Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Brian Vowinkel's avatar

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I am grateful you volunteered with the Scouts. I have a lot of ties to your essay, as an Eagle Scout, as the son of a Naval Aviator, as a certified SAR (Son of the American Revolution - genealogical verified lineage to soldiers who fought for our Independence), student of history, as one deeply concerned with policy, a political activist & appointee to US Congressman’s advisory councils, and key member of a US Senate campaign. I am also a self-described Patriot (a description with which you would appear to strongly disagree based on your essays).

You mention a little history of the USS Hornet but omitted a key highlight, one of the most daring raids ever attempted, one of the first “Joint” Army & Navy operations.  Jimmy Doolittle (born in Alameda!) earned the Medal of Honor for courageously leading Army B-25 Mitchell bombers off the deck of the Hornet to hit Tokyo just 5 months after Pearl Harbor was attacked, with no way home for his aircrews.  A symbolic mission of the highest risk, unconventionally creative, performed for love of country patriotism, to inspire others to follow and fight back.

You also dropped a mention of the USS Intrepid in NYC as another carrier museum worth visiting, but omitted the USS Midway museum in San Diego.  Midway was the longest-serving aircraft carrier in the 20th century, named after the turning point battle of the Pacific Theater, and built in just 17 months.  I want to note that it is also “a carrier museum worth visiting,” even better than Intrepid in my opinion after touring both several times.

Beyond carrier recommendations, I think your sense of fellow American citizens may need recalibration.  You wrote “It feels to me that many people have forgotten that the term “patriot” originally meant someone loyal to the land of their fathers, not to the government of the day…Some groups of people wave the flag while undermining the very ideals it represents, and others confuse loyalty to a party or personality with love of country.”  This “feeling” of yours seems quite superficial, and out of touch with most of the substantive reasons explained to me by people demonstrating affinity for a party or waving a flag.  I would encourage anyone with these similar “feelings” to critically examine the “news” they consume, and to engage with folks to seek understanding rather than accept the manipulative headlines of proven propagandists and the soundbites of talking heads in echo chambers.  I am continually astonished by the smugness of people who claim to know the motivations and rationale of others because they were told so by their preferred narrative-generators, and have not actually spoken to a person with a different perspective.

I applaud your concept that enemies of liberty and our Republic are “apathy, disinformation, and decay,” and I agree we must actively combat them.  I take issue with your diction of “protect” as it implies centralized, top-down measures.  Some well-meaning folks have already leapt on the censorship bandwagon in order to “protect” against disinformation, despite it being anathema to liberty and our inherent right of free expression. 

I like your description of seeking unity vs unanimity, and we ought to acknowledge our systems allow us to debate and deliberate ideas, and even settle for being different in some ways with our dual sovereignty of states and freedom of maneuver amongst them.

I sincerely appreciate you putting thoughts to paper, and working to improve citizenship, and encouraging the asking of “hard questions.”  One of the hardest questions is checking consistent application of principles or appearing inauthentic with double standards. Is it acceptable to wink at and overlook offenses in one person or party for which you want accountability and punishment for another?  Is there tribal pressure to virtue signal to gain a sense of moral superiority, with limited understanding of various interests and interpretations, or worse, with willful ignorance of the complex context of an issue and misrepresentation of opposing views?  The long-form dialogue of the Lincoln-Douglas debates may be making a comeback with the popular rise of many podcasts, helping to dive deep beyond soundbites and challenge myths, beliefs, and narratives.  Perhaps your Substack and others’ comments will introduce new lenses to look at current events and history, and enlighten folks to different perspectives, the way letters from our Founders did.

Respectfully,

BV

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts