PATRIOTS & SCOUNDRELS

a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, MA
Sunday April 25, 2004


I woke up last Monday morning with a mean-spirited thought in my head. It was a thought so maliciously mean-spirited that I hated to write it down, but so deliciously mean-spirited that I could hardly wait to share it....

But suppose, just suppose, that when June 30th finally rolls around, and the deadline for the formal transition of sovereignty has come and gone, we get the Supreme Court to appoint George W. Bush as the next President of Iraq? He could simply drag that snappy little flight suit of his back out of the closet and jump on the next plane to Baghdad, along with Rummy and Wolfie and Condi and Ashcroft and Ridge (we’ll leave Colin Powell out of this, since apparently he was already out of the loop anyway); Dick Cheney can go back to openly being the CEO of Halliburton, and our guardsmen and reservists could all come back home to their regular jobs and their families as well.

It wouldn’t really be considered “cutting and running,” since the very same people who wanted so badly to start this war will be right there on the spot cutting taxes and relying upon the “entrepreneurial spirit” to revitalize the Iraqi economy and create a free and democratic society out of the ashes of tyranny. Any remaining members of coalition who are still willing to stay will naturally be welcome to do so, and of course the new government would likewise remain free to hire as many “independent contractors” as they like...provided they are willing to pay them out of their own pockets.

It’s a win/win scenario; the only catch is that for everything to be considered legitimate and above-board, the Bushies will all have to quit their current jobs and formally renounce their United States citizenship, in order to officially become citizens of Iraq. But personally, I don’t have any problem with that. No problem at all....

Of course, there are some people who are of the opinion that the goal of creating a viable democratic government in Iraq is little more than a naive pipe dream. But I disagree. Even the most traditional and oppressive societies tend to endure “by the consent of the governed.” Not only do people everywhere like to have a say in how they live their lives, it is also very difficult to maintain control of a population whose basic desires are in serious conflict with those who would seek to rule them.

So as a result, even the most repressive and authoritarian regimes generally become quite adept at “manufacturing consent.” Sometimes this is merely the reluctant consent imposed by fear, and enforced by threat of violence; but more often than not far more subtle powers are at work as well. Authoritarian regimes are experts at saying one thing and doing another -- lying about their true intentions, while concealing their actions from public scrutiny.

They pacify the population with “bread and circuses,” while silencing their critics--not merely through violence or the threat of violence, nor even arrest and incarceration -- but by ridicule, or the emotional appeal to prejudice (and patriotism); through character assassination, propaganda, rigged elections, and effective control over the means of mass communication.

We’ve seen this pattern at work in Iraq...and in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, even as far back as Ancient Rome....and you can see it other places as well, once you know what it is you’re looking for. But the “will of the people,” and the basic desire for lives which can be lived in relative safety and security, the desire to raise children with a reasonable expectation of a better future, and to enjoy the benefits of peace and prosperity, is both universal, and indomitable. And it doesn’t really matter where you were born, or what religion you practice, or even whether you’ve had a lot of experience with democratic self-government in the past.

People tolerate authoritarian regimes for as long as they believe that they are better off simply “going along to get along” than they are standing up and resisting. A fear of violent reprisal is obviously part of that calculation, as is the natural human tendency to turn a blind eye to things we would rather not see in order to avoid rocking the boat. But when people realize that the time has come for them to stand up and be counted, and to take control of their own destiny, there is no power in the world that can keep them down.

Of course, free and enlightened liberal democracies also “manufacture consent,” but they go about it in a somewhat different manner. Authoritarian regimes attempt to suppress dissent, through a variety of coercive or misleading techniques. But the goal of liberal democracy is to elicit consensus, through the free and open exchange of information and ideas -- a dialog (or, if you prefer, a debate) which not only highlights dissent and various areas of disagreement, but also identifies and builds upon shared goals, values and interests, and is open to the possibility of collaboration around a common purpose, or compromise on points of difference.

The one essential quality that makes liberal democracy work is the ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable, and to recognize that your opponent is also your partner...the “loyal opposition.” Which is why, in a democracy, the rule of law is used to protect the voice and rights of unpopular minorities, while in authoritarian societies, the courts and the police inevitably serve to reinforce the power and privileges of the rulers, and to make those dissident voices “disappear.”

Which is also why you generally don’t see a lot of clever political bumper stickers publicly displayed in authoritarian regimes. My new personal favorite goes like this: “If you aren’t completely appalled, then you haven’t been paying attention.” Of course, as someone who has been paying attention -- close, focused attention, for quite some time now -- it’s all felt very vindicating to have the things that I’ve been thinking and feeling and saying and writing for two and a half years publicly confirmed both in print and under oath on nationally-broadcast TV by people who were there and who know, first hand, what really went on.

Depressing, but vindicating.

The appalling part is that there are apparently still a lot of folks who either simply don’t care, or who would just as soon dismiss it all as vindictive, politically-motivated “spin.” And this is the real challenge which confronts us all: how does one vindicate the truth, without seeming vindictive toward those who have been shamelessly lied to, yet who hesitate to confront the ramifications of that deception because the consequences are simply just too appalling to contemplate?

The date August 6th, for example, will probably never have the same immediate public recognition as September 11th, but maybe it ought to, since that was the day (as we all now know, or ought to know) that the President was told, to his face, in his Daily Intelligence Briefing, that Osama Bin Ladin was “determined to strike” in the United States, that al-Qa’ida was actively attempting to recruit within the Muslem-American community here, and that there were (and this is a direct quote) “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”

The President’s response to the insinuation that had he paid a little more attention to these warnings at the time he first received them, September 11th might have been avoided, was to say that if he had known that terrorists were going to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings he would have “moved heaven and earth” to prevent that from happening. But that’s the whole problem, isn’t it? Terrorists don’t generally send engraved invitations to their deplorable acts of violence. You have to be intelligent enough to read the signs of the times, to understand the significance of the handwriting on the wall.

Even so, I’m inclined to feel fairly forgiving toward the President on this account. We were all taken by surprise on September 11th; and it could have happened on anyone’s watch, no matter how vigilant they were. I feel much less forgiving regarding what happened afterwards -- of how the President and his close advisors intentionally exploited public sentiment about the September 11th attacks, and used misleading “methods of mass deception” against his own people in order to “bait and switch” Americans into a war against Iraq, a war which had apparently been on his White House “To Do” list long before he had even assumed the Presidency.

Some of the allegations that have surfaced in this connection truly do defy credibility. For example, Bob Woodward’s report that Saudi Arabian Ambassador Prince Bandar Bin Sultan was privy to the plan to invade Iraq even before Secretary of State Colin Powell had been made aware of it, and that there was an Enronesque secret deal between Bandar and the Bushies to manipulate oil prices this summer in an attempt to influence the outcome of the fall election. Incredible, if indeed it’s true....

I could go on and on and on about these issues, but there’s really no need -- you are all perfectly capable of picking up a newspaper or opening a book, turning on the television, or listening to Public Radio for yourselves. What I would just like to say though is that I rarely feel more connected to my illustrious Revolutionary-era predecessors like William Emerson of Concord or Jonas Clarke of Lexington than when I take advantage of the opportunity my vocation affords me to speak out from this free pulpit publicly about issues of “public concern.” “Sedition flows copiously from the pulpits” in Massachusetts, General Gage wrote to his superiors in London, in both the spring and the fall of 1774. Back in those days New England Clergy were known as “the Black Regiment” because of the color of their distinctive clothing, and their outspoken advocacy of the Patriot cause.

As an historian, my first official “Patriot’s Day” here in Carlisle was a real treat; Parker and I came out to watch the Minute Men muster on the Carlisle town green, and next time we will undoubtedly make the walk as well -- this year I had a very generous invitation to watch the Red Sox play the Yankees in Fenway Park, which naturally took precedence as a matter of religious observance. But this past week I’ve been able to take advantage of some of these sunny afternoons to explore the Minute Man National Historical park, and to read up a little about “the shot heard ‘round the world,” which initiated the American Revolution.

It all happened right here in our own back yard; a part of our national heritage that we should all be more aware of. Sometimes though it seems a little TOO close to home: an occupying military force plans a raid to seize a cache of illegal weapons. At first everything appears to be going smoothly, then suddenly it seems as though the entire countryside has risen up against the Expeditionary Force like a swarm of angry bees (inspired to a frenzied pitch by the exhortations of their radical religious leaders). Shots are fired by snipers all along the line of march, the casualties mount as the Regulars counterattack and retreat...where have I heard THIS story recently?

Obviously, there are huge differences between 1775 and 2004, but the irony of the similarities is too great to be ignored. The same National Guard and Reserve units whose predecessors fought at Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge, and all along the Battle Road back to Boston, now find themselves deployed half-way around the world for an indeterminate time in a hostile foreign land.

No doubt these citizen-soldiers are still overwhelmingly just like the patriotic young American men and women who fought at Lexington and Concord, who enlisted to serve their country for a variety of good reasons, and who now suffer tremendous hardships on our behalf -- not just the danger of being killed or wounded, but also separation from their families and the interruption of their careers...not to mention the indignity of knowing that our government has hired countless thousands of so-called military “contractors” who earn as much in a single day as a typical soldier is paid each month, and who are basically free to quit their jobs and go home whenever they like.

And what is the mission of this military adventure? The liberation of a peaceful and freedom-loving people from the oppressive rule of a cruel tyrant? The protection of our homeland from the threat of further terrorist attack? Effective control over some of the world’s most significant oil reserves? A personal vendetta on the part of a handful of our political leaders, based on their desire not to appear weak in the eyes of the world, or to lose the battle of wills with their sworn enemies? A religious crusade against Evil-Doers, driven by one man’s sense of moral certainty, a man who frequently declares that “there’s not a doubt in [his] mind” that he’s doing the right thing, and sincerely believes that he is accountable only to a “Higher Authority?”

Maybe it’s a little of all these things, and some others we don’t know about...but it’s costing us four and a half billion dollars a month, people are dying, and there’s no end in sight. We deserve some honest answers. And our patriotic men and women in uniform deserve them most of all.