Anytime there is even a suggestion that US policies cause others to react against us, you hear it dismissed as the person being part of the “blame America first” crowd.
When I moved into my house, I plugged stuff into outlets to figure out which ones were controlled by which switch and which ones were always on. I wasn’t blaming the switch, just trying to understand what was going on. It might influence what I plug in. I might decide that something I’d prefer to always be on works better for physical placement on a switch-controlled-outlet (not blindly following a pattern, just using information).
By analogy, knowing what American policy is making terrorists want to attack us isn’t “blaming America”, it is understanding. In some cases we might want to change the policy. In others, we might think the policy serves important needs despite the risk.
Parallel to that, we should evaluate policies that make people like us also.
Does this make sense or am I just not patriotic enough?
I think it makes sense. I get frustrated at the “love it or leave it” crowd because trying to change things you perceive as problems is more patriotic than sitting there like a bump on a log waving a flag, IMHO.
You mean like how the US involvement in Iran laid the groundwork for the rise of khomeini… and the madrasas scools? … and later the Iran-Iraq war, and the subsequent permanent troop placement in areas that are bound to piss off extremists?
Or the involvement in Somalia that lead to… well, the situation we have now.
Or perhaps the involvement in the Korean war that made life a barrel of laughs to those left on the wrong side of the border.
I find that there often seems to be a disconnect with the people that make this charge. They often seem to be very anti-government, convinced that the government is filled with inept, lazy people and that politicians are by and large not to be trusted. Yet, the foreign policy and actions taken by this same government is consistently above reproach.
When I hear of a “Blame America First,” situation, I most often discover a complaint that has not followed your suggestion to both determine if the policy does cause emnity and then evaluate if the reward from that policy is worth the risk. That is absolutely the right way to go about things… but that’s NOT what I often hear. Instead, the analysis begins and ends with the American policy, with the inference made (or the statement made explicitly) that the American policy should be discarded.
For example, when Ward Churchill called the victims of the 9/11 attack part of a “technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire” who were turning a “mighty engine of profit” which he claimed enslaved our military policy, he did not go on to your proposed second step. He simply left the plain statement that there was no other way to penalize the “participation [of the ] little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers.”
In my view, this was fairly characterized as “blame America first.”
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” ~Mark Twain
“The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one’s country deep enough to call her to a higher plain” ~George McGovern
How many times in the past decade were you called an America hater by morons hell bent on overseas conquest?
I’m not sure you have standing to decide whether the OP is a strawman.
Perhaps. It is also the opinion of a very, VERY marginal person on the left. If you asked 1000 liberals who Ward Churchill was, I’m pretty confident that at least 95% of them wouldn’t be able to tell him from the WWII-era prime minister of the UK. Churchill was touted by right-wing media as a typical liberal when he made those remarks, but he’s seriously obscure. The only reason I even recognize his name is because of those remarks.
If the use of “blame America first” was limited to situations involving extremists like Ward Churchill, there would be no problem. But it’s most commonly used as a broad brush to shut down anyone to the left of any particular policy.
