Letters To The Editor-- February 22, 2006

I read The Raleigh News & Observer every morning. As newspapers go it is somewhere between The Los Angeles Times and The Nowheresville Highly Opinionated Weekly. The one feature that I look forward to reading every morning is "The Letters To The Editor" because it is so often a source of naked bigotry, ignorance, and religious zealotry. This morning I read this little gem:

Some of the reasons the liberal elite media despise our vice president are:
1) He is very intelligent.
2) He refuses to worship at their sef-constructed altar.
3) He is amused by their stupid questions.
4) He is effective beyond their collective imagination.
5) He enjoys the full confidence of our president, his colleagues and a majority of the American people.
6) They cannot understand his lack of interest in becoming president.
7) He has a subtle and sophistocated sense of humor surpassing their understanding.
8) He knows his job, and more about government, business, economics and defense matters then they can fathom.
9) He is a patriot.
10) He is a man of faith.

Odd, I never thought of Cheney as a "man of faith." I will say he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve as so many other politicians do. Perhaps Cheney takes after his boss and is one of those born-again Christians who don't attend church.

Overall that is quite a list and while I could nitpick (#5 is highly questionable) I think that the most revealing are #s 1 and 9. The fact that the letter writer thinks the "liberal, elite media" despises Cheney for being intelligent and patriotic taints the whole list for me.

The word "liberal" means "Not rigorous or literal, open-minded, unprejudiced. Progressive, favoring individual liberty and democratic reform. Generous, open-handed." I suspect that it is the "open-handed" part that has given liberals a bad name. To be liberal is to be open to change-- the very opposite of being a conservative-- and being open to change means welcoming intelligence. Without information how can we change? To state that liberals hate somebody because they are "intelligent" is to completely misunderstand the ideals of liberalism.

But it is the definition of "Patriot" that I have the greatest dificulty with these days. We so often hear it bandied about and lately the idea of who or who is not a patriot seems to have changed mightily. These days the easiest way to be marked as a patriot is to wear a little flag lapel on one's jacket while the quickest way to be marked as a traitor is to speak out against the government, as though the present administration-- not the people or the land or the history or the culture-- is the sole embodiment of America.

I sure wish we could go back to the old definition when to be a patriot didn't mean enriching one's own pockets at the expense of others but meant sacrifice. When serving one's country did not mean earning millions while living a life of power and luxury in Washington D.C. passing legislation that benefits one's friends in big business.

I guess when it comes to the meaning of the word, "Patriot" you can call me a conservative.