Patriotism is more than waving a flag, it may require sacrifice too
Without a doubt, the COVID-19 pandemic is testing the United States’ resolve. UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated recently that the coronavirus outbreak is the “biggest challenge for the world since World War Two.” There are many parallels of the current crisis to the global confrontation during the middle of the last century. In this New Your Times article, the author discusses this topic with noted military historian Robert Citino. The relative similarities and the stark contrast between then and now are both enlightening and concerning.
THAT WAS THEN
Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, we were keenly aware of the potential threat to the United States. Likewise, the possibility of the coronavirus reaching our shores was equally apparent. Yet, unlike now, when the risk manifested itself, our country was propelled into action. We took bold and aggressive steps to bring an entire nation into the fight. This unprecedented challenge required asking the electorate to make sacrifices, which meant restricting economic activity and even travel. The United States needed rubber, gasoline, tin, sugar, lard, and many other commonly used consumer items for the war effort. As a result, Americans were directed by new rules in which:
People placed their automobiles on blocks because they had no tires.
If one was lucky enough to have tires, they were unable to drive for pleasure due to limitations on driving because of gas rationing.
The government restricted the amount of food and other consumer items that people could purchase. Rationing limited what someone could buy, and even when and how.
Businesses abided by price controls, placing a ceiling on the prices they could charge.
Workers’ wages were controlled, minimizing their earnings.
Landlords faced rent control, limiting the rent they could receive
Even recycling was expected and considered patriotic.
In many ways, these war-time restrictions challenged the fundamentals of a free-market society. They were necessary to deal with the threat they were facing. Were people upset? You bet. Did they comply? The majority did. Were there cheaters and those who broke the rules and guidelines? Yes, there were.
THIS IS NOW
Today, sacrifice means restricting the number of people who can congregate in public places, maintaining social distancing, and even requiring the use of face masks when around others.
Unlike American society’s behavior during the war, some Americans today view what is being asked as a bridge too far. If asking something as benign as wearing face masks is difficult for today’s Americans, then one has to wonder how they would’ve fared in the early 1940s. Hindsight informs us today that those who opposed the sacrifices made during the war were on the wrong side of history then. Likewise, in the year 2100, I am certain today’s detractors will receive a similar criticism — if not already.
WHAT CHANGED?
During WW2, Americans were asked to be part of the solution by their country and its leadership. They were told that they might need to make sacrifices, and they were told why. Their leaders had an eye on the long-term success of the fight to come and not the quick wins or political gains associated with an election year. The citizenry was told the inconvenient truth about the situation, and they were not misinformed nor provided contradictory messages. Mistakes were made, acknowledged, and corrected. Accountability was expected, and lack of it was not tolerated. Sacrifice was encouraged for the good of the nation. Even though there were protests by detractors, no one in the highest levels of government advocated for resistance or encouraged the populace to take up arms in protest.
Perhaps Americans back then were more patriotic then they are today. They heard the call of their country and stepped up to answer. Contrary to what many might believe, patriotism is not waving a flag, proclaiming your rights, and demanding protection of your freedom. During World War 2, patriotism was exemplified by fellow countrymen and women willing to make the same sacrifices as their neighbors for the good of the country.
Why is it so hard to do this now?
Instead of fighting for what is best for America, some Americans are focusing on fighting solely for their benefit. They use arguments like “standing up for their rights” and “protecting their liberty.” Fortunately for them, the first amendment provides them with the right to do that. The Constitution, however, calls on “We the People” to do much more than advocate for our rights in “order to form a more perfect union.”
WHAT IS THE ANSWER?
The Constitution preamble provides the purpose of federal governance. It details the following list of requirements: “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for a common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.” Note that securing the blessings of liberty are the last thing on that list. Ironically, many people seem to focus solely on their liberty while losing sight of necessary actions like common defense and general welfare. To be a perfect union, we have to do everything on the list and it takes government to make it happen.
Justice ensures fairness when punishing those who put public health at risk.
Domestic Tranquility ensures we can apply proactive measures to address the risks we face without the threat of armed protestors who oppose them.
Common Defense requires both a capable Armed Military Service and a well-resourced Public Health Service.
General Welfare promotes the wearing of masks and maintaining “social distancing,” despite the inconvenience, as necessary.
Without the above actions taking place, the blessings of liberty are merely a theory that no one will be able to exercise or enjoy. A patriotic society realizes that precept, while a selfish one most likely will not. I fear that we are no longer a nation embodied by “We the People” and are more concerned about “Me the Person”. Patriotism cannot survive with the latter.
In 1942 a rationing system was begun to guarantee minimum amounts of necessities to everyone (especially poor people) and prevent inflation.
I previously published this in the Medium Publication - The National Discussion