How to Question the Patriotism of a Liberal

Many people have had the following experience. One can be in the midst of arguing with a liberal, usually about a national security issue. Then all of the sudden, out of the blue, the liberal snarls, "How dare you challenge my patriotism!"

Most people who are confronted with this accusation get flustered, which is the intention of the accuser. We've been taught that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Many people will stutter something like, "No, I'm questioning your judgment." But by then it is too late. The conversation is over, as it was intended.

The appropriate response to the liberal's accusation is, "Damn right I am!" This will get the liberal flustered and angry, because he or she is not expecting the response. It also puts him or her on the defensive/

Patriotism, properly defined, means love of and support for one's country. A patriot wants what is best for one's country, which is where, at least in democracies, dissent can be very patriotic. If ones country, especially under government auspices, is pursuing a course that can be proven to be harmful to it, then it is not only a patriot's right to dissent, but his or her duty.

But conversely, advocating a course that would be harmful to ones country is not patriotic. And there is the basis of the argument. Is the course being advocated by someone harmful to the country or not? If it is harmful, then by all means question his or her patriotism.

Let's suppose that your liberal opponent is advocating an immediate, unconditional withdraw of American troops from Iraq. Then he or she has delivered the tactical retort, "How dare you challenge my patriotism!" when you point out that this means victory for Al Qaeda, a terrorist state in Iraq, and a better chance of bombs going off in shopping malls, in schools, and along highways in the United States.

If you get right back in his face and say, "Damn right I am!" and follow up with the argument that all of the things mentioned above would be bad for the country and therefore unpatriotic to cause to happen, the liberal is on shaky ground. He or she is reduced to either denying that this or anything harmful would happen or suggesting that while tough, the outcome described is something the country has to endure.

If the liberal suggests the latter, then you have won. He or she is saying that he or she wants shoppers, commuters, and school children to die in great numbers when they don't have to. If he or she argues the former, than at least you have the basis of an argument, which if decided on the merits you are likely to win.

Of course the liberal can also get mad, start name calling and cursing, stomp off in a huff, or even hit you. All of those outcomes are regrettable, but it will indicate that you have won the argument. Scant comfort for a bloody nose, perhaps, especially if you are obliged to hit back, but the tree of liberty is often watered with the blood of patriots and traitors, so said Thomas Jefferson.