Quit whining or move to Canada.

Support our troops: kill a protestor.

If you don't like it, you can get out.

On bumper stickers, in mass e-mails and in letters to newspaper editors, phrases like these have become the rallying slogans of a growing group of Americans disgusted with political dissent. These people willingly turn their backs on the protections of the First Amendment. They conflate criticism of the government with sedition. They would have us believe that patriotism means "toe the line and shut up."

Patriotism in a democratic nation has nothing to do with toeing the line and shutting up. It demands exactly the opposite -- participation -- and not just on the order of casting a vote every two years. It means praising those actions of our government that we feel are just and right and condemning those we feel are not.

Positive change in government cannot occur if no one points out the things that need change. This seems like such an elementary observation that I have trouble reconciling it with the views of people who denounce such criticism as treason. Surely a desire to change the United States for the better can only stem from love of the country. Why, then, do so many Americans deny the patriotism of actions motivated by that desire?

Perhaps they are taking notes from the Bush Administration itself, which has a long and storied record of dismissals based on dissent from the stated agenda. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill questioned the wisdom of a third round of tax cuts and got a pink slip for his concern. When General Eric Shinseki suggested in 2003 that many more U.S. troops than the 100,000 projected by the Pentagon would be needed in post-war Iraq, he was said to be "wildly off the mark" and was ridiculed by top officials.

In 2004, the number of troops in Iraq was about 150,000.

Most tellingly, newly appointed head of the CIA, Porter Goss, fired anyone in the agency who disagreed with the Bush Administration's policies. In the midst of seething questions of intelligence failure, purposefully reducing the diversity of opinion in the intelligence community seems a strange step. We need unbiased, skeptical individuals to carefully analyze evidence, not group-thinking yes-men who will see what they want in a satellite photo.

Imagining the roster of the executive branch, I get the impression of a line of bobble-head dolls in spotless suits, smiling and nodding. Those shaking their heads are removed from the public eye so quickly as to suggest a violent backhand from the president. Doubts and dissent are not tolerated. You're either with the Bush Administration or with the terrorists. The possibility of a third option -- opposed to both -- is not acknowledged.

President Bush is not the United States. Hating Bush is not the same as hating the United States. If you believe, as I do, that he is changing the country for the worse, opposing his actions in defense of your country is the highest form of patriotism -- and so much more difficult than giving grim approval.

When a substantial, influential sector of citizens sees the government as an entity that can do no wrong, it is not a sign of patriotism -- it is the death rattle of the conquered, subjugated shadow of democracy.