Ask Not

P America is not merely a country; it is also a cause and a principle.

P Pursuit of this cause requires, at home, a guarantee to all of access to success, wealth, and power; and abroad, world leadership and the defense of order and freedom.

P American citizenship is a gift and a duty, and service a privilege. To deny this is to shirk one’s duty to God and country.

The four charismatic presidents of the 20th century all belonged to this party, and have antecedents and cousins. The line begins with Alexander Hamilton, glory-hound and super-nationalist, who, when he failed twice to gloriously die for his country, still worked out a way in which he could. Hamilton was a hero to Theodore Roosevelt, whose only regret was that his own Spanish-American war was so negligible. This was not a problem for his fifth cousin Franklin, who faced crises so grave that he aged 30 years in his 12 years of service and died a frail old man at 63. FDR’s ally in war was the ultimate glory-hound, the half-American Winston S. Churchill, who had the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” sung at his funeral. Churchill was a hero to John F. Kennedy, whose favorite programs — the Peace Corps and space race — were designed wholly to rouse an esprit de corps in the populace; and who gave the whole movement its signature slogan: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Ronald Reagan was hands-off on domestic policy (few libertarians belong to the Patriot party), but rates inclusion because of his foreign endeavors: He cleaned up the last part of our century-long international nightmare, as FDR, his hero, had earlier cleaned up the first. Different as all these men may be in party and temperament, they have many things in common. They have flair, courage, humor, and a sense of drama. They have high codes of public and personal honor. They may womanize, but are chivalrous towards and protective of women. They are stoic and reticent. They do not whimper when faced with torture or polio, Addison’s or Alzheimer’s.

On the down side, they can fly off the handle, have lapses of judgment, and exaggerate crises, or even invent them. Daring themselves, they tend to draw violence: Three were shot and died from it (Hamilton, and the two Kennedy brothers); two were shot and recovered (TR and Reagan); and one — Franklin Roosevelt — was shot at, and missed. (Churchill, the honorary English member of the Patriot party, famously observed that nothing is more exhilarating than to be shot at and not hit.) Such men are drawn to the armed forces, and to battlefield similes. They thrive under challenge and pressure and stress. The trumpet summons them, to the great crusades, long twilight struggles against evil empires, against great depressions, against complacency, against sloth and indolence, and even against fear itself. They rendezvous with destiny, and live in shining cities on hills. They enjoy being part of generations of whom much is demanded; offer blood, toil, sweat, and tears; and go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard. And always, they Ask not.

This type tends to transcend ideology. Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt were intensely partisan figures, men who defined, and were loved by, their parties. But Teddy Roosevelt and the Kennedy brothers are harder to categorize, responding to instincts of varying provenance. Patriot themes can serve the interests of liberal or conservative programs: They can fuel an arms build-up (the mission is to save and spread freedom), or a spate of new social spending and programs (the mission is to end human misery). On the other hand, they often meet fierce resistance, from both left and right. There is a kind of liberalism that disowns the idea of American virtue, resists the idea of American mission, and insists people only have needs, not duties. There is a kind of conservatism that conflates nationalism of any kind with invasive big government, and wants only to be let alone. At their extremes, liberalism and conservatism both edge off into selfishness, being about the dispersal — in tax cuts, or welfare — of purely material benefits. To some ideologues, this is more than sufficient, but history shows that it is not enough to inspire a party, enlist public support, or form a governing majority for very long. Patriot wannabes frequently founder, mistaking the message for mission. Ted Kennedy dropped the family torch when he turned into a mere gimme liberal. “Reaganesque” tax-cutters who talk of nothing else never reach their man’s magic. After the stardom and deaths of the two elder Kennedys, many young Democrats brushed their hair, brushed their teeth, walked on the beach with their coats off, and waited for lightning to strike them. But it never did.

The patriot theme is always appealing, but this time there is a sense of greater hunger in the air. There is not merely a status quo to invigorate. There is a blemish to actively heal. McKinley was decent. Hoover and Carter were inept, but decent. “Grandfatherly” was the worst pejorative John Kennedy could make himself say about Ike. But in Bill Clinton, we have one of the least decent men in American history, and possibly one of the least patriotic people in the whole country. On every character test of the patriot, he is its antithesis. He has put his own interests above those of his country, over and over. He has a pattern of picking on powerless women, and then trying to slander or threaten them. He dodged the draft, consciously, because he feared danger. He made more of a fuss over a minor knee injury than FDR ever did about polio. He bombed other countries to take our minds off his troubles. He is as without shame as he is without courage or conscience or honor. He is supremely self-seeking, in every conceivable sense.

His politics, too, are based on self-interest; the stroking and stoking of many small appetites. He does not lead citizens but rapacious consumers, whose sense of grievance he tries to exaggerate. His mode is to focus on the small glitch and call it a crisis, so that he can step in to cushion still further the already soft edges of boomer life. The TR-JFK ethic is that no obstacle is too great to be surmounted, and that people should want to do things that are difficult. The political theme of the Clinton-Gore era is that no annoyance, no matter how trivial, should have to be endured. Ask what your country can do for you, and then ask for more of it. But is this really enough?

The first man in a long time to suggest that it isn’t has been John McCain. This puts him in line with an eclectic political brotherhood of TR, FDR, Reagan, and the two elder Kennedys. But FDR worshiped his Republican cousin; Reagan loved the ur-Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt; John F. Kennedy looked up to Churchill, his father’s political enemy. Patriot themes can overcome traditional political divisions: Columnist Jack Newfield, an RFK acolyte, compares McCain to Reagan and to Bobby Kennedy, brothers under the skin. And they draw backers who are also eclectic, creating coalitions that defy reason and gravity. It is typical of the Patriot party that it breaks up and rearranges partisan lines. It also transforms traditional concepts of demographic and voting blocs.

People who complain that McCain and his fans skirt this issue or that seem unaware of the possibility that this time pride is the issue, and subsumes all the rest. Has anyone noticed that McCain can call Clinton a liar, and Democrats cheer him? Somehow McCain has found the voice that Republicans were looking for throughout the protracted impeachment and trial, and could never really get right. Something, or some combination of things — the history, the Hanoi Hilton, the wit, the irreverence, the long reputation for dissing his party — has made him an agent through which moderates, independents, and even some liberals are willing to channel their anger. (It is astonishing that after years of waiting for the left and the center to turn on Clinton, some conservatives are convinced it’s a liberal plot when they do.) McCain does not seem “mean,” or “obsessed,” or a “partisan” figure. No one in his right mind would call McCain a “prude,” or “repressed,” or “jealous” of Clinton. When McCain attacks Clinton, he doesn’t sound vengeful, or petty, or like a moralist trying to impose his religion on others. He sounds like a patriot, appalled at what has been done to debase his country. And ours.

This was always important, but it now seems more vital, in view of what has emerged in weeks past. For years, it appeared Al Gore would be the “clean” Clinton, embodying the policies without the moral deficiencies, and therefore a plausible national leader. But that was before the Gore campaign revealed itself as one of staggering lies and rhetorical thuggery. It now appears plain that Gore is not Clinton Clean but Clinton Continued. The great defining moment of this campaign may prove to have been the incident in New Hampshire, when a happy clique of Gore supporters (including the governor’s husband) splashed mud on Bob Kerrey, and called him a cripple. Gore’s spokesman cheerfully condoned this behavior. Gore, of course, lied, and denied it. Bob Kerrey is the John McCain of the Democrats. Al Gore is Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is the un-patriot. And the un-Clinton is John McCain.

How does one flush out Al Gore and Bill Clinton? Ask not.

Noemie Emery is a frequent contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.