“My Country, Right Or Wrong”
I am once again noticing a resurgence of the doctrine of, “My Country, Right or Wrong.”
These are doctrines that are morally repugnant and, to make matters worse, they wear their disregard for morality right on the surface. There is no way to interpret the doctrine, “My Country, Right or Wrong” other than as an assertion of, “I am going to support that which is wrong — I am going to support that which no good person would support — I am going to be a defender of evil — when my country is the agent performing that evil.”
No moral defense can even be started in favor of the person who says, “I am going to swear my allegiance to an agent with no regard as to whether that agent is good or evil. If it is good, I will be its devoted servant. But even if it is evil, I will remain its devoted servant.”
A person cannot say, “My country, right or wrong,” without saying, “I will do that which is wrong — I will support that which no moral person will support, when my country does wrong and my country is an agent of evil.” Typically, I would think that this is all that would need to be said to discredit this idea. And, yet, people still assert it, and they assert it without its being challenged.
Support the Troops
Another way of expressing the “My Country, Right or Wrong” doctrine is through the doctrine “Support the Troops”. Now, “Support the troops” is a vague doctrine, because rational people can then enter into a disagreement as to what counts as “support?”
Do you “support” the troops by supporting a President who puts them in danger for the purpose of fulfilling a personal political or religious objective? Do you “support” the troops by putting them under a Commander-in-Chief with a proven record of disregarding reality in favor of a favored belief regardless of how poorly it is supported by actual evidence? People can actually disagree on this, with one group counting “support” in terms of giving the troops responsible and rational leadership, while others want to assert that “support” means refusing to criticize them and, in fact, refusing to entertain the idea that they are involved in an activity that deserves to be criticized.
This latter option is the option of “My Country, Right or Wrong”. It is a doctrine that says, “You have an obligation to the troops not to question the merit of the projects they are involved in. The question of whether they are fighting for something that is good or evil is not to be discussed. It is a forbidden subject. Do not question it. You, yourself, are evil if you should dare raise the possibility that these actions are not right.”
We can see this in recognizing how a leader such as Hitler could use the same argument. As German troops storm through Poland, and then begin the process of rounding up Jews and Poles and forcing them into concentration camps and ghettos, it is all too easy for the defenders of Hitler to assert, “Support the troops.” This means, “Do not question our policies. Support them. No matter what those policies are, call them good. No matter what ends we tell the troops to pursue, no matter what the political objectives happen to be, tell our troops that they are serving a worthwhile cause. Make sure that they believe that they are fighting, maiming, killing, suffering, and dying for a worthy cause — no matter what that cause happens to be.”
This is the message contained when “Support the troops” takes on the meaning of “My country, right or wrong.”
A Better Form of Support
We should, in fact, support our troops. However, the type of support that we should give is not the type written into “My Country, Right or Wrong”. We support our troops by making sure that they are called to fight only for that which is worth fighting for. We support our troops by saying, “We will not call on you to fight and maim and kill and suffer and die, unless it is in support of something that is truly — morally -- something that justifies these actions.”
This means questioning the morality of the actions and the policies that those troops are being asked to perform. If we tell the troops, “We are going to make sure that you fight only for a cause that has moral merit,” then we give up the idea of “My country, right or wrong.” Instead, we replace it with, “My country, which must always be right.” And this means that if there is any evidence at all that my country is wrong — if there is any moral argument to be made against the policies that its troops are fighting for — that those moral arguments must be made. They must be considered.
If those moral arguments are found to have merit, then we can only obey our responsibility to support the troops by ceasing the command that they fight and maim and kill and suffer and die for a cause that a good person, a moral person, would not support.
My Country, Love It or Leave It
When one starts to criticize the morality of the nation’s policies, one is also likely to quickly encounter the person who says that if you do not love and support the country, you should leave it and find a country that you can love and support.
I find this somewhat like saying, “If you should catch your child doing something wrong, you should not work to correct that child. Instead, you should immediately abandon it — leave it to fend for itself, and instead find a different child that behaves as you want it to behave.”
It is like saying, “If you come across an evil act — for example, if you come across a person assaulting a woman in a dark alley — you should either approve of what the assailant is doing and help him or, if you disapprove, you should walk away. Whatever you do, do not criticize, and do not get involved. Observe what the assailant is doing, and either live it or leave it.”
The wayward child, or the assailant will almost certainly want you to be the type of person who “loves it or leaves it”, allowing them to execute whatever evil they intend without your interference. However, it is difficult to even conceive of an argument that this is the “right thing to do.”
The only justification that can be offered for leaving an evil unchallenged is, to some extent, challenging the wrong-doer is dangerous. The person who sees several people — armed and obviously ready to use those arms on any who interferes — may find it prudent to retreat and summon a force large enough to challenge the thugs. If there is no such force, he may have no option to allow the wrong to go unchallenged. However, he does not need to be certain of victory to make a principled stand. If he resists the evil, in spite of danger to himself, this is a hero who goes above and beyond the call of duty.
If there are wrongs being committed, you do not “leave it”, you correct it — though making sure that you do not leave greater wrongs in your wake as you do so.
Summary
The issue of, “My country, right or wrong” is so easily shown to be wrong that it is strange that it is met with any acceptance at all. “Wrong” is, by definition, that which no good person would support. The person who says, “My country, right or wrong” says that he is willing to support that which no good person would support. Reason dictates that we immediately recognize that the person making the claim is not a good person. He is telling us of his willingness to do evil. We should take him at his word.
Any nation or society who is concerned that it stand on the side of what is right, those who do not care if their country is right or wrong are precisely those we are better off without. Though I would not invite them to leave. I would, instead, invite them to take sides on the side of right against that which is wrong.
Let that be their standard, and the world will be a better place.