WHY U.S. SPYING GROWS: PATRIOTISM TAKE A BACK SEAT TO SPECIAL INTEREST

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000605300039-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 3, 2012
• Sequence Number: 39
• Publication Date: November 19, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

STAT
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/03: CIA-RDP90-00965R000605300039-9
/ PA . ).
LOS ANGELES TIMES
19 November 1985
Why US. Spying Grows.? Patriotism Takes a Back Seat to Special Interests
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The recent flood of spy scandals has many Ameri-
cans wondering what has happened to the land of the
free and the home of the brave.
It seems that almost every week another American
appears who has been spying for the Soviet Union. On
the surface, each case has its own reason: financial
need, love of money, malcontentment or-in the case
of William Kampiles, who turned over to the Soviets
the detailed workings of our top-secret "Spy in the
Sky" satellite-egotism. But none of these reasons
explain deep down why more and more Americans
seem willing to sell out their country. -
While the individual motives of spies will differ, two
developments in postwar American attitudes have
made the act of spying easier on the conscience. One is
the decline in patriotism, and the other is the growing
tendency on the part of many to view the United States
and the Soviet Union as similar in aims and motives but
kept apart by an artificial conflict fostered by hawks,
superpatriots and military-industrial complexes.
Patriotism has declined for a variety of reasons. To
begin with, it is not instilled in the young with the care
that used to be taken. In my schooldays, class began
with the pledge of allegiance, the Lord's prayer and
"My Country Tis of Thee" or "America the Beautiful."
No more. In addition, the emphasis in textbooks has
changed from a positive view of our heroes and
successes to a more skeptical view and a litany of
wrongdoings. This restrains jingoism but, for the same
reasons, takes its toll on patriotism.
Whether this change in education policy turns out to
be wise remains to be seen. During the same period
other factors were working to produce what commen-
tators have called "the Balkanization of America"-
the tendency for Americans to be split into various
interest groups. Indeed, some commentators believe
that there is no longer a U.S. citizenry. Instead, they
see various groups of people who live within geo-
graphical boundaries called the United States but who
share few, if any, common values or loyalties.
It is easy to see this in the many specific economic
and regional interests competing in Washington for
special treatment. With government as big as it is,
these stakes are high and a more important part of
daily life than the machinations of the Soviet gov-
ernment. Interests split in other ways as well-by age,
sex and race. There are blacks, Latinos, homosexuals,
feminists, yuppies, the elderly and the so-called white
establishment.
It is now commonplace for various interest groups
not to identify with the United States and its interests.
For example, when U.S. military forces dislodged the
Cubans from Grenada, the Congressional Black Caucus
accused President Reagan of aggression. The chairman
of the Black Caucus, California Rep. Julian C. Dixon
(D-Los Angeles), explained the special concern of
the Black Caucus this way: "Based on our close ties
to the Caribbean, we should have been consulted."
If you are wondering what close ties a Californian
has with the Caribbean, you have missed the import of
Dixon's statement. The close ties are the color of skin.
It is race before country. When Washington Post
columnist Carl T. Rowan wrote that "the invasion of
Grenada produced a lot of agony of conscience
especially for black Americans," he was expressing the
conventional parlance that takes it for granted that
many of the populations that reside in territorial U.S.
boundaries have extranational loyalties. For example,
when asked what he had done for America's Latinos,
President Jimmy Carter did not bat an eye when he
replied that he had given the Panama Canal to
Panama.
While interest groups have encroached on the
common interest, the perception of the common
interest has dimmed. Indeed, in many academic, media
and even government policy-making circles dis-
approval of the United States is as pronounced as
disapproval of the Soviet Union. The growing dis-
inclination to differentiate between U.S. and Soviet
motives so alarmed Jeane Kirkpatrick, our former
ambassador to the United Nations, that she felt
compelled to write an article for a leading intellectual
magazine insisting that we are morally different from
the Soviet Union. That such an article had to be
written is itself an indication of the state of confusion in
America.
This confusion is rife in universities. Today there are
many American scientists who firmly,believe that it is
their moral duty to refuse to work nn weapon systems
that would help their country's defense effort. The
tenuous allegiance of many professors erupted into the
open during the Vietnam War when posters of Ho Chi
Minh and Mao Tse-tung were common furnishings in
many university offices. Patriotism is still more a
liability than an asset on many campuses today.
Stanford University recently canceled a course taught
by Adm. James B. Stockdale, who was awarded the
Medal of Honor for his heroism in Vietnam. Polite
reasons were given, but basically the faculty felt that
Stockdale was too patriotic to be objective about his
own country.
If members of the U.S. House of Representatives,
scientists, professors and various celebrities sometimes
seem confused about patriotic matters, it is not
surprising that some ordinary Americans also get
confused. The basic problem is that in the United
States we rely on a self-critical posture as our means of
achieving domestic reforms and showing our good will
to foreigners. Skepticism of one's own society is an
effective means of keeping it dynamic and open to
change.
However, skepticism does not naturally lead to
commitment. As commitment continues to weaken,
spies will continue to multiply.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Wall Street Journal
editor and columnist, has the William E. Simon Chair in
Political Economy at Georgetown University. He was
assistant secretary of the Treasury during President
Reagan's first term.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/03: CIA-RDP90-00965R000605300039-9