You have a point. I went and looked up the actual comments, and in context they don't engender the same reaction as the description in Glenn's post did:

In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s - in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day

.

Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views - these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America's traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments - a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.

Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions. None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit.

You wrote: But the overriding reason most of these people will vote for someone who will shit on the constitution is simply that they don't know what else to do. They are unwilling to do anything that might actually make a difference so they hide behind "voting and hoping" and call it a day.

This is no small matter we are discussing, I think. Several questions come to mind here:

What is “shitting on the constitution?” Is that supposed to mean some act of final desecration? Has some central tenent been violated? Is that what has in fact happened? How clear is the evidence? If I really thought this had happened, it would influence me greatly. So I would need to be somewhat convinced. Is it that clear?

Am I certain Obama is doing this? Many intelligent people seem to disagree here, and the issue is not clear to me, though I continue to study it as carefully as I can.

How can one “do anything that might actually make a difference”? What, precisely, would? I am interested in making a difference if I thought I had a real chance to do so. What do you mean by this, exactly? Do you have a program or manifesto or something laying out what meaningful actions I could take as the individuals we are in our concrete situations? And do you have convincing arguments and evidence for it that would balance the risk of following your advice, whatever that advice is? And where might I find your evidence?

I am voting and hoping because in fact I do not know what else to do, given my lack of clarity on the issues and the lack of a clear and well supported list of alternative actions I could take. If you have answers to these questions I would dearly love know what you are thinking so that I could critically evaluate it. Are there texts that support what you are saying? Analyses? These issues are important. I do not ask these questions rhetorically. I am honestly asking you, adnoto, since you keep bringing these points up with some frequency. I myself only think there’s a slim chance Obama will be better than McCain: you are saying that is a fool’s hope. I welcome all relevant information. I was a soldier once who would have died for my country, I am not afraid to live for it. What do you suggest?

The issue is so serious (and what the hell, maybe you know something real about this I don’t or have some real practical alternatives that would be meaningful. If I can have a small hope in a politician, I can have a wild hope that I can learn something new here on the intertubes). To underline my sincerity (since I don’t mean to be an anonymous interlocutor and just blow steam):

Professor James R. Goetsch Jr.

Assistant Professor of Philosophy

Eckerd College

4200 54th Avenue South

St. Petersburg, Florida

goetscr@eckerd.edu

Another sad report. When Iran was mentioned, Obama thought "threat". The first thing that leapt to my my mind when seeing the word "Iran" was al-Khwarizimi, the inventor of algebra. Politicians are so unimaginative.

I loved your riff on Indra's Net.

Glenn asks: Does Greg Craig - Obama's top legal advisor -- really think that FISA is going to expire?

What are the alternative here? Either Obama's top legal advisor is lying to spin the issue or is ignorant of basic facts about FISA?

To quote the great Bebop-o: "Gads!"