank you, Joe Conason, for saying something I have felt for a long time. We on the left (liberals, progressives, radicals, anarchists, whatever) need to reclaim patriotism from the right. But it is our fault that they have a monopoly on love for their country. We have let them define patriotism as mindless flag-waving, as endless recitals of the Pledge of Allegiance and (most heinously) as a love of the military. As a teenager in the 1980s, I saw these displays of American jingoism and decided to hate America. I still cringe every time I see someone waving an American flag, but I can find so many reasons to love this country and its history. We on the left could stand to promote people like Sam Adams and Thomas Paine, to understand the great tradition of rebellion and betterment of the human condition that this country (for all its flaws) has. We need to take back the symbols, heroes and institutions of this country for ourselves, not let flag-waving morons claim them for themselves. Just as gays made the word "queer" theirs, so we too need to take back "patriotism." It doesn't have to be an ugly word. -- Stephan von Pohl Oakland, Calif. This column reminded me of how at the 1992 Republican Convention, the then head of the Republican National Committee, on national television, in answer to the question of why people should vote for George Bush and Dan Quayle instead of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, stated, "Because we are Americans and they are not." It makes you wonder if they believe that American voters are ignorant, gullible and easily led, or if they truly believe their own delusions. -- Floyd Grant
_______________MULAN THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS BY KATHERINE KIM AND ANDREA QUONG (07/07/98)
	What happened to Mothers Who Think? While I appreciate Katherine Kim and Andrea Quong's well-written assessments of Disney's "Mulan," their thoughts come across more as assignments for an Asian-American Studies 101 course than the idiosyncratic and emotionally complex (and sometimes downright politically incorrect) musings of most Mothers Who Think columnists. Give me risky thought emboldened and forged by experience -- parenthood is messy, as is life, as is moviegoing. Start with this question: Isn't just about every woman born of traditional, boy-favoring (Chinese) parents dying to be told, as Mulan was at the movie's end, "A daughter like you is better than any son I could have hoped for"? -- Cynthia Liu SALON | July 15, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| WHY THE TIME/CNN NERVE-GAS DEBACLE WAS INEVITABLE BY TED GUP

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.