Comic-book writer Peter David maintains a blog that, much like Simple Tricks, is a mishmash of whatever happens to be on the guy’s mind, including David’s rather, ahem, strong political opinions. These opinions (which are of the liberal variety) tend to ruffle the feathers of those who disagree with him (conservatives), leading to some interesting discussions in the blog’s comments section. Most of the time, these discussions are fairly rational and extend no farther than the blog itself. In today’s entry, however, David rages over the efforts of one of his detractors who wasn’t content to hash out their differences on the website. This dipshit instead sent a letter to Joe Quesada, David’s editor at Marvel Comics, to inform Joe that he would never again buy a book written by David because of the opinions expressed on David’s site.

Now, if this guy doesn’t want to buy a product written by someone whose views clash with his own, that’s his business. I personally see little evidence of David’s politics in his work, and often enjoy the apolitical work of entertainers whose personal views I do not agree with — Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to mind, as does Tom Selleck — but maybe that’s just me. If you don’t like the program, change the channel, I always say. That’s capitalism at work, and it’s the way it ought to be.

The thing that riled David (and, consequently, me) was the way this detractor claimed to support the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment while, in the same sentence, denouncing David as a supporter of America’s enemies, merely because he questions the actions of the current administration. [The specific quote from the letter in question reads, “As I have said, I agree with the first amendment, but that does mean (sic: Presumably he meant “doesn’t mean”) I have to be a part of supporting anyone that sides with the enemies of our country.”]

This tactic of calling the guy who dares to dissent “un-American” has been around for a very long time, and I will concede that it’s practiced by people on both sides of the political spectrum, although it seems to me that it is used more frequently — and more effectively — by those on the right. It’s a tactic that infuriates me, frankly, and always has. It’s dishonest, evasive, and hurtful. It accomplishes nothing constructive and usually only tips what should be a discussion into the realm of argument.

Years ago, back in the heady days of the First Gulf War, I worked with a bunch of guys who were among the best friends I’ve ever had. At least we were good friends until we started talking politics. Then, suddenly, because I was the only member of the group who opposed that conflict for what I thought (at the time) were very good reasons, some of these friends seemed to turn on me. They denounced me as a fool and a traitor, and we had some pretty loud shouting matches. The absolute nadir of this period was when one of the guys brought me a present: an American flag that had been modified with a yellow stripe running diagonally across its surface. Inside the yellow were the words, “America: Love It or Leave It.”

This was, quite frankly, the most offensive and repugnant thing I’ve ever encountered, intellectually speaking. I was deeply, deeply hurt by the implication that I didn’t love my country as much as the jerk who waved this travesty in my face, as well as by the suggestion (in the form of the color yellow) that anyone who questioned our nation’s march to war was a coward. And I was absolutely outraged by the notion that I should just shut my trap and blindly follow wherever the Fearless Leader-types in Washington told us to go, or else I should abandon my country, my birthplace, my homeland. I felt then and I feel now that this attitude, this hateful, boneheaded, groupthink is the true strain of un-Americanism in our society.

Our nation was founded on the idea of dissent. What were the Founding Fathers if not dissenters? They were rebels, one and all, but they didn’t originally set out to form a new country. At first, they were merely questioning certain policies they didn’t think were in their best interests. The fact that no one in their government would hear their views is what ultimately led to the Revolution, a fact that many people seem to have forgotten these days. I haven’t seen the “love it or leave it” trope recently, but the general attitude persists in a new form: “you’re either with us or against us.” Well, to that I say, “Bullshit.” It is entirely possible — and appropriate — to love one’s country while also questioning what her leaders are up to.

Here is Peter David’s take on the subject:

“Enemies of our country?” There’s all kinds of enemies of our country. If 250 years ago people had supported “my government right or wrong” and intrusion into rights of privacy and punitive measures taken against those who speak out when they feel injustice is being done, this country would never have been founded in the first place. This country was founded, not by those who believe in lockstep obedience, but those with big mouths who sign their full names to protesting documents and were liberal minded enough to say, “This is wrong, something should be done, let’s do it.”

You want enemies of our country? Sometimes you need look no further than those who want to do everything they can to hurt someone or disenfranchise them or screw them just because they disagree with their opinions. People who have no true respect for the First Amendment, people who think they should be allowed to talk and no one else, people who–as Aaron Sorkin put it–claim to love America but hate Americans, these, my friends, are true enemies of our country. I complain about America because I care about America…

To David’s words, I would add that marching in automatic lockstep obedience is not a sign of strength; it’s a sign that you’ve stopped thinking and surrendered to ancient, half-remembered instincts to bow down before an alpha male. It’s a sign that you’ve allowed yourself to become something less than human.

That’s not to say that you shouldn’t stick up for your side or that being part of a majority is wrong. People cluster together with like-minded people over all sorts of ideas, from fans of a particular movie to, obviously, folks of a given political persuasion. What disgusts me is how so many seem to do this so thoughtlessly. If you honestly believe that any given policy or philosophy is the correct one, then be prepared to give rational reasons why. Understand the issues and be prepared to defend them with logic instead of fear, insults, and trash-talk. Don’t simply say, “because my side is right.” Don’t say that you’re upholding the ideals of this republic while trying to quash opposing voices. And don’t even dare to question my patriotism if I don’t happen to agree that your side is the right one. Questioning our leaders is the most American thing we can do, and I wish more people got that.

As long as I’m in rant mode anyway, let me pull something else into this discussion. I see on Salon.com’s “Right Hook,” a round-up of conservative commentaries both on- and off-line, that Republican Senator Trent Lott recently said that John Kerry is “a French-speaking socialist.” I’ve heard other remarks from right-wingers about Kerry speaking French or “looking French,” whatever that means, presumably because having some connection, no matter how tenuous, with the country that so vocally opposed the Bush Administration’s push to war with Iraq disqualifies one from holding office. To all such remarks, I have to say again, “Bullshit.” These statements are another variant of the “un-American” attack, and they are absolutely ridiculous. So Kerry speaks French, so what? Lots of people do. I know people who speak Spanish, Japanese, Portugese, and even (gasp!) Russian. Doesn’t mean a damn thing about their loyalties or their competence, and it is insultingly stupid to suggest that it does.

I am increasingly convinced that people of Lott’s stripe resort to this kind of childish name-calling because they don’t think they can win in a fair debate. (Of course, they wouldn’t be so quick to resort to this tactic if so many people didn’t fall for it, something which never fails to amaze and annoy me.) If I could somehow enact the “sarcasm fine” that I proposed the other day, then I would extend it to cover this sort of crap as well. I am so sick of tabloid politics in this country. Now, more than ever, we need to be having a national discussion on philosophical, ethical, scientific and poltical issues, and not playing these games of personal destruction. Unfortunately, a certain segment of players in this game — please note that I am not impugning all Republicans with this statement — have discovered that they can get a lot farther by questioning an opponent’s loyalty and digging through dirty laundry (think little blue dresses) than by questioning that