I’ve had the opportunity to vote for presidential candidates in 11 general elections. During this time, my political views shifted from right to left, as a young man who enlisted in the U.S. Marines, but evolved into a pacifist as an aged one.
This was a twisted journey with a disproportionate share of regrets and much soul-searching. I’ve wrestled repeatedly with philosophical questions. One especially resurfaced this last general election: What does it mean to be a good American?
Ironically, amid the tumult, division, propaganda, mudslinging, and dishonesty (on all sides), came a most illuminating answer to my question. Its source was unexpected: a reserved middle-aged Muslim couple who briefly took the stage during the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Their names were Khizr and Ghazala Khan. They are immigrants from Pakistan. Only Khizr Khan spoke, but Ghazala Khan’s pained demeanor equally expressed her husband’s message.
Mr. Khan addressed Donald Trump during his speech, although his words were meant for Democrats as well as Republicans—really all Americans. Mr. Khan first spoke about his experience as an immigrant:
“Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy—that with hard work and the goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings,” he said.
These words summed up the story of millions of people who came to our country from all over the world and over many generations. I noted that Mr. Khan referred to both “sharing in” and “contributing to” American blessings: a two-way street that is traversed by an overwhelming majority of immigrants in our country. I was moved by these words because my great-grandparents were such hard working immigrants.
But it was when Mr. Khan shared the story of one of his three sons, Army Capt. Humayun Khan who was killed in 2004 in Iraq by a suicide bomber, that he yanked at my heart. I too have three sons. I can’t imagine the agony of losing one in such horrific violence.
I opposed the American military action in Iraq. It was unjustified, based on false premises, and led to hundreds of thousands of casualties—many of whom were innocent civilians.
But I respect the profound sacrifice of Capt. Humayun Khan—and that of his parents. There is no greater manifestation of commitment to one’s country than the loss of one’s life and one’s loved one—and no greater honor.
What Mr. Khan did next in his speech, given the current sociopolitical context, I have come to see as one of the greatest defining moments of Americanism in my lifetime—second I think, only to the Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Dream Speech” in 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial.
Mr. Khan pulled out a copy of the U.S. Constitution from his pocket and challenged Donald Trump (and every American) on whether he had ever read it. Mr. Khan spoke specifically about the 14th Amendment when he told Donald Trump (and the rest of us) to “look for the words liberty and equal protection of law.”
At this point I lost my breath. Khizr and Ghazala Khan had struck at the deepest chord of Americanism. They had also—as Muslims—brought to life the most overarching Judeo-Christian tenet, the “Golden Rule”: treating others as you would have them treat you (the essence of the 14th Amendment).
Mr. Khan then encouraged people to vote for Hillary Clinton. But I found Secretary Clinton unworthy of his endorsement; she could not live up to the honor of the Khans. In fact, I found much in her recent activities dishonorable.
Hillary Clinton resigned as Secretary of State on Feb. 1, 2013. Remarkably, that same year, she gave seven speeches to investment firms (three to Goldman Sachs, and one each to UBS, Morgan Stanley, BOA/Merrill Lynch, and Deutsche Bank). She earned $225,000 for each speech, totaling more than $1.5 million.
These firms were among the culprits that peddled the toxic mortgages leading to the great recession in 2008 and the financial ruin of so many middle and working class Americans. Yet in her second campaign for the presidency, Secretary Clinton covered herself with the mantle of protector of the poor and struggling working Americans. For me, Hillary Clinton was a self-serving opportunist. I could not vote for her.
But the dishonor of Hillary Clinton paled in comparison to Donald Trump’s.
The term “opportunist” does not suffice to characterize the current president of the United States, a man who denied construction workers their pay through a bankruptcy from which he profited; a man who boasted of outrageous treatment of women; a man who degraded broad classes of immigrants; a man who spoke unapologetically of avoiding taxes with no regard for the common good or the sustainability of our national economy.
And how do we adequately term Donald Trump’s response to the Khans’ speech at the Democratic Convention? I believe that Trump’s belittling of the sacrifice by the Khan family amounted to defecation on the grave of every American who gave their life for their country.
I saw no honor in presidential candidate Donald Trump.
And now honor, which the Khans demonstrated by their personal sacrifice for the welfare of others, goes lacking in the highest executive office of our nation.
We have a president who fails to recognize the legitimate interests and needs of classes of people and groups of nations. This amounts to confusing leading a people and the world with ruling a people and the world.
What, then, should be the response to the self-serving ethos coming from the highest office of our land—and one that counters the first words of the U.S. Constitution: We the people?
Khizr and Ghazala Khan offer us a good prescription.
First, no matter our political ideologies, we should act with, and speak from, honor. Honorable Americans from polar political perspectives can come together, hear each other, and find what is right and true. As the self-governing people of the United States, this is what we are called to do, no matter how those in government act.
And secondly, we should hold our U.S. Constitution in high regard and recognize it for what it is: the very basis of our country and what makes us the people. While the Constitution has its shortcomings, it remains the world’s best model for institutionalizing and conducting democracy. It is our American blessing—a nearly miraculous artifact from a group of imperfect “founding fathers” who themselves proved during their Constitutional Convention that the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts.
And in giving the Constitution its due, we the people should not reduce Americanism to whether we stand for and/or sing the national anthem, or pledge allegiance to a flag, or have military prowess or national wealth. To do so misses what at heart makes us Americans: a collection of commonly held principles. It is for these principles that Americans have given their lives for their country.
We should stand and sing to the Constitution—and pledge to that—for it is what really makes us a nation, and a great one.
Scott Fina is a resident of Orcutt. Send your thoughts to letters@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Feb 9-16, 2017.