Michael Schwartz: Patriotic Hero

The anti-war SUNY professor is a hero and patriot. He is known for espousing that the US should lose in Iraq, and in Fallujah in particular.

I think the guy is a patriot and a hero because he is taking an unpopular position that he apparently believes and is willing to take personal risk to espouse it. Unlike Churchill, he does not denigrate particular people (ie victims) in making his case. Also different from Churchill, I think Schwartz has a defensible (though wrong) position. It is defensible because if his premise is accurate (that the US action creates more danger than it solves) then his solution is better for America (because it will reduce future US action). This contrasts with Churchill, who seeks the downfall of America.

Without people like this professor who are willing to stand up and argue unpopular positions, we really would have a steamrolled population, and meaningless freedom of speech. He proves that America allows dissent, and he widens public discourse, even if he is wrong. Churchill did the opposite, by painting anyone who drifts out of the mainstrean as someone actively seeking the downfall of America.

That is why Schwartz is both a patriot (because he is trying to better America) and a hero (because he is doing so publicly with personal risk involved). And he can be both even when he is wrong with his solutions.

Those who attack him without addressing his arguments, however, are neither patriotic nor heros.