“His (or her) commitment to society is conditional upon pushing through the changes in institutions and policies that he thinks are necessary to bring about desired improvements. Therefore his allegiance at any point in time is weak; to satisfy his desire for progress, he feels he must remain an opponent of existing society. He does not see his country’s gifts of foreign aid as attesting to its moral sense, but the insufficient amount is evidence to him of an immoral foreign policy. He justifies foreign nationalization of his fellow citizens’ property as a necessary remedy for neocolonial exploitation.
Do we see signs of the disrespect of American society in the words of denouncers? The denouncer’s mindset is not new. However, Robert’s simple definition sheds a great deal of light on why some people can so easily accept America bashing. And Roberts’ definition of a denouncer also helps explain why some people actually find it difficult to say they are proud of their country.
The framework of the intellectual game the denouncers play is an approach that implies that all self-defined American “patriots” possess a basic lack of “objectivity.” And by contrast, the denouncers own willingness to be openly “anti-American” should be automatically accepted as a positive connotation.
How could some members of Congress give a standing ovation to a outgoing Mexican president while he bashed America? For several decades denouncers have routinely encouraged U.S. citizens not to be troubled by anti-Americanism. They believe the embracing of the contradictory views of Calderon on border issues makes sense because it represents a core opposition to imperialism, neo-colonialism, racism, sexism, commercial exploitation, pollution, poverty, inequality, and yes, even “war.” Accordingly, denouncers find it easier than ever to embrace the language of President Calderon despite his explanations of Mexico’s immigration policies with its southern neighbors.
Denouncers are very comfortable embracing expressions of anti-American philosophies. Somehow they seem to feel this implies they are in possession of more “broadmindedness.” At its very core the Denunciation Ethic, is routinely characterized as “nuance” by its practitioners.
In the words of Roberts, denouncers want to be “perceived” as uniquely capable of transcending the narrow interests of their country. This explains why U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (right) would have our country borrow money to sue Arizona. He among others carefully crafts a self-image so as to insure that others think they represent the world, humanity, and only mankind’s best impulses. The foundation of this posture implies that a bash America philosophical viewpoint represents an incontrovertible claim on the moral high ground. Attempts to set themselves apart from those they feel wish to remain “insensitive” to America’s past mistakes is at the core of the denouncers psyche. And disdain for those that quickly jump to the defense of their country are branded as the parochial thought processes of hopelessly misguided, bitter, one-dimensional patriots who are incapable of attaining a higher quality of “objectivity.” In Part II we will dig deeper into the political underpinnings and media role in the Denunciatory Ethic.