Joe Wilson gets smeared for exposing a lie–and then called a “peacenik” and enemy for criticizing an administration he had worked to support. Whistleblowers are so reviled that laws (rarely enforced) have been passed to protect them–they are perceived as “against” the institution when, for the most part, all they want to do is make it better. Critics of the United States are told they must hate it (or wouldn’t criticize), so should leave it.
What’s with all this? Why can’t we accept that criticizing something doesn’t mean we hate it or that we are out to bring it down?
Even here on BoomanTribune it happens.
In a diary I posted yesterday, I am quite critical of academia. In a comment, someone said
So you offer an agenda that would no doubt punish those who you perceive as having hurt you – mean tenured faculty, nasty teachers from the past.
Why is it that, when we criticize, people insist on believing that we either hate what we are criticizing or have been hurt by it?
I love the United States and will criticize it as harshly as I can simply because of that love (there’s more wrong with China–but I don’t love China, am not a part of China, so I don’t criticize China as harshly).
Just so, since returning to teaching, I’ve been madly in love with my profession. But that doesn’t mean I don’t see its faults. But it doesn’t mean that, because I criticize, I am disgruntled!
What I think, quite simply, is that the people who attack Joe Wilson, whistleblowers, political reformers, and even little-old me are doing so simply because they cannot defend what has been criticized.
And that is sad. And I am very sorry to see it happening here.
