How often have we heard this sort of thing? Too often, that's for sure. I can't help wondering at the thought process, if you could call it that, behind the sentiment.
The first time I ever heard it uttered was back in the early 70's, while the last stages of America's wrangling over Vietnam was going on. It was also during the middle of the Cold War, which is the real source of the statement. Everyone thought in terms of a dichotomy -- Us/Them, Commie/Freedom-Lover, Patriot/Traitor, and so on. I guess that made it easy for people to assume that if anyone disagreed with them on something, then such folks were "The Enemy."
It's also easy to see how this sort of thinking will inevitably lead to problems. America saw all sorts of trouble from it throughout the Cold War, but didn't seem to learn its lessons properly. Any country that opposed Communism was treated as an honored friend. Our country became friends with and supported some of the most horrible, repressive, violent regimes in history, in the name of "defending freedom." The idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" led to many shameful decisions, as it does to this day.
Even in our nation, the polarizing effects of this thinking are to be seen all through the latter half of the 20th Century, and on into the 21st. During Vietnam, anyone who disagreed with government policies was labeled a "Commie sympathizer." They were told "if you don't like what our nation is doing, then you must be a Communist. Ergo, you must think it's far better to live in Russia." Hence the origin of our title quote.
It seems that one big component of this sentiment must be that Americans are expected to love their country both unconditionally and unquestioningly. I say this because from what I've seen, it gets said mostly to those who are trying to change things and those who disagree with something our nation does. It's as if some people are unable to wrap their wits around the idea that a person can love anything and want to change it for the better at the same time. One analogy would be seeing a friend harming himself by using alcohol to excess. Would these people expect you to just stand by and watch your friend die, because your only options are to "love him unquestioningly and unconditionally" or leave him? I would certainly hope not. But this is what I think we are hearing from people who say this.
Let's face it -- we all know that our country isn't perfect, and we would all like to see some sort of changes. But what are we supposed to do? Tell everyone who isn't 100% happy with the country to leave? There wouldn't be many people left to turn out the lights after the last customer with less than perfect satisfaction took off.
And it doesn't appear to be getting any better. On March 29, 2004, just a few days after appearing before the Supreme Court in the Pledge of Allegiance case, Michael Newdow was preparing to speak at the law school at the University of Toledo. His appearance was delayed due to a bomb threat, but that's peripheral to the point. During the appearance, Newdow was confronted by a young woman in the audience who disagreed with his stance that the words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge. At one point, the woman said, "If you don't love [America], leave it."
Let's look at this a little more closely. Mr. Newdow disagrees with a law of the U.S. and has gone to the court system to get this thing changed. He has never said that he hates America. On the contrary, he cares enough about his country that he is going to an awful lot of personal effort to correct what he thinks is a problem. He hasn't advocated or tried to inspire a violent rebellion. He hasn't advised anyone to leave the country for a better land. Instead, he's working to make this country better; at least, better in his opinion. It sure sounds like he loves his country to me.
But does the act of asking to remove 2 words from an official government document actually result in harm to the nation? In this case, I don't think so. Obviously, the anonymous woman in Toledo thought so, and was very angry about it. In fact, she wants those who disagree with her taken out of the country. I don't think that sort of attitude would help the country. I mean, I could understand a big reaction if we were talking about removing "free exercise of religion" from the Bill of Rights. But removing "under God"? Please!
Now, let's look at her statement from another perspective. Mr. Newdow is continuing his fight on the pledge, signing up other plaintiffs to take his place after being declared "ineligible" by the Supreme Court. Let's say that Newdow eventually wins, and those two words are removed from the Pledge. What then? Does this woman expect that she will no longer "love America"? Will she feel the urge to pick up and go looking for some place where she can live that recognizes God in the manner that she thinks is suitable? It's hard to say without actually knowing who she is and what she thinks, but I believe it's pretty safe to say that she wouldn't.
Instead, we could expect her to stay and fight to change what she sees as a problem -- exactly the same way that Mr. Newdow is fighting today. Would those who disagree with her tell her "America -- love it or leave it"? I would hope not, but you just never know.