on humility

washington journal's first phone-in question today was something like: should america be humble?

apparently somebody wrote an editorial saying other countries want the US to be strong but humble.

i never phone—ok, i admit i tried once or twice in the past but didn't get thru—but listening's a kick.

see, they have 3 phone lines: support bush, support dems, support others. on rare occasions they have just one number for all calls, and one side invariably has an overwhelming majority.

this morning all but one pro-bush callers said we shouldn't be humble, and everybody else said we should.

that tells you something right there. no further comment needed, i'd say.

but i don't like "humble." it's too ambiguous: it has a negative sense as well as a positive one. i prefer "modest."

and what's my opinion? i thought you'd never ask. well, i'm sure you already know my opinion, but i'll say it anyway:

yes, i think we should be modest. our national ego is way too big.

too big and too fragile.

our overreaction to france's nonsupport of our war—freedom-fries, &c—proves how fragile.

on patriotic subjects we have too little humor and too little perspective. i think that's because of our swollen pride.

i mean, we say we're one nation under god. how absurd. like we're the only one. or, if not the only one, still, how arrogant: god's on OUR side, so if you're not with us, go to hell, you goddamn terrorist-lover.

keerist!