I've been reading all about "patriots" lately. Patriots burn Dixie Chicks records. Patriots watch Fox News and cheer when they see Iraqi soldiers die. Patriots physically assault anyone who dares impugn the Prez. Patriots hurl objects at basketball players who refuse to face the flag during the playing of the national anthem. Patriots don't have any use for anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Must've been a lot of patriots in Nazi Germany, too.

Anyway, I know that not everyone subscribes to this jingoistic version of patriotism, but it's somewhat frightening to me that so many people seem to believe that in order to be patriotic in troubled times one must adopt the mantra of "my country, love it or leave it." Personally, I prefer, "My country, right or wrong."

See, I happen to think that the government of the United States is wrong to attack Iraq preemptively. I think we're wrong to ignore international opinion and go our own way. I think we're wrong to dismiss the UN as dated and irrelevant. I think we're wrong to claim that the removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq (something just about everyone agrees with, by the way) justifies any means used to accomplish that aim (a much-contested opinion).

Saying all that doesn't mean that I'm not a patriot or that I don't love my country. After all, this is one of the few nations in the world where I am free to say what I'm saying in this column. I don't have any fear of John Ashcroft's minions breaking down my door just because I happen to broadcast my personal displeasure at current events.

Dissenters are patriots, too. They love their country enough to point out the possible errors of its ways. And despite the occasional shrill manner in which these messages are often screamed, the interesting thing is that dissenters have a pretty good historical track record. We owe such people a great debt.

The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s is perhaps the most important event of the 20th century. A subjugated people claimed its citizenship though non-violent means. The boycotters, sit-in instigators, marchers, freedom riders and voter registration workers were not only right in their goals but in the way that they achieved them. Their legacy will be revered for as long as there is a United States.

Only the most ardent communist-haters (say, people who still make reference to "red China") would argue that the attempt to finish what the French started in Vietnam (if you want a good reason to carp at France, examine its actions vis-a-vis its former colonies) was a good idea . But in the mid-1960s the only people arguing strenuously against that war were the hard-core dissenters. Their long-term commitment to justice (coupled with increasing military failures) helped to turn the tide.

A lot of people like to bash ol' Noam Chomsky, but few realize that for decades his pet project was East Timor. For twenty years he spoke, wrote, lobbied and generally howled about the actions of the Indonesian government (strongly abetted by the U.S.) in that small Pacific nation. Almost single-handedly, he managed a world-wide effort to rectify the damage done and bring democracy to that tiny place. A few years ago, his hard work was rewarded with a UN-brokered solution. The people voted and East Timor officially broke away from its captors. You can say that Chomsky is a bit too biting in his commentary. Certainly, he is a tad paranoid and tends to see the glass half-empty. But his record on the simple matter of right and wrong is pretty good.

Back in the 1980s, students all across the country constructed "shanty towns" in order to try and shame colleges and universities to divest from South Africa. Many of these students were jailed, some of them for longer than a year. The official position of the Reagan White House was that apartheid was the legal and elected government of South Africa, and so it had our support. Then-president Reagan made a slip in a speech, calling apartheid "abhorrent." His press secretary had to make a correction the next day, saying that the subjugation of the black majority was regrettable, but somehow legal nonetheless. I can't think of a more appalling moment in recent American history. In any case, the radical shanty town residents were certainly right, and our government was dead wrong.

I have some sympathy for the argument that it is unpatriotic to criticize the government during a time of war. One glib reaction I've voiced is something along the lines of "show me a declaration of war and I'll shut up." But the simple matter is that without vocal dissent, Vietnam would have gone on much longer than it did. Nixon finally pulled out when it became obvious that the majority of the nation did not support the war. Dissent did its job then. And while as a practical matter I don't think any amount of protesting will make one bit of difference to the Prez and his cabal, I think it's important to register our displeasure nonetheless. Dissents are some of the most memorable and influential Supreme Court writings. What we say and do now will be remembered and pondered by those who follow us.

Patriotism is love of country. Period. Love of country doesn't have to involve blind allegiance or other ugly forms of nationalism. Love of country can, in fact, take the form of "tough love." Or dissent. Whatever you want to call it.

It's not a crime to say you're embarrassed by the Prez. The private utterance and public dissemination of such comments is not only legal but protected. There are those of us who take our citizenship seriously enough, who love our country enough, to risk ridicule and even physical harm to try and show our government the error of its ways.

Sounds like patriotism to me.

Jon Worley's been listening to a lot of Schoolhouse Rock lately and will recite the entire preamble to the Constitution upon request.