"No sane man objects to palpable lies about him; what he objects to is damaging facts."

(H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, 1920)

Of late, there has been a great deal of discussion, about a rather simple phrase: To wit, "America’s chickens have come home to roost." Perhaps, in this age of indignant rhetoric and angry posturing, it might serve to examine this short little phrase and how it is being bandied about. According to "The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Third Edition. 2002)", the phrase means, simply enough, that "the consequences of earlier actions are making themselves felt." In its simplest archeological interpretation, it is an indirect reference to "karma" - or, that what goes around, comes around.

Sadly, this rather quaint phrase has been, principally, used as a touchstone for radical speakers to cast negative aspersions on American policy, foreign and domestic. Most famously, was its use by Malcolm X in response to the assassination of John Kennedy. According to Wikipedia: "When asked for a comment about the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm said that it was a case of "the chickens coming home to roost." He added that "Chickens coming home to roost never made me sad. It only made me glad." This remark prompted a widespread public outcry. The Nation of Islam publicly censured their former shining star; although Malcolm retained his post and rank as minister, Elijah Muhammad banned him from public speaking for 90 days."

But other fire eaters have used it to incite public emotions ever since. In 2001, after the 9/11 tragedy, Reverend Jeremiah Wright used the phrase (which he attributed to comments made by U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck in an interview that same Sunday on Fox News) in a sermon that sought to take America to task for thinking first of revenge - as opposed to justice - in response to the attacks on the Trade Center Towers. Ward Churchill used it in the title of a book that criticized American foreign policy, particularly in Iraq.

The history of the phrase, as best I can make out, can be traced back to a poem from 1810 by English port laureate Robert Southey. The poem was "The Curse of Kehama." His precise words were "Curses are like young chickens; they always come home to roost." It is widely assumed that he was the originator of the phrase though I sincerely doubt anyone who slings it about ever read Southey. It could, conceivably, have easily been one of Aesop’s Fables or from Grimm’s Fairy Tales in that it is - shed of its inflammatory history - a bit of a parable that instructs us that when we do "bad things" we are likely to have "bad things" happen to us. Call it Karma, if you wish. If you are sufficiently familiar with The Bible (could we start with the "Golden Rule," from Luke 10:25-37: "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself"?) or The Koran, I am sure there is are similar homilies for believers.

The point remains: without the historical and cultural association of this humble idiom to speakers with whom we might hold in contempt, the message is a meaningful and important morality lesson. However, today, with its rather hefty load of cultural negativity, when spoken, it causes us to anger at its every mention. But, suppose President Truman had said, after Hitler was found dead by the avenging Russian Army in 1945, "Well, seems to me, my fellow Americans, that Hitler’s chickens have come home to roost!" Or, to the delight of the Republicans among us, what if Bill O’Reilly had said during the Lewinsky escapade: "In the midst of this scandal, President Clinton’s habit of playing fast and loose with the White House and his personal life is, surely, an example of his chickens coming home to roost." As one more example, what if the World Health Organization, when it issued a report calling for the use of DDT in developing tropical countries to combat the growing epidemic of malaria, used these words: "Our rush to judgement in the late 1960s and early 1970s to ban DDT worldwide and the resulting rise in the incidence of drug-resistant malaria is, clearly, an example of our chickens coming home to roost." Would anyone really take to the streets over the use of the phrase? I don’t think so either.

So the phrase does have meaning to us all, beyond the bombastic and rabble-rousing gut reactions we attach to it in today’s hyper-polarized cultural climate. To extend our argument, we have the linkage of blame or guilt to the phrase. Specifically, when the words are used, it suggests that something we have done has brought on a negative effect upon us. This is where the crux of the emotional response to the phrase lies. When Malcolm X turned the phrase, he was implying - primarily to white America - that our historical violence against the Native Americans, black citizens and, at the time he spoke, the Southeast Asians is now visited upon us in the form of violence against the President of the United States. The reaction of white America was one of righteous indignation. Primarily, because if the phrase is valid, our past actions were wrong and unjust.

Well, is anyone prepared to argue that our violence against the aforementioned populations was not wrong? Of course they were, clearly, wrong. But here was someone forcing us to face that truth, dead on, and further, to link a tragedy (the assassination of a beloved President) to these historical wrongs. He was, in truth, suggesting that this was some form of retribution (by God, Allah or whatever cosmic Deity you wish) for our past transgressions.

And there is "the rub." It is one thing to compel us to confront our past "wrongs"; it is quite another to imply that America is being, somehow, punished for these actus reus. To assume that line of reasoning is to suggest that the Deity was disappointed or angry with our behavior and, as the vengeful God of the Old Testament, was rightfully punishing us for it. With America’s strong abiding faith as the rightful heirs of the "Shining City on A Hill" and our closely held belief that we are the beneficiaries of God’s special favor, that syllogism is a bit too much to accept. Particularly, in a nation where the people strongly believe in our exceptionalism, the double assertion that, firstly, we have made wrongful decisions toward other nations or people and, secondly, as a direct result, God has judged us wrong and is, Himself, punishing us is a lot for the American citizenry to accede. In point of fact, these are "fightin’ words!"

But, is "My country, right or wrong" a healthy philosophy upon which to view our country? I, for one, am not entirely sure. I will freely admit that, in my view, we, indeed, have made some disastrous policy decisions in our distant as well as our more recent years. At the risk of offending some, I further submit that we are, as a sovereign nation, not always right. Sadly, we are also a country that never admits that we might be wrong. We are, if truth be told, a thoroughly schizophrenic nation. We would have the world believe that our confidence is inborn and inherited and we always have (in our eyes, much deserved) a swagger of complete self-confidence. When we make a decision we will stick with it for as long as possible though we may quickly have the disconcerting feeling that we made a mistake.

Turn the coin over and we are, at our core, decidedly unsure of our place in the civilized world. While we are history’s longest running democracy we are, let’s not forget, as nations go, still a young nation. Perhaps we are best viewed as adolescents. We change our national "course" at frequent intervals, often swerves and U-turns that would make other nations downright dizzy. We are like the biggest kid in middle school: we know our strength and, every now and then, use it for the wrong reasons. We, as a nation, are a bit unsure and awkward but imposing enough to gain a grudging respect from our weaker, smaller "classmates." They don’t necessarily like us one whit but they, in the interest of self-preservation, tolerate us and might even pretend to be our friends. But that sort of friendship is short-lived and undependable, as we have recently found.

That, for good or bad, is our history and our legacy. More often than not (from the Revolutionary War through the Civil War and World War II) our stubbornness has served us well. In other times, we have wasted resources and, tragically, young men in causes that were wrong-headed and bad policy from the "jump." Unlike solvent corporations, we as a nation are not at all reluctant to "throw good money after bad." These are hard truths to cast before our gaze but, at least to my eyes, they are truths, nevertheless. I love my country but I am not blind to our occasional hubris and hegemony.

So, the next time someone criticizes American policy or, even, attempts to inflame our hearts and minds by suggesting that our "chickens have come home to roost," I would hope we will at least try to avoid irrational anger and our gut instincts to slap the crap out of somebody. Instead, we should all take a few moments and examine the argument being presented. If the speaker is suggesting that the government unleashed HIV to devastate our minorities, we should be confident enough to realize that he is simply a boob. If he is implying that our past foreign policy decisions have brought about a tragedy as "God’s Retribution." we should ask why they have access to what seem pretty damned privileged information. But, at all times, if we disagree, we should examine the premise, refute it and dismiss the speaker as a charlatan and a demagogue.

Our greatness as a nation and a people should give us the courage to tolerate dissension from anyone. We should evaluate all arguments on their merit and, if there might be some truth to it, then, if we chose, we can adjust our thinking and our policies accordingly. If the speaker is merely trying to incite his followers, keep his pews filled while jockeying for a lucrative book deal and tweaking the noses of those who oppose him, we can refute him, dismiss him or take whatever action our conscious might lead us to do.

We are, still, called the most powerful nation on earth. I, personally, would rather we be known as the most tolerant, clear thinking and rational nation the world has ever known. Now, that would be something we could be proud of.

But, then, that is just my opinion.