A panel of two faculty members and roughly thirty to forty students pondered the consequences of patriotism in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks during the November 13 Frank Blue Room Discussion.

The discussion, titled "Patriotism in a Time of Perceived Threat to America" consisted of a two-member panel, composed of Professor of History Helena Wall and Associate Professor of Economics Cecilia Conrad, as well as moderator David Brown ’02. As with past Blue Room discussions, this one followed a question and answer format. The attending students asked questions that were then discussed between the two panelists.

The discussion began with a look at how the United States has dealt with perceived threats in the past.

"Historically…Americans have always been called upon to sacrifice…. Now… we have been told…by our President and others to go out and spend money," noted Wall, commenting on President Bush’s pleas for Americans to keep pumping money into the economy.

"The important thing to recognize is that there are a lot of things that are different now," added Conrad.

Conrad went on to point out that, contrary to past wars, this one has not led to a stimulus of the economy, which was already in trouble before September 11. Part of the reason for this is that the US military has not sounded a call for volunteers, which has in the past been a way out for unemployed Americans seeking a job. Conrad did say, however, that the technology market might benefit from the war, as the US will most likely use a lot of advanced equipment, rather than manpower, to fight against terrorism in the future.

Discussion then moved on to patriotism and its apparent use as a sales tool.

"I don’t think that there’s ever been anything quite like what you see now," exclaimed Wall, referring to the use of American flags and patriotic music to promote consumer goods, ranging from cars to clothes, after the World Trade Center bombing. "I think it’s disturbing…and cynical, in a way."

Conrad then commented on a related subject, the current administration’s attempt to put new fiscal policies through Congress, many of which are being advertised as a response to the attacks.

"It is clear that he [Bush] is having an easier time with his tax cuts," said Conrad.

Conrad was quick to mention that part of the administration’s program is a relief fund for New York City, but also noted that it fails to give money to other areas that have been affected, such as unemployment insurance.

Backing up Conrad’s appreciation of the situation, Wall said that the use of patriotic language to promote a political agenda "may be a little more blatant now," citing Bush’s call for oil drilling in the Arctic as something that shouldn’t be referred to in matters regarding September 11.

"All aspects of governmental activity now are free from scrutiny," noted Wall, grimly. "The tolerance of opposition now is less than it was [before September 11]."

On the other hand, both panelists did agree that the trend of forced patriotism in America is not as strong as it used to be.

"You can point to times when it was worse," commented Wall, referring to the breakouts of physical violence against German immigrants during World War I and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Conrad and Wall also discussed the positive and negative connotations of being a patriot.

"I’m somewhat disturbed by how people define patriotism," said Conrad.

"One of the most important patriotic acts is to keep an eye on the government," added Wall, evoking the American ideal of limited government.

Discussing the exceptional number of American flags being flown since September 11, Wall argued that these should not be seen in a negative light, as being a pro-war symbol, but rather as a way to tell the victims of the plane crashes and bombings that, in the words of one survivor, "We’re thinking of you."

The final topic of the discussion was retired US Army General Schwarzkopf’s statement after the bombings that the US military has never intentionally targeted civilians.

Wall and Conrad disagreed, citing the carpet-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, as well as the two atomic bombings, during World War II.

"What were all those people walking around Nagasaki and Hiroshima doing?" asked Wall.

After the discussion, Conrad expressed enthusiasm toward the dialogue.

"I liked it," enthused Conrad, "I just like hearing what people are hearing about."

Though Conrad admitted that she did not do much in preparation for the discussion, she pointed out that some of her research is related to the issue.

"There’s an article that just came out in the Milken Institute Review…I’ve [also] been following the unemployment numbers just as a matter of course," said Conrad.

Regarding the questions asked by students, Conrad believed that they were all well thought out and pertained to the discussion’s assigned topic.

"The points I had thought about making I was able to make in response to questions," noted Conrad. "It seemed like questions either naturally fit one of us or the other."

Although the panel only consisted of two members, Conrad was reassuring in her belief that a fair and honest point of view was given.

"I’m not sure they would have said a lot different in answer to the questions," said Conrad, referring to how some of the more conservative members of Pomona’s faculty might have responded to the issues.

Dorothy Lam ’05 disagreed, however, on the grounds that most of the discussion tended to put patriotism in a negative light.

"Initially, I was intrigued, but the discussion turned out to be almost a condemnation of patriotism," noted Lam. During the discussion, however, Wall did make a passing comment that she would consider herself a patriot, even though she may oppose much of what the government is doing.

Another student, Maribeth Saleem ’02, had a much higher opinion of the discussion.

"I think that it was…a very focused approach to patriotism," said Saleem.

Lam also had some concern as to the size of the panel.

"It would have been nice if they’d had more panelists, or maybe a more diverse selection of panelists," suggested Lam, "[Wall and Conrad] just ended up supporting each other and reinforcing what they had to say."

While thinking that this panel was fair, Saleem also voiced a hope that there would be other discussions that included divergent opinions.

"I hope there are other panels, maybe with opposing viewpoints," suggested Saleem.