From the Left: You don’t have the right of way

People often don't know how flattered I am to be called an anti-patriot. For clarification: I care about the people of this country -- not this country. Patriotism, like all superstitions, is an ego-driven, blind-submission, faith-based recipe for imperialism. That Americans, in the 21st century, after world wars, genocides, spectacular terrorist attacks, and slavery, still stand like zealots holding a Chinese-made American flag, with a tear running down their cheek, proclaiming America as the martyr of democracy, is one of the most irrational acts I can think of. Of-course, America is not the only one; the entire world continues to participate in this I-love-my-country nonsense. Patriotism is what allows my colleagues to use the word "barbarian" to refer to other countries. Patriotism is a type of coincidence politics: because I happen to be born here, I happen to be better than those who were not born here. Patriotism is what allows people to consider countries "super-powers," and live in a falsehood that somehow they have the answer. When I say America has very little to be proud of (as I did in my previous column), why is it assumed that I think another country has something to be proud of?

In a continuation to clarify the Right's position on civil rights, I am comfortable saying that the Right is racist, sexist and homophobic. Does this mean that every conservative is racist, sexist and homophobic? Absolutely not. And does it mean that there is no bigotry from the Left? Again, no. What is means is this: Unfortunately, when we choose to participate in the American political system, we identify with a party and are identified by that party. These parties develop platforms and strategize on how to market, sell, and enact their platforms. What I want to focus on is the motive in which they apply their platform.

Allow me to elaborate. The Right, primarily Republicans, is against the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Why? They believe that being an "out" solider is a threat to the military climate and a threat to national security. The key word here is "threat." What and who are they scared of? The fundamental motive is homophobic. In terms of racism, are they endorsing the KKK? No. Well, perhaps in some conservative circles. But of course if I talk about the profound racial implications of a white person holding a sign that says, "Lynch Obama," I'm being too sensitive and "radicalizing" the issue. So in order to continue our hegemonic discourse, I will say that the person holding that sign is just a middle-class American, who loves their country and is exercising free speech.

Mainstream conservatives do not have the leanings to be dumb enough to hold a "Lynch Obama" sign, but the application of their policies on immigration for example, conscious or not, are saturated with profiling, white supremacy, and dehumanization. The wall, for example -- could we get anymore Jewish ghetto? Jan Brewer doesn't know much, but she is schooled in mid-20th century politics, and is turning the state of Arizona into a police state. Oh, but of course racism doesn't play a role in their enactment of this fascist policy; they are simply "protecting" our country from a bunch of undocumented criminals who don't pay taxes. Here are a few questions: What does an immigrant look like? There is no profiling in this policy?  Who are the cops going to stop? Are they going to stop me? I'm educated, I dress well, and for relativity purposes, compared to the Mexican first-generation immigrant, I am white. Here is what an immigrant looks like to Americans: [S]he is the person washing dishes at Applebee's after we inhale some vulgar amount of food. Those are the people we are looking for.

The last point I will address is the detrimental messiah complex in American foreign policy. First of all, please be aware of the irony some of my collogues get into when they say the Left is hypocritical about their commitment to civil rights, because we don't the support "American intervention when necessary." Why is this ironic? Because it was mentioned that "homosexuals," (great 1980s word) in the US sip on Cosmos while other "homosexuals" get killed overseas. This from the country that wants a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, does not have gender in their list of non-discrimination policy at the national level, did not successfully pass the ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), ran into divisive opposition when we passed the Matthew Shepard Act. Should I go on? Or am I limited in space?

Here is what American "intervention" does: It creates flamboyant myths that women that are "covered up" are not free, assumes that the US is the provider of liberty, and most fundamentally, that our barely born 250 year old county can tell these well-seasoned countries that we have it figured out. Let's worry about the cluster of problems we have hear before we start the freedom crusades, and just in case you forgot: Guantanamo Bay. Let's talk about the American example with human rights and ethics for a change.

David Jacobsen is a senior political science and women's studies major. He considers himself a left-wing radical feminist and immigration progressive. He is a member of the UNH College Democrats.