March 6, 2018
Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher,
101 Main
Street #380
Huntington
Beach, CA 92648
Dear
Congressman
Re: A
question
I write
this morning to inquire as to the meaning of your tweet yesterday, about the
result of Italy’s election. In response to what appeared to be a surge in support
for the right-wing populist movement, you wrote: “US policy makers need to
recognize that populism=nationalism=patriotism.”
What
exactly does that mean? Does it mean, perhaps, since you equate them, that you
are in favor of all three? As I’m sure you must be aware, it was the
centerpiece of your equation, nationalism, that spawned such upheaval and
tragedy in Europe in the 20th century. To my knowledge, it has never
done anyone any good.
I will
confess that I am not, myself, a patriot. Even the experience of World War II,
through which I lived, was not enough to persuade me to love my (victorious!)
native country to the exclusion of all others. I wonder if you watched the two
versions of the Dunkirk story, both up for Oscars at this past Sunday’s award
ceremony? I did, and not without pride in the courage of my countrymen and
women. But what was at stake, in my view, was not country, but rather the
survival of freedom and democracy in the face of, um… ugly nationalism.
As for
populism, I’d be all for it if it had anything to do with democracy. However,
as you correctly point out in your tweet, it has more to do with the spirit of
rabble-rousing nationalism. Democracy, to have viability, depends primarily on
a well-informed and educated electorate—the kind of electorate that proved
sadly deficient in our 2016 election, when disinformation was widely broadcast
to angry and disillusioned supporters not only by Russian hackers but by
candidate Donald Trump himself.
So,
Congressman, am I to understand from your tweet that you regard those three
with favor? If so, we are once more in radical disagreement.
Respectfully,
Peter
Clothier, Ph.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment