Maggie's Farm

I despise the pledge of allegiance. It was written by a socialist with the deliberate intent of creating loyalty to the government, rather than the principles the government should be bound by to weaken the resolve of the people to maintain their Constitutional protection.

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution, not the flag. I pledge allegiance to the founding principles, not the republic.

Ron,
So which universe do you live in? The pledge was written by a socialist, and while he was also baptist minister, he was forced from his congregation in Boston because...his sermons were dedicated more to socialism than Jesus. Call him an early Reverend Wright. And it was the fact that he was driven from his congregation that caused him to go work for the magazine where he wrote and popularized the pledge.

And with regards to the oath you took when you joined the military, if it was anything like the one I took, it was to the Constitution, not the flag and the republic. And it included 'enemies foreign and domestic.'

If you are not paying attention, the Constitution, the republic and the flag may seem the same, but it is most certainly not. There is a very strong reason socialist/progressives like Bellamy wanted loyalty to the government and its symbols rather than to the Constitution and the principles it was founded on...they were fundamentally opposed to the founding principles as enshrined in the Constitution. They were the domestic enemies.

Enjoy saying their pledge.

Feeblemind, what did you think you were pledging allegiance to when you pledged your allegiance to the Republic?

This is obviously one of my hot buttons. Please bear with me, I think you will find it worth it.

Mudbug, that is an honest response, and demonstrates what is so diabolical about the pledge. You are right, there is nothing patently offensive about the words in it. It is that which is missing which is so offensive about it. Let me demonstrate with a thought experiment:

As a hypothetical example, let's say that the foundational principles the nation you love are being gradually and deliberately eroded. The nation slowly slips down the slippery slope all the way from the most free nation on earth, all the way down to the most tyranical hell hole you can imagine. Worse than the East German Stasi with all the technology of the 23rd century. So long as the dictator claims to be a republic (like say, North Korea today), and does not change the flag, where can you say, "thus far and no further...one more step would violate the pledge of allegiance!" After all, is it not social justice to put the kulaks in the camps? Is everyone on the same bread line a form of liberty? Is not your pledge to the flag and the republic? Is not the balancing of liberty and justice really one for the (kangaroo) courts?

Let's say that it is the late 19th century, and you are a socialist in the most free nation in the history of the world. The economic aspect of that freedom (capitalism) is so potent that your country is very quickly vaulting from what was an irrelevant colonial backwater to the world's first superpower. But you want a socialist paradise. You know that your socialist ideals are directly contradicted by the principles enshrined in the Constitution. You know the limitations that document places on the government must be overcome. After being thrown out of your own congregation, you know that the people love their freedom, and will not be convinced to give it away. After the early failures of revolutions, you know it will not be a popular revolution...it will be led by the modest 'vanguard of the proletatiate' As a Fabian socialist, you know that a small minority can gradually ratchet modest changes bit by bit.

Your great fear is that the great mass of people realise that you are undermining their country and start to resist this process. How might they resist? What if someone wrote a pledge of allegiance to the founding principles to highlight that you were undermining those principles? How could you, a socialist, pledge allegiance to the founding principles of very small government? Would that not out you as a traitor the ideals your country was founded on? Would that not stop the undermining of those principles dead in its tracks? How can you aviod this obvious response?

Why, write your own pledge. Get every child in the country to pledge allegiance to the flag...the same flag you plan to fly over your socialist paradise. Get them to pledge allegiance to the republic...the republic you plan on making the socialist republic. What you cannot tolerate is a pledge to the foundational principles. So you write and popularize a pledge without this very obvious and key linchpin. After all, who can be against the flag? Who can be against the republic?

If you, dear Maggie's Farm reader, were to start with a blank sheet of paper, and no knowledge what so ever of the existing pledge and the distracting psuedo-controversy about whether or not 'under God' should be in it, what would you pledge allegiance to? Would it really be to the flag and the republic? Or would it be to the Constitution? Or the founding principles?

Mine would sound a lot like the first half of the oath I took upon commisioning, 'I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

That is the pledge the socialists had to avoid...it is not that the pledge was written by a socialist, but why it was written the way it was by a socialist that matters.

Thanks for thinking about it. I agree that most people recite the pledge out with a generic patriotism, as was intended. What is sad is that such a potent potential bulwark of our founding principles was subverted at inception.

The idea that Bellamy, a hardcore socialist (aka communist) in the US in the late nineteenth century was against 'subversion' gives lie to itself. He was a subversive, and of course, would deny it publicly to advance his subversion. As with so many on the left...what they project on others is really their own plan. After all, what radical and subversive idea, other than his own beloved socialism, was a genuine threat to the country that we needed a pledge to protect ourselves from it?

My take on Bellamy's emphasis on 'one nation, indivisible' was really about several things:

First, his expectation that the socialist revolution would not be geographically spread evenly, he wanted to make sure that where his socialist cadre led, the whole nation would follow. The socialist plan was to expand and control the federal government...they wanted to make sure no states could stop the creeping by dropping out. After all, every schoolchild recites that the nation is indivisible. The indivisible was meant to cement the federal over the state governments and stop any (legitimate...the slavery question was already settled) states rights issues blocking the path to his socialist dream.

Second, he was playing off the fears of the nation that was in living memory split so bloodily apart. It was already 30 years after the civil war. It was clear the issues there were settled, the war would not continue. Not only was the war over, the reconstruction era with its tensions was over. There was no genuine risk of the south rising (militarily) again, but it played on the fears of those who left their brothers, fathers and sons buried scattered across this great country, whether they were buried in blue or grey. I think it was that which was the greatest selling point of its quick rise to popularity...that was the US post civil war version of 'never again.'

I agree that most people recite it without thinking and mean it is a generically patriotic act...and that is a shame. It is a shame that a hard core radical subversive intent of the destruction of the principles this country was founded on can recite the pledge...honestly.

We should at least make those who intend to subvert the founding principles lie in order to drape themselves in the protective cloak of patriotism.