Ellington

Thomas H. Keane and Lee Hamilton conclude the preface to the 9/11 Commission Report with these words: "All of us have had to pause, reflect, and sometimes change our minds as we studied these problems and considered the views of others. We hope our report will encourage our fellow citizens to study, reflect—and act."

It is in this spirit of reflection—critical, reflective thinking that informs political action—that I offer these brief comments about citizenship. In the wake of resurgent Al-Qaeda activity around the world, festering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and beyond, an unnecessary and perhaps illegal war in Iraq, the Abu Ghraib debacle and deep polarization within American society, we as citizens need to reclaim a space for democratic debate and the fundamental right to argue and disagree. This fall we face one of the most important presidential elections in modern U.S. history. The results of that election will have serious consequences not only here but globally. Informed citizen debate is not only important but vital. Much is at stake.

George W. Bush and John Kerry represent starkly different points of view about "values," economic justice, health care, civil rights and civil liberties, foreign policy and the use of American power, among other issues. In addition to knowing the candidates' position, we also need a little conceptual clarity about what it means to be a citizen as we discuss these issues among ourselves and with our politicians.

Sen. John Edwards has spoken about two Americas: one for the wealthy elite and another for working families. These two Americas, he claims, are not equal but quite distinct in their opportunities for education, health care, job security, etc. I think there are also at least two different conceptions of citizenship that have been articulated, consciously or not, since Sept. 11.

On the one hand, there has been a right-wing version endorsed by many in conservative talk radio and on cable news programs. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity have been among the most vociferous supporters of this perspective. They stand behind President Bush's rhetoric of "for us or against us," often representing the president as the very embodiment of American democracy, and are deeply suspicious of prolonged criticism of the administration, especially from avowed liberals or leftists. Rarely reluctant to question the patriotism of their opponents, they frequently invoke terms like "treason" and "traitor" and, in Coulter's case, heap praise, without embarrassment, on the late Joe McCarthy.

To an observer with a little knowledge of history, this notion of citizenship is little more than an updated version of an older quasi-fascist "love or leave it" patriotism. This right-wing model reduces citizenship to a process of defining enemies; ultra-nationalism is its core requirement, and concerns about nuance, subtlety or respect for disagreement are hard to find.

As an alternative, I want to suggest a second conception—what I call a critical citizenship. I take as my models the Populist and Progressive movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the civil rights and student movements of the 1950s and 1960s, especially SNCC and SDS with their emphasis on participatory democracy, and the current global justice movement. Under this framework, a good citizen is one who is willing to ask bold questions of its elected leaders, of its military and intelligence agencies, of its religious and civic mentors, and of its ostensibly free press. One's patriotism stems from an internalization of the democratic values of free and independent thinking, toleration and respect for different points of view, accountability, transparency, and a deep knowledge of the country's history and traditions.

This type of citizenship finds its forms of expression in town-hall meetings, public forums, study and discussion groups, writing letters to the editor, voter registration drives, rallies and protests. At the heart of this view of citizenship is a militant defense of freedom, equality, respect for difference and democracy. As such, it is rooted in the values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I believe that John Kerry and John Edwards share much of the broad outline of this view of the good citizen, but I would like to see them make their ideas on the subject more explicit. Regardless, we the people must be significantly involved in this election. If not, we risk the emergence of a republic of consumers and conformists, a republic without citizens.

Jason Dawsey is an instructor of history at Pearl River Community College in Poplarville. He lives in Hattiesburg.

The JFP is seeking a variety of "Your Turn" columns, from 500 to 800 words, with varying viewpoints about current affairs. All columns must use verifiable facts and refrain from personal attacks.