Democratic Patriotism
Left Versus Right
| September 14, 2007
| Tim
Today's topic is patriotic Democrats. I know there absolutely are patriotic Democrats. But what are they patriotic about?
For example: I love the American ideals of the founders: of a divided government, maximum individual liberty, God-given (and thus inalienable) rights, of strong societal and personal religious and moral convictions and a sense both of self-reliance and charity. These were never perfectly realized, and seem less visible and present every day, but when I think of the US flag, that's what comes to my mind.
What turns Democrats on? What are they envisioning when they feel "patriotic"? (If you favor the UN more than the US, then what does "patriotism" mean? If you claim your country is deeply racist, unjust, or imperialist, how can one be truly "patriotic"? These are things I wonder about.)
In my search to try to find some commentary from Democrats in this regard, in an authentically Democratic voice (not some conservatives theorizing, like mine), I came across this page: T-shirts proclaiming "Democrats are more Patriotic".
Well, perhaps, but that's one the least patriotic slogans I can imagine. Patriotism is not found in proclaiming you personally are great because you have lots of it (and certainly more of it than those other schlums you outshine), but rather by wishing your nation well, serving it, or proclaiming some virtue you think it has.
Along the same lines, here's a "Democratic Donkey Patriotic Lapen Pin", which is apparently patriotic because it has red, white, and blue stars and stripes. "A donkey that is always ready to join the party! ... Dislay [sic] your colors proudly by wearing this donkey. He loves a party... especially his own!"
So patriotism means loving the Democratic Party. Check.
Another artifact is this USA Today editorial, along the lines of "dissent is patriotic": it's patriotic to give Bush grief about his alleged "lying to get us into a war". I can understand why that's patriotic: Democrats feel the war is bad, Bush is bad, and if you want what's good for your country, you'd want something better than that.
So patriotism is promoting our particular vision of good.
I can understand that. I do it too, but I don't generally, for some reason, think of that as particularly patriotic. Probably because I assume that's what everyone does when they go to the polls. We want something good, but our visions differ. So patriotism, in this sense, boils down to having good intentions. Or at least telling ourselves we do.
In this article Democrats portray themselves as patriotic because they disagree with Bush. (They engaged in "Truth Telling.") Oddly, I've never heard, in my entire life, a conservative or Republican insist they were patriotic simply because they disagreed with the left. More likely, it's the reverse: they disagree with the left because they feel the left -- or at least their policies -- are insufficiently helpful or patriotic. You'll almost never hear them actually tell you they thus have proven their patriotism. (I never have, anyway. Challenges welcomed.)
(And if dissent is patriotic, then why wasn't sniping at the Clintons also considered partiotic? That confuses me.)
Here's another example: Keith Olbermann is "patriotic" because he's calling Bush to resign because he commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby. (So should Clinton have resigned more than 140 times -- one for each pardon he issued? That confuses me also.)
As an aside, Olbermann is particularly dense, completely missing the meaning of his closing quote, in which he frames "Patriotism", again, as getting his way politically:
For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.
Resign.
And give us someone—anyone—about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.
The point isn't that John Wayne was referring to a President he thought was particularly excellent or worthy. (He'd voted against that candidate, after all. ) The point was that John Wayne adopted an attitude of respecting and supporting someone he didn't vote for, and didn't prefer.
Being Unpatriotic
Like conservatives, Democrats also seem to be especially clear on what isn't patriotic in their view, though obviously the specifics differ. For example, the Patriot Act isn't patriotic because a District Judge agreed with the ACLU. (If the Supreme Court overturns that ruling, will the act be Patriotic yet again? Or do only Clinton-appointed judges get to tell us what's patriotic?)
Here, John Kerry accuses Bush of being unpatriotic for cutting the VA budget. (The article points out funding increased 27%, rather than decreasing.) And here's an NRO article documenting numerous other cases where Democrats accused Republicans of being unpatriotic.
In searching for the words "Democrats" and "unpatriotic", one uncovers far more discussions where Democrats allege they're being called unpatriotic, than actual accusations of such. For example, numerous instances of Hillary's lie (I do not use the term lightly, but it sadly applies in this case) where she insisted the Pentagon had called her "unpatriotic" and said she "shouldn't be asking questions" -- when it did no such thing. (Read the letter yourself.)
So it seems Democratic leaders find something useful about claiming they've been called unpatriotic -- even in cases where they weren't. (In contrast, I don't think real patriots sit around and worry whether others think them patriotic enough. That again strikes me as being more worried ourselves and our image more than our country.)
Conclusions
What did I learn from this experiment? It seems that in the mind of many Democrats (at least the vocal ones I encountered), the highest patriotism is apparently simply being a member of your political party, being an enemy of your political enemies, and pursuing the policies and candidates you prefer.
Or perhaps I overstate it: as I've written it above, it would seem they should also think of Republicans as patriotic since they do the exact same things. I should thus rephrase that as "the highest form of patriotism is being a Democrat, opposing Republicans, and pursuing Democratic policies and candidates."
Color me unimpressed. It would seem that "Democrat" and "American" are thus necessarily synonymous. Is there no room for patriotism outside that? Is there no higher calling than left-leaning partisanship?
There may be, in the mind of many everyday Democratic voters, but, if so, it certainly isn't making it onto the Internet, and their leaders certainly don't reflect those values. I didn't hear a dozen reasons why our country was great: I just kept hearing Democrats tell me they were.
And perhaps they are (it's not wrong to like yourself, to some degree) but it certainly doesn't seem like a great rallying point for national unity.
I think the best point was the one unintentionally made by Keith Olbermann: For John Wayne, patriotism entailed an obligation for him to respect and support the President, or at least the office. For Olbermann, patriotism entails an obligation for others to give him a President he'd personally want to respect and support.
I agree that the Left, as a whole, is the more egregious sinner in this regard, but the Right is not immune from president-bashing. Because I believe conservative philosophies (not to say people) tend to hold the moral and rational high ground, it hurts all the more when I see conservatives mocking those whose policies they disagree with. Why stoop to their level?
That is why Random Observations has become my source of choice for rational conservative commentary. Although I've never liked his self-aggrandizing hype, I used to respect Rush Limbaugh for bringing to light stories and viewpoints ignored by the mainstream media. But now his newsletter is more often than not filled with playground taunts.
I agree that the Left, as a whole, is the more egregious sinner in this regard, but the Right is not immune from president-bashing.
I agree entirely, Linda. There will always be opportunistic partisans. As an example, look at the Republicans who opposed Kosovo, but then favored Iraq, largely on the same grounds: My president = good. Your president = bad.
I have no problem with president-bashing per se. Depends on the content, and the consistency of the one offering it. During the 1990s, I feared the Clinton presidency, but always hoped the best for him, tried to assume the best where evidence was weak, and prayed for Clinton often -- just as I'd want people to do for a man I favored.
People who know me personally know I have no hatred for the man at all.
But he profoundly damaged our nation in certain regards, and could rightly be criticized for that. And his worst enemies now seem to be his former closest allies: those who know him well, and worked with him as Democratic often have have the most scathing things to say about him.
George Stephanopolous, Kathleen Willey, Jaunita Broadrick, Dick Morris, Lani Guinier, and many, many other critics (not to mention Hillary Clinton, of course) seethed with loathing for the man after years of close contact. That speaks (sad) volumes.
So given that I criticize Bush, I'm certainly not going to view all Clinton-criticism, nor attacks on others presidents, as out of bounds.
I just don't view it as especially patriotic (nor unpatriotic). It's just something most people do.
Linda, I felt the exact same way about Rush, down to the letter. Very sweet of you to say that, though. Bless you, friend.
The right to Freedom of Speech, including criticism and dissent of the current administration (whichever party is in power) is quintessentially American. I can see where people exercising this right equate the act with patriotism, especially when they believe that voicing their unpopular or minority opinion might persuade others to use democratic means to change the matter at hand.
Tracey,
I agree that American rights (including the right to free speech) are wonderful. And my own blend of patriotism includes being grateful my country has such rights.
But that doesn't automatically mean (nor do you imply) that one is patriotic for exercising that right. If so, I'm patriotic simply because I go to church, since I have freedom of religion. And I'm patriotic if I become wealthy, simply because I have the numerous rights required for people to create a business and have exercised them.
So we can see the mere exercise of rights is hardly the quintessential (lovely word) definition of patriotism. I can call my neighbor a pusillanimous schmuck, but my free speech of that nature doesn't automatically swathe me in red, white, and blue. ;-)
Thus, you mention an additional criteria:
... especially when they believe that voicing their unpopular or minority opinion might persuade others...
Persuade others why, though?
To illustrate: I'm a conservative. I want to persuade others (rightly or wrongly) that, say, an activist court undermines the text of the Constitution. My persuasion is predicated a concern, in this case, for the Constitution. Which is to say I know an aspect of my country I'm proud of (the Constitution) and I wish to preserve it.
Would a Communist who uses free speech to "persuade others to use democratic means" to enact a Marxist redistribution system be patriotic? Would an extremist Muslim who used speech to attempt to bring about Sharia be patriotic? What about someone who feels our Constitution sucks, and needs to be completely replaced with a dictator friendly to their views?
After all, might not these folks truly believe they're doing what's best for the denizens of this nation? Or does American patriotism require honoring some aspect which is (or even is just imagined to be) American?
Of course a person can feel patriotic about anything -- and I don't mean to imply otherwise. I have no doubt the yabbos who advocate the assassination of any politician who they disagree with (see the "Patriot Act" painting, for example) feel quite patriotic -- or at least can make a reasonable public claim they do (such as in the title of that painting). A person can feel any emotion for any reason, I and don't deny it the slightest.
And have, above, spelled out why I agree these people could see themselves as deeply patriotic for, say, speaking against their opponents on that basis. If I just look at that, it seems we agree.
But it seems you're trying, above, to imply that patriotism is something more than just a feeling, and talk about it as if there were reasonable and unreasonable criteria for it, and imply that all dissent (a word which implies being in a small minority) fits it for the reasons you offer.
If not, then I'm perhaps mistaking an expanded "Amen" for a subtle critique?
And, as an aside, I'm not sure that Bush hatred or disagreeing with Iraq is an "unpopular or minority opinion", especially in the social context in which such critics operate. But I have no doubt they imagine it that way: hence all the pseudo-brave fantasy talk regarding crushing of dissent.
Tim -
Regarding freedom of speech and patriotism, I think that a few folks, rightly or wrongly, felt that free speech, or at least the respect for public debate, was under assault after 9-11. They looked at things like Bill Mahr being fired essentially for saying that terrorists weren't cowards. Or they looked at Bush's "free speech zones" at various events (to which the standard reply was that the whole US was a free speech zone). And they formed a view based on that. In that light, I'd say that if you went to church to, in part, help preserve some aspect of freedom of religion that you believed in and that you believed was backed by the constitution, then that would be patriotic, for what it's worth.
At least, that's what I took from the assertion.
Regarding freedom of speech and patriotism, I think that a few folks, rightly or wrongly, felt that free speech, or at least the respect for public debate, was under assault after 9-11.
Certainly some sounded that way. I've never denied it.
If you read the article above, I've given an even looser definition of why they might feel patriotic: because they feel they're trying to do what's good. (I didn't even demand they be in the minority, or actually taking a "brave" stance.)
So I'm not entirely sure of where we're supposed to be disagreeing here, as you and Tracey sound like you're adding a constraint I never added. (For "patriotism" as a feeling, anyway.)
Bravery? As an aside, I'm not sure many of them really believed they were in any personal danger for their "dissent" -- those famous voices on CNN (absurdly) informing us our right to free speech has been curtailed. (And that IS the formulation: that we've already lost our liberties.)
I can't prove it directly, but I suspect it's somewhat akin to the same crowd's screams about the dangers of right-wing Christians. They'll write article after article criticizing them and warning of the "dangers", but won't do the same with Islam, because they're actually afraid of that.
I suspect if they really thought Bush might toss 'em in jail, they'd probably be just as compliant as the Hong Kong papers have become towards China's, um, sensitivities. With a few notable exceptions, stars and journalists aren't especially brave.
It is said that during Napoleon’s march from Elba to Paris at the beginning of his “One Hundred Days” in 1815, the successive headlines in Paris newspapers ran something like:
The Corsican Monster Lands at Toulon
The Usurper Marches North
Bonaparte Reaches Lyons
Ex-Emperor in Fontainebleu
Paris Welcomes His Imperial Majesty [1]
College professors even less so.
I'd say that if you went to church to, in part, help preserve some aspect of freedom of religion that you believed in and that you believed was backed by the constitution...
Especially if I did so publicly, as a sort of protest, yes I can see that.
But you're missing my point entirely: You're trying to say that some going-to-church could be patriotic. I agree entirely. Just as I'd agree some speech could be patriotic (such as the words "I live in a great country!") and some dissent.
I'm simply pointing out "dissent = patriotism" is as silly as "going to church = patriotism". There are surely conditions under which each is true and false. I'm not saying (as you seem to have it) that NO dissent is patriotic, or that dissent is NEVER patriotic.
I'm just saying it's not inherantly so, or, more precisely, that *I* don't find it inherantly so. Hence: "Color me unimpressed."
To be specific, the "dissent" I found above seems to only mean saying the other party sucks or is doing the wrong thing, or that opposing other party will work to our political advantage.
That's fine, and I can see how some people might consider it patriotic (under the view that patriotism is a feeling, based on one's self-assurance of good intentions) -- but I'm personally not impressed, as both parties do that, and I don't consider it patriotic when *I* do it.
(And yes, I also feel the left poses some danger to our country. The rights I point to having lost have actually been lost, such as the right not to have the gov't take your house and give it to a corporation. The left half of SCOTUS ruled the Constitution no longer says any such thing, and that's not a fantasy, sadly.)
If you're trying to say the addition of "bravery" makes idissent more objectively patriotic, by your standards, then great. And I'd also go one further and say that adding bravery to pretty much anything makes that act more noble.
But I didn't see much bravery in the links I surveyed above. It was mostly "Show your patriotism by saying Bush sucks." Well, okay, but that's only brave if you're fairly sure you'll personally get more trouble than praise.
You raise the example of Bill Maher: First, I don't think he expected to be fired. Second, he wasn't fired for protecting our right to free speech: he was fired for praising (some thought) the people who killed the 9/11 victims. Third, he wasn't fired by Bush.
And we've never had a right to say anything and keep our jobs.
I imagine you're right: Some people (not in the media, but in the trenches with us) were probably unable to draw those distinctions, and fed by hype, really did or do think the right wing or Bush is coming to toss 'em in jail.
Those people are not at all unpatriotic (nor have I said so). They're simply wrong.
But that doesn't match up with what the kind of "dissent is patriotic" material I encountered:
Keep talking, Democrats
While the media breathlessly coo over President Bush's latest stunt to distract Americans from the casualties and chaos in Iraq, it is left to the Democrats to hold him accountable.
It is smart political strategy as well as Democrats' patriotic duty to challenge the president repeatedly for lying to get us into a war he has no plan to get us out of...
According to a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, approval of the U.S. handling of Iraq has plummeted from 80% in April to just 42% in November. Watch that number...
Again, that's not brave they're-coming-to-get-me paranoia. That's standard partisan behavior: By constantly slamming Bush we can lower his poll numbers.
Agree?
I suspect if they really thought Bush might toss 'em in jail, they'd probably be just as compliant as the Hong Kong papers have become towards China's, um, sensitivities.
I've had friends who were thrown in jail for protesting during the Clinton presidency and it never made news. (They got out pretty quickly) There was a rather overt attempt to hide the fact. I can't imagine that Bush's years have been that much different.
And yes, I also feel the left poses some danger to our country. The rights I point to having lost have actually been lost, such as the right not to have the gov't take your house and give it to a corporation. The left half of SCOTUS ruled the Constitution no longer says any such thing, and that's not a fantasy, sadly.
Disagreement with Kelo was bipartisan and "the left" was, by any reasonable account,
strongly opposed to it. More than 93% of the American population was opposed to the results of the
decision.
source Nader and Dean have both condemned Kelo. Volokh gives an interesting explanation of how Bush's "executive order" banning Kelo-style takings actually supports them. And while the justices who opposed Kelo were described as having a 'conservative judicial philosophy' they were appointed by Democrats, while the supposedly 'liberal' judges were the reverse.
Though in the justices' defense, one blogger writes;
The majority in Kelo understood this. Indeed, they went out of their way to make it clear that nothing about the decision prevented the political branches from acting: "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."
Bill Mahr lost his job. It'd be hard to argue that that didn't create some kind of chilling effect, though some people
might see that effect as overstated. I'm open to the possibility that conservatives similarly silenced on other topics
wouldn't have gotten similar support or coverage as Mahr. And I oppose that in the same manner.
But that doesn't automatically mean (nor do you imply) that one is patriotic for exercising that right.
Agreed. My point was that they weren't simply exercising a right, even for the good of the country, but that they
believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were defending dissent itself which is a crucial part of our political process, and lacking after 9/11. Or, as you say, they were proclaiming a virtue of the American political process. There were a few liberal commentators who expressed
a kind of relief that they could reasonbly debate the Iraq war on TV (with genuine supporters of the war) even
several years after the fact, since they were unable to do so at the time. The fact that they allowed dissenters on the show, kept the tone civil, and didn't simply rail against "bushitler the chimp etc. etc." suggests to me that at least some people were sincere in this desire.
"dissent is patriotic" is probably an oversimplification of at least some people's ideas, spoken in a post 9/11 context. They aren't simply talking about saying whatever you want or avoiding government censorship, but avoiding other kinds of censorship and "chilling effects" as well. And sure, I'll agree that most celebrities didn't risk much skin. But if there's one thing that I learned from some of my activist friends in college, it's that even if large numbers of people are tossed in jail for protesting, (as they often are) it doesn't get covered on any but the most alternative news services. I suppose I read the phrase "dissent is partriotic" to mean "stifiling dissent is unpatriotic." And yes, it's an idea that some people on 'the left' will give lip service to, but will easily forget (unless politely reminded.)
And if dissent is patriotic, then why wasn't sniping at the Clintons also considered partiotic? That confuses me.
Were people calling Republicans 'unpatriotic' for sniping at the Clintons or saying that they 'hated America' because they did so?
Some people might have called Republicans other things, but noone that I can remember said that they hated America.
I can buy the thesis that Democrats are throwing around the term 'patriotic.' Have they been called unpatriotic for criticizing American policies?
Essentially, yes. There have been a lot of folks who have said that "The left hates America" because it has criticized America's policies.
Profs Who Hate America link
The Hate America Left
link
This may be true, or it may be false, but the accusations are certainly there.
Here's another example: Keith Olbermann is "patriotic" because he's calling Bush to resign because he commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby. (So should Clinton have resigned more than 140 times -- one for each pardon he issued? That confuses me also.)
You seem to mischaracterize the Olberman link.
While I'm not going to defend all of Clinton's pardons and I'm not familiar with most of them, Olberman's gripe is that Bush seemed to be using pardons to defend Bush's own actions, and that they circumvented the normal trial process that would allow us to find out what actually went on. I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, of Clinton's pardons weren't used for that purpose.
Second, he (Mahr) wasn't fired for protecting our right to free speech: he was fired for praising (some thought) the people who killed the 9/11 victims.
My point was that his dismissal had a chilling effect on public debate. He probably didn't expect to be fired. After he was fired, though,
I imagine other public personalities took note.
Third, he wasn't fired by Bush.
I never said that he was. But he was fired for political reasons.
And we've never had a right to say anything and keep our jobs.
Of course. but it's rather hard to have a public debate if people can't raise unpopular opinions. I'm not saying Mahr's rights were violated. I'm saying that some people (myself included) believe that his firing had harmful effects on public discourse.
And yes, I would like to see conservative commentators protected in the same manner.
That's standard partisan behavior: By constantly slamming Bush we can lower his poll numbers. Agree?
Sure, it's standard partisan behavior. Criticism of the party in power is also a vital part of the political process (provided it's honest which, as you demonstrated, it often isn't.)
This link got messed up and didn't display as a link. Here's the proper version.
Profs Who Hate America link
I've had friends who were thrown in jail for protesting during the Clinton presidency and it never made news...
I paid close attention in the 1990s, and noticed that phenomenon. I also noticed the newspapers not reporting said stories, as you attest.
So, quick question: Would your average newspaper or TV network be more or less likely to report if Bush did the same thing?
Bush has protest zones, like Clinton did, but I haven't seen indications of any similar numbers of arrests. And since I'm guessing the media would be more interested in such reports, I'm also guessing that means there have actually been fewer such arrests under Bush.
Disagreement with Kelo was bipartisan and "the left" was, by any reasonable account,
strongly opposed to it.
Democrats often disagree with the more extreme aspects of their party. But my point isn't that Democrats wanted to own that decision, but that it was the logical result of a philosophy which says that government should have the power to redistribute property in order to increase the public good.
Democrats wouldn't say they like high unemployment rates either, but they support policies which inevitably produce it.
You're arguing about motive and feelings again, and, similarly, I'm again saying I could care less and am concerned about what actually happens.
Volokh gives an interesting explanation of how Bush's "executive order" banning Kelo-style takings actually supports them.
Err, and? If so the critique is then that Bush is almost as liberal as Democrats in this particular area, since he also seems to support rearranging property for the public good. I'm concerned about Bush's liberal tendencies too, Ryan, just slightly less than the people to the left of him.
News flash: There are liberal Republicans, and Republicans with mixed records.
And while the justices who opposed Kelo were described as having a 'conservative judicial philosophy' they were appointed by Democrats...
Huh? I'm sorry but you're wrong. The dissenting judges were:
O'Connor - appointed by Reagan
Rehnquist - appointed by Nixon
Scalia - appointed by Reagan
Thomas - appointed by George HW Bush
Why on earth are you saying such an odd thing?
It's true and some of the more "liberal" members of SCOTUS were appointed by Republicans. And? I'm still not sure I follow your logic, Ryan. All you seem to be implying is that it's also bad when a Republican appoints an activist judge. Again, I'd agree.
Indeed, they went out of their way to make it clear that nothing about the decision prevented the political branches from acting...
Again: And?
This means, what, Ryan? Am I supposed to be glad about the loss of a Constitutional right, at the hands of a judiciary, because they claim the legislature can rule again to overrule them?
And don't you understand that the courts can just ignore that legislation as well? (As has happened in a number of recent cases.)
It'd be hard to argue that that didn't create some kind of chilling effect...
Undoubtedly -- certainly among talk show hosts who were planning to praise al Qaeda on the air. A fairly sizable contingent, surely. ;-|
... they believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were defending dissent itself ...
I have no doubt some believed this. I just admitted this. Didn't you notice?
I simply said I didn't find any such examples.
Or, as you say, they were proclaiming a virtue of the American political process...
No: saying "dissent is patriotic" -- in the context you've just suggested -- is not at all the same as saying: "America is a great place because we allow dissent." Indeed, as you just described it, the person is saying the opposite: that America is the kind of place where we're a mere two centimeters from losing our right to speech unless I personally start making my giant Cheney puppet right now.
You're either brave because you think we're living in (or almost) a dictatorship, or not so brave (cause you don't) but simply think partisan carping is patriotism.
You can't have it both ways.
By the way, I admit being able to see how both consider themselves patriotic. I've said this, what, three times now? So I'm not sure, on than the kind of minor details I cite above, what we're still supposed to be disagreeing about.
Unless you want to say I'm wrong for being "unimpressed" with either case.
Tim: And if dissent is patriotic, then why wasn't sniping at the Clintons also considered partiotic?
Ryan: Were people calling Republicans 'unpatriotic' for sniping at the Clintons or saying that they 'hated America' because they did so?
I'll make you a deal: I'll answer your question when you first answer mine. ;-)
Some people might have called Republicans other things, but noone that I can remember said that they hated America.
Okay, I'm feeling generous...
First, I want to point out I've got far more quotes from prominent Democrats directly calling Republicans "unpatriotic" than the other way around. (Geez, for heaven's sake, last week several major Senators called General Petraeus a deliberate liar. Soros, who practically owns the Democratic party these days, accused him of the worst crime a good soldier can imagine: Betrayal of his country.)
Second, this is an apples & oranges comparison. If someone goes to one of our enemies and praises him publicly, and implies the US is the bigger problem (say, as Kucinch went to Syria's Assad last week) one can be forgiven for thinking, perhaps, he might have given "aid and comfort to the enemy" -- kinda the definition of "traitor".
It's hard to see how the same sort of charge might reasonably apply to criticizing or trying to impeach a president for perjury or sex with the interns -- much less for his selling of classified tech to our enemies. Being called a "traitor" for opposing either of those three acts would be bizarre to the point of bringing one's sanity into question.
And what is your point here anyway?
My point was that the left doesn't really consider "dissent" patriotic (as they claim), or they'd honor Republican dissent as well, rather than calling it "hatred."
What's yours?
Have they been called unpatriotic for criticizing American policies? Essentially, yes.
Are you claiming the profs in your links are being criticized because they embrace typical Democratic policies or merely because they're "Democrats"? Or is fair to say that they're much further to the left, so that criticizing them can and should be distinguished from criticizing Democrats?
Again, make a choice: you can't have it both ways.
Ryan, there are some people (on the right and left) who hate this country. When you say, as Howard Zinn does, that the US is a net force for evil in the world, it's more than fair to suspect they don't love their country. Indeed if "my country is evil" can't be viewed as a dislike of one's own nation, then what possibly could?
Tim: Here's another example: Keith Olbermann is "patriotic" because he's calling Bush to resign because he commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby...
Ryan: You seem to mischaracterize the Olberman link.
How? The author calls Olbermann's words "patriotic". Olbermann asks Bush to resign, for the reasons quoted. Please be specific in your accusations of error. I hate having to guess.
Criticism of the party in power is also a vital part of the political process...
Right. And I don't consider the exercise of rights, or participation in the political process to be especially or inherently "patriotic" since pretty much everyone does it.
Ryan: You seem to mischaracterize the Olberman link.
Tim: How? The author calls Olbermann's words "patriotic". Olbermann asks Bush to resign, for the reasons quoted. Please be specific in your accusations of error. I hate having to guess.
I explained that in the very next paragraph. No need to guess. You asked if Clinton should have resigned 140 times, one for each of his pardons. But the quote doesn't criticize Bush for giving pardons, but for using those pardons to, essentially, defend Bush's own actions.
And while the justices who opposed Kelo were described as having a 'conservative judicial philosophy' they were appointed by Democrats...
Huh? I'm sorry but you're wrong. The dissenting judges were:
Why on earth are you saying such an odd thing?
Sorry I was cross posting from another discussion and didn't thoroughly fact-check. And I apologize for any other mistakes I've made through the year. Thanks for all your work correcting me when I goofed.
But the quote doesn't criticize Bush for giving pardons, but for using those pardons to, essentially, defend Bush's own actions.
Oh, you're right! Yes, quite so: I'd missed that connection -- and also didn't see the link between your two paragraphs. Apologies!
So I rescind my witty retort (revealed now to be rather half-witty, heh) about the 140 resignations.
Instead, I'll only ask Olbermann demand three Clinton resignations, one for each of the following:
* Roger Clinton
* Susan McDougal
* Webster Hubbell
All of the above might have been in a position to reveal wrongdoing by Bill (or Hillary), had it occurred, and were as close, if not closer, to the President than Scooter Libby was to Bush.
Aside from that apparent hypocrisy, Olbermann's thesis is still manifestly wrong: Since we know, as an unambiguous fact, that no crime was committed in this case, it's impossible to argue Scooter was covering for one. He was convicted for saying he had not talked to one journalist about Plame (who said he probably did), while saying he had talked to another journalist (who said he didn't).
All politics aside, that's the stupidest perjury conviction I've ever heard of.
Sorry I was cross posting from another discussion and didn't thoroughly fact-check.
The amount of misinformation out there is absolutely stunning, isn't it? One has to work really hard to keep it straight. Thanks, likewise, for your similar corrections of my writings, Ryan. I really *do* appreciate them.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Disagree with the Left? Go to Hell. |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Amodio Study: "Left" versus "Right" Brains »
|
I agree that the Left, as a whole, is the more egregious sinner in this regard, but the Right is not immune from president-bashing. Because I believe conservative philosophies (not to say people) tend to hold the moral and rational high ground, it hurts all the more when I see conservatives mocking those whose policies they disagree with. Why stoop to their level?
That is why Random Observations has become my source of choice for rational conservative commentary. Although I've never liked his self-aggrandizing hype, I used to respect Rush Limbaugh for bringing to light stories and viewpoints ignored by the mainstream media. But now his newsletter is more often than not filled with playground taunts.
Posted by: SursumCorda on September 14, 2007 06:13 AM