Thoughts on Loyalty

On Thursday’s “Heart of Darkness” post Reader of the Month P Corcs made some interesting comments about loyalty which I would like to explore more in depth.

Loyalty is an interesting concept. If forced to attempt a definition I would say it is faithfulness to a person, group, or idea. Dictionary.com defines it as:
1) the state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to commitments or obligations.
2) faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause, etc.
3) an example or instance of faithfulness, adherence, or the like: a man with fierce loyalties.
But it is a quality that is difficult to make concrete. We can demonstrate loyalty by sticking by friends in difficult times, by supporting an idea in the face of adversity (think religion), or even by simple acts such as supporting a local team despite a losing season. The problem is that human beings are fickle and are capable of deception. Our actual feelings don’t always reflect our actions, and vice versa.

This, I believe, is the basis of P Corcs’ comments. America, as a culture, has depreciated the value of loyalty. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, but it is difficult. Unfortunately in modern culture when relationships get hard we would rather run than work. P Corcs provided another apt example with professional athletes that seek the big payday and care little for fans. And the old man who has worked for the same company for the past 40 years.

P Corcs is absolutely right: we have no loyalty. So what happened? It’s postmodernism. Individualism has been taken to the extreme. Time Magazine named “You” the person of the year. “You,” not we, not principles or truth or justice or faith, but “you,” are of the utmost importance. Anything goes as long as “you” are pleased, content, happy. We’ve reverted to hedonism. And it’s made us mean, greedy, selfish; it’s trapped us in a perpetual cycle of screwing each other over.

That’s what happened to loyalty: we’ve been screwed, we’ve been lied to, we’ve been betrayed. The guy who thinks he’s going to stay at the same company for 40 years will be served a rude dose of reality when he is downsized. The company he works for is just as greedy as he is, and the higher-ups discovered they could save a couple dollars an hour if they outsourced his job. The athlete that cares about his fans will get traded for a second-round draft pick and cash incentives the day after the owner told him he was the future of the franchise. Marriages destined to fail are filled with minor betrayals, each one magnified by the next till the marriage becomes one impenetrable lie. So we go on the defensive. I’ll screw you before you can screw me.

This directly correlates to politics. We enjoy the luxuries, freedoms and protection that the American government provides, yet maintain no loyalty to the country, the political institution, or the men and women who operate it. It’s because we’ve been lied to. We’ve believed in these men and women too many times, only to have them turn their backs on us in favor of high power lobbyists. We can’t trust them, and where there’s no trust there can be no loyalty.

This brings me to the next question: Should we be loyal to the government? Clearly we live in the best political system in the world (just look at the number of aspiring immigrants). It is important that all Americans take pride in that and are respectful of that, and yes, a certain degree of loyalty is in order. But don’t mistake loyalty for blind faith in a system saturated with corruption. I think the current administration, as most administrations do, takes the concept of loyalty to an extreme. Questioning our leaders and their policies is our civic right and responsibility. It is the pinnacle of patriotism. And besides, questioning does not equal disloyalty. I can question the decisions of friends or loved ones while maintaining my loyalty to them. It works the same for the government. But the Bush administration (I use Bush because he is the one currently in office, not because I think past presidents have been innocent of this) has labeled anyone questioning the war, the unconstitutional wire-tapping, the inhumane interrogation methods used at Abu Ghraib and by the CIA, the denial of constitutional rights to prisoners being held in Guantanamo (right to a fair trial), etc., as a traitor. Now that I think about it, perhaps Bush’s “loyalty” campaign is more egregious than past presidents. He did recently fire eight US Attorneys because they weren’t “loyal Bushies” (Alberto Gonzalez scandal).

It is our right and patriotic responsibility to question the government, and in my opinion this takes precedence over loyalty.

“…all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they may think expedient. Under that gospel, the citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth's political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor."

Mark Twain


A brief response now to P Corcs’ Friday comments:

I didn’t mean to say that Rove hatched the WMD theory. You are right that the Clinton administration believed this to be true as well. But what they did do was convince the American public that if we didn’t attack Saddam he would kill us all in our sleep, and it was based on speculation that Saddam might have an arsenal of WMD’s. There was no concrete evidence to work from. Rove is also guilty of blatantly lying about the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

I agree with you that hindsight is 20/20, and it’s much easier now to look back at the last four years and say “yeah, we should’ve done this and this differently.” But this isn’t an adequate defense of Rumsfeld. Those familiar with the military branch of the government have long cited the ludicrousness of its operation. The military branch shouldn’t be run by a civilian that is too far removed from military operations to truly understand conditions, strategies, etc. This debacle proves the point. These first two links are examples of high ranking officers that warned Rumsfeld well before the war that he was under-prepared.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

This next link will take you to an article written by a Lieutenant Colonel for the Armed Forces Journal which asserts that the entire military system, as it is currently operated, is a travesty.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

Also check out my post, in which I cite advanced warning that the war was not going to go as planned by Rumsfeld:

A (Not so (Very)) Brief History of the Middle East Part 17: The Finale Part 2: So What Happened? (I Promise, This Really is the End)

As you can see, if Rumsfeld would have listened to his generals, who actually had knowledge of the situation, instead of being an arrogant, pompous ass, the war could have been handled much better.

That being said, I will reassert my opinion, as I have in past posts, that in theory I do support this war. I have difficulties with the actualities of the war, but it was an eventual necessity. As P Corcs points out, it is impossible to say what might have happened were it postponed.

But it is my right and responsibility, as it is yours, to question the decisions of our leaders and hold them accountable for their failures. And I believe the execution of this war to be a colossal failure.

Thanks for reading.