Small Wars Journal

Saturday SWJ Quote of the Day

Sat, 07/12/2008 - 7:57pm
We've all heard humorless America-haters promote themselves by announcing, As Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

The first problem with that self-righteous bull is that Jefferson never said it. On the contrary, he warned of the dangers of political dissension carried to extremes.

The earliest traceable provenance of the slogan goes back to an obscure 1960s lefty who just made it up.

Dissent can be patriotic - it's essential to have an ongoing public debate about the major issues confronting us. But that dissent must be based on facts, not sloppy emotions.

Instead, we get dissent worn as a fashion statement. And fanatic dissent (as Jefferson noted) is the enemy of a democratic system.

--Ralph Peters

Comments

usmc_family (not verified)

Sun, 07/13/2008 - 5:34pm

SWJED asked: <i>Only one issue - I do not believe there is anyone on the face of the earth that has no political beliefs - surely you agree?</i>

Gosh, it's a pretty considerable honor to be asked for an opinion by the SWJED team, and I will do my best to answer with common sense.

On the one hand, it's definitely true that that pretty much any opinion has political overtones, and hence is political.

But IMHO the authors of the <i>Federalist Papers</i> (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) came pretty close to a working political neutrality, by their crafting of a Constitution that is largely founded upon wise compromises and carefully crafted checks-and-balances.

From this federalist point of view, the real genius of America's Constitution is not its ideals, but its compromises. But neither far-right nor far-left ideologues much care to acknowledge this point of view.

usmc_family (not verified)

Sun, 07/13/2008 - 4:59pm

Dear Ken ... Thank you for that fine reply ... I completely agree with both the spirit and the letter of your post.

And may I also say, that SWJ is an outstanding site. I've been reading SWJ for two years, but have posted very seldom (if at all), because politics in almost all of the SWJ features is subordinate to the main goal of war-winning. This means that I can come here to quietly listen-and-learn.

For this I am deeply grateful ... my sincere thanks and appreciation are extended to all who make SWJ such a fine site.

DDilegge

Sun, 07/13/2008 - 4:56pm

<i>As for politics, I myself have none in particular ... except to oppose (equally) the ideologues of the left and of the right, who IMHO have equally, and gravely, harmed the war effort.</i>

<i>Nothing would please me more than a war-effort, and an election, that were conducted with a view toward war-winning rather than left-wing and right-wing politics ... so far this hope has not been realized.</i>

Well, I would suggest you found a place to discuss the above and to engage in open discussion concerning your desires - right here - without censorship and with respect to all sides of any particular debate.

Only one issue - I do not believe there is anyone on the face of the earth that has no political beliefs - surely you agree?

Ken White

Sun, 07/13/2008 - 4:31pm

Sayeth usmc_family:

<i>"Just to note, Ken, my post is the only one (including the original editorial) that quotes Jefferson's words accurately and in-context, with a specific reference."</i> Noted. I also note that fact does nothing to contradict my point but pedantry is always to be admired. I'd also note that the McMaster quote while totally accurate -- and with which I agree -- does nothing to support your original and then repeated contention that the SWJ entry should be withdrawn and was 'injudicious.' The key factor, I suspect is what constitutes 'excessive' or counterproductive dissent. People can differ on that.

I further note you have politely acknowledged your original request was ill advised. Good for you.

As a minor point, I strongly doubt you'll see a victory of any kind in the current wars; insurgencies do not tend to have those for either side. The best that can usually be obtained is an acceptable outcome. I suspect that will occur.

Agree with your contention that ideologues on both sides are dangerous (and IMO pathetic, by turns) and I totally concur in this: <i>"...I cannot in honesty rate as "outstanding" the performance of Congress, the White House, or either major political party."</i>

If you'll wander around this site, you'll note that it is essentially apolitical and hopefully will stay that way. Most discussions are on the technical aspects of warfare with emphasis on small wars and while politics may intrude in the Clausewitzian sense, most of us try to hold it to a minimum.

usmc_family (not verified)

Sun, 07/13/2008 - 3:49pm

SWJED, thank *you* for your comments, and yes my request to withdraw the editorial was ill-advised.

My wife and I have a son in the Marines ... presently on his third Iraq tour ... and he has just volunteered for a fourth tour. He is one of the few amputee Marines, consequent to an IED on his first tour. Our daughter also has a (pretty serious) Marine boyfriend ... who is also on his third Iraq tour.

This family situation pretty much defines my interests and my politics. Namely, my sole interests are <b><font color="#008800">honorable victory and and a safe return home for our soldiers</font></b>, combined with <b><font color="#008800">first-class medical care for our wounded</font></b>.

As for politics, I myself have none in particular ... except to oppose (equally) the ideologues of the left and of the right, who IMHO have equally, and gravely, harmed the war effort.

Nothing would please me more than a war-effort, and an election, that were conducted with a view toward war-winning rather than left-wing and right-wing politics ... so far this hope has not been realized.

I think that SecDef Gates, Ambd. Crocker, and Gen. Petraeus are doing an outstanding job, with resources that are far too scant ... and I am well-content to entrust our son to their command ... but I cannot in honesty rate as "outstanding" the performance of Congress, the White House, or either major political party.

There are, I think, plenty of people who feel the same way.

DDilegge

Sun, 07/13/2008 - 2:57pm

Thank you for your commentary usmc_family. That is why we exist - to converse and raise issues.

You are a guest here on <i>SWJ</i> and as such we don't really 'hop to' individual request to remove posts - I hope you understand and appreciate multiple views on any particular issue.

Are you an active duty Marine, reserve or retired? Maybe we have crossed paths.

I too celebrate HR's selection to BG and have conveyed the same to him.

Seems to me you take great liberty in interpreting what he and Jefferson have to say... You have a right to your opinion - afford others the same. Thanks.

usmc_family (not verified)

Sun, 07/13/2008 - 2:44pm

Just to note, Ken, my post is the only one (including the original editorial) that quotes Jefferson's words accurately and in-context, with a specific reference.

Furthermore, my post is also the only one (again including the original editorial) that links Jefferson's words explicitly to contemporary military analysis (H. R. Mcmaster's analysis of the Vietnam War).

So it seems to me that everyone else is pretty much "spinning" and "quibbling" in service of the same partisan political ends that have already exerted such a disastrous influence on the planning and conduct of this war.

By the way, I see that McMaster just made Brigadier General (good!) and so I will assert that the reading of Jefferson in my post more closely accords with the strategic thinking of America's most experienced and senior military leaders, than does the editorial that SWJ (injudiciously) posted.

Ken White

Sun, 07/13/2008 - 1:02pm

usmc_family, you say: "<i>The bottom line: this particular SWJ editorial amounts to a "quibble" that seriously misrepresents Jefferson's actual thought, and contributes nothing of value to concrete discussions of the war. It should be withdrawn."</i>

I'm unsure how you arrive at your conclusion and I disagree with your recommendation; the original Post said:<blockquote>"The first problem with that self-righteous bull is that Jefferson never said it. On the contrary, he warned of the dangers of political dissension <b>carried to extremes.</b>"</blockquote>(emphasis added / kw)

Jefferson has never been traced to the quote used in that original Post and while he supported sensible dissent, he correctly opposed extreme dissent as being of little value and as a possible disrupter of a civil society. Seems to me the tone of your statement applies to your own posted comment rather than to the original Blog entry...

usmc_family (not verified)

Sun, 07/13/2008 - 9:41am

I am a big fan of SWJ, but (IMHO) this is a bad editorial that completely misrepresents Jefferson's political thought. The best succinct summary of Jefferson's thoughts on dissent---in Jefferson's own words---that I know is from a 1887 letter to Abigail Adams.

Here is Jefferson speaking for himself.

-----

<i>"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable upon certain occasions, that I wish it to be kept always alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."</i>

-----

Discussions of the role of dissent would would be elevated (IMHO) if they began with the above Jefferson quote, and finished with a quote from H.R. McMaster's book, <i>Dereliction of Duty:</i>

-----

<i>"To say that the most momentous issues a nation must face cannot be openly and critically discussed is really tantamount to saying that democratic debate and decision do not apply the the questions of life and death. ... Not only is this position at odds with the principles of democracy, but it removes a very important corrective for governmental misjudgment."</i>

----

The bottom line: this particular SWJ editorial amounts to a "quibble" that seriously misrepresents Jefferson's actual thought, and contributes nothing of value to concrete discussions of the war. It should be withdrawn.

DDilegge

Sat, 07/12/2008 - 9:13pm

Via the <a href="http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html">Jefferson Library</a> - here is what Thomas Jefferson <i>actually</i> had to say:

<i>Political dissension is doubtless a less evil than the lethargy of despotism: but still it is a great evil, and it would be as worthy the efforts of the patriot as of the philosopher, to exclude it's influence if possible, from social life. The good are rare enough at best. There is no reason to subdivide them by artificial lines. But whether we shall ever be able so far to perfect the principles of society as that political opinions shall, in it's intercourse, be as inoffensive as those of philosophy, mechanics, or any other, may well be doubted.</i>

<P ALIGN=RIGHT>--TJ to Thomas Pinckney, 29 May 1797</P>

More from the Jefferson Library:

As Jefferson himself noted, "So many persons have of late found an interest or a passion gratified by imputing to me sayings and writings which I never said or wrote..." (TJ to Alexander White, 10 September 1797). More than two hundred years later, Jefferson is of course not here to correct any wrongful "imputations," but we are. Please take advantage of our years of debunking spurious Jefferson quotes, and read on for information on some of the most frequent and recent troublemakers...