What July 4th Should Not Be

The sanctioned lists of duties of a citizen do not say that the Fourth of July must be or should be celebrated in any particular way, or at all. But it is fine to celebrate America. Dulce et decorum est, as they used to say. And if someone wants to celebrate America on a particular day, July 4th is acceptable.

Some citizens have a cosmopolitan perspective and insist that a special patriotism is wrong. They say, “God bless every nation, without exception.” But there is nothing unusual about thinking well of one’s own country. People all around the world do it. And many of them pour out as much praise on countries that are poor, undeveloped and obscure as Americans do for their remarkable homeland. The Congenial Iconoclast has traveled more than most people, and has sat in conversation with denizens of Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, and other small and poor countries. They often insisted that theirs was the most beautiful, if not the truly richest, nation in the world. So there’s no shame in Americans taking pride in their home. It doesn’t make us arrogant. It makes us the same as everybody else.

The Boston Massacre

But back to July 4th. It’s worth pondering why America celebrates its nationhood on that day. July 4th was the day in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia. But independence was not attained by declaring it.

American independence was a long shot at that moment. The colonies had achieved little up to that time. A few colonists had died at the pointlessly bloody Boston Massacre (March 1770). They had wasted some perfectly good groceries at the pointlessly destructive Boston Tea Party (December 1773). And several more had died at the pointlessly bloody Battle of Bunker Hill (June 1775).

What America did on July 4, 1776 was comparable to what the rebels of South Carolina did in December 1860, when they announced they were seceding from the American Union. That worked out badly for South Carolina. It could have been a disaster for the American colonies, too.

America probably should celebrate its independence day on October 19, the day in 1781 when British General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and the Revolutionary War ended. Or perhaps September 3, the day in 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed, ‎or May 12, 1784, when the Treaty took effect. Only then was America really free of English rule.

Is independence even the thing we should celebrate? Why not our republican form of government? September 15 was the day in 1787 when the Constitution was signed. Constitution Day is on the calendar, but most citizens ignore it. March 4 (1789) was the day the Constitution took effect. Why don’t we celebrate that?

There is an annual Flag Day on June 14th, which is odd. It was on September 14 in 1814 that Francis Scott Key saw (“by the dawn’s early light”) the flag flying over Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor and wrote “The Star Spangled Banner.” Why isn’t Flag Day then?

Every one of those alternative dates marks a real accomplishment in the nation’s history. July 4th only signaled America’s intention to do something great. But maybe that’s the point. The revolutionary Americans declared an audacious goal, and then accomplished it. We celebrate a nation that sets big goals for itself.

July 4 is not, however, a day to celebrate the military, the police or first responders. When Donald Trump ordered up a crowd near Mount Rushmore, South Dakota for July 4th, 2020 he sounded that theme:

"Let us also send our deepest thanks to our wonderful veterans, law enforcement, first responders and the doctors, nurses and scientists working tirelessly to kill the virus."

 The impulse to conjure up honor for uniformed personnel at every opportunity is a recent development in American life, and it is not good. Independence Day is a day to celebrate independence. It should not be co-opted by other causes.

Many writers have noticed the trend in recent years of mentioning the military and other uniformed workers at every opportunity, and of fawning uncritically upon everyone in uniform. James Fallows, writing in 2015 in The Atlantic described what he called The Tragedy of the American Military:

This has become the way we assume the American military will be discussed by politicians and in the press: Overblown, limitless praise, absent the caveats or public skepticism we would apply to other American institutions, especially ones that run on taxpayer money.

The Economist, under the headline, America’s Love Affair wit Uniformed Men is Problematic, notices how that overblown praise lands among the soldiers:

A POIGNANT feature of American bases in Iraq were their walls of Thank You cards sent by American schoolchildren. Often displayed outside the chow-hall, where the troops gathered to eat, they typically thanked them for “being over there to keep us safe”. Hardly any of the soldiers . . . believed that to be the case. Their Iraqi enemies were fighting a defensive war, not trying to launch one against America. Yet the soldiers accepted the sentiment unblushingly. No soldier expects the beloved chumps back home to understand what he gets up to.

The soldiers in Iraq knew they weren’t keeping America safe. They knew the citizens back home gave them credit for too much virtue. But for the soldiers there’s no downside to excessive adulation. Unfortunately, there is a downside for the nation. Once a voting public buys into the idea that military service — or any uniformed work — should be unendingly praised, they lose the ability to evaluate their performance. Once voters and public officials decide that military service is the best training and the best measure of virtue, they lose the ability to recognize virtue where it truly exists.

Taking note of America’s drift toward a permanent state of war is not solely a left or liberal idea. True conservatives, who value personal freedom and fiscal responsibility and governance by rule of law, often warn that America is far gone from its own ideals. Consider this, from The American Conservative:

News reporting and editorials sometimes unwittingly echo the claim that the U.S. isn’t at war by describing wartime presidents as if they were presiding over a period of peace. Obama arguably tried to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, but otherwise he escalated old wars and started or joined new ones. Trump has not ended any of the wars he inherited, and he has expanded some of them. These are not peacetime presidents, but they are also not scrutinized as if they are wartime leaders.

The perverse incentives in Washington ensure that one president after another does just enough to avoid being seen as losing wars that have already been lost while severely constraining their ability to extricate the U.S. from these no-win scenarios. Candidates claim to be against endless war, but in practice it is easier and politically safer for them to leave the wars on autopilot once they are elected. Having abdicated their role in the decision to go to war, Congress has also largely washed its hands of its responsibilities to oversee the conduct of the ongoing wars.

This report from the Brookings Institution says, straight out, that military worship hurts American democracy. The founders designed America to be governed by civilians. Elevating military service through preemptive support and adulation subverts that.

[U]nrealistic myths . . . have eroded faith in civilian leadership. Among these myths are the superior virtue of military over other kinds of public service; that battlefield experience is the most authoritative source of military policy expertise; and that an exclusively civilian background is inadequate for strategic defense leadership. . . Downgrading civilian leadership will weaken U.S. national security and the military itself.

So while the politicians and the military-industrial complex gain from the adulation of the military, American democracy suffers. And most citizens don’t notice it happening. Here’s the July 4th (2020) message from Indiana Congressman Jim Baird:

This Independence Day we celebrate the great experiment proudly called the United States of America. Two hundred and forty-four years ago, our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, a document that gave birth to a nation built on an idea that every man, woman, and child were created equal. Endowed by their Creator the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. 

While we celebrate our great country, I encourage you to reflect on the price it took to achieve freedom. Americans from all backgrounds fought and sacrificed to secure our independence; something that has continued throughout our history. These victories were achieved by the courage and conviction from American citizens answering the call of duty.

We are indebted to our patriots. This is why I have done my best to ensure our military is the best-equipped and it’s servicemembers are provided for. While in Congress, I joined with my colleagues to introduce the Forgotten Vietnam Veterans Act. This bill ensures Vietnam Veterans who didn’t qualify for benefits, receive the benefits they’ve earned. I’ve co-sponsored the Gold Star Family Tax Relief Act, legislation that will safeguard the benefits families receive from taxation when their loved ones give the ultimate sacrifice.

The first paragraph is rightly focused on the nation and the blessing of freedom. The second paragraph shifts attention to the military only, and the third paragraph becomes nothing but a litany of symbolic and financial gestures toward a special class of individuals.

Baird himself exemplifies the concern raised by Brookings. When he stepped up to run for Congress, voters saw the prosthesis where his left arm used to be and felt obligated to elect him. I talked with several neighbors during and after the 2018 election that sent Baird to Washington. All of them attested that he deserved to win because of “what he did” in Vietnam. None of them had any idea what Baird stood for or how he would perform in Washington.

As soon as Baird got the Washington, he posed with two other congressional members who are also maimed veterans. After that, he disappeared into an office in the back corridor of the top floor of the least prestigious congressional office building. He took his place as the junior member of the minority caucus on two obscure subcommittees. He’s voted the party line, and his website re-posts messages written by the House Republican Caucus. According to govtrack.us, Baird sponsored or cosponsored only four bills in his first year, of which none were passed by the House. Having Baird representing west-central Indiana is like having nobody at all.

Baird is a decent man. He was a pretty good state legislator, where funding for roads and schools were the focus of the jobs. He’s out of his depth in Congress.

It is right and proper to acknowledge good service in every form. Those who died in patriotic wars deserve recognition, and the day set apart for that is Memorial Day. There is also Veterans Day — intended to express thanks and appreciation to living people who participated in past wars. Since 1961, America’s calendar has Peace Officers Memorial Day on May 15 and National Police Week. Those are dulce et decorum, too.

So there is a time to recognize and appreciate the military and other uniformed workers. July 4th was intended to celebrate America’s nationhood. And it’s meant to be celebrated however citizens choose — that’s what independence is, after all. Let’s keep it that way.