CE Volume 3

[PC]

Maybe you're right. A number of conservatives feel that liberals are anti-American, but they're certainly not all like that. And there are plenty of moderates that fall in between the two extremes.

[chrisfan]

There are also pleanty of Democrats who are accusing Republicans, primarily the president and his adminstration, of downright treasonous activities ... and those accusations are coming from office holders such as Ted Kennedy and Tom Dascle ... not just pundits. It all goes back to my original point ... when exactly did Republicans lay claim on the flag, who allowed them to do so, and why do Democrats have to fight to get it back? As I said, it's baseless rhetoric that serves no purpose but to rally their supporters. If only they'd rely on good ideas instead ...

[Mary]

Chrisfan,

I just don't entirely see how the quotes you provided indicate that Kerry is somehow directly holding the Bush Administration responsible for "taking the flag" away from Democrats. "We must take the flag back from people like Rush Limbaugh and John Ashcroft" - attributed to Howard Dean, not John Kerry - hardly rises to the level of John Kerry accusing Bush of calling Democrats unpatriotic.

Also, I did not just say that David Horowitz was himself mainstream - my point was that the articles on frontpagemag come from all over the conservative spectrum. Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks, and Ann Coulter all rub shoulders there - and Sullivan thinks Coulter is an insane, dangerous right-wing reactionary.

Regarding Ashcroft himself - this is a man who did explicitly claim that critics of the Patriot Act were aiding terrorists, giving ammunition to our nation's enemies, and encouraging people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil. Just out of curiosity, do you think that David Horowitz is extremist, but John Ashcroft isn't? I personally think that Ashcroft is more extreme right than Horowitz - he just has to use more civil rhetoric since he is a public official.

There are Republican Congressmen as well who have explicitly charged opponents of Bush policies with being anti-American - here is but one example I remember very well from the debate surroudning whether we should go to war with Iraq, so it was easy to look up on the Internet:

"Congressman Joe Wilson (R-NC) attacked Congressman Joe Filner (D-CA) several days ago in a similar vein. On Sept. 25, Filner suggested on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" that the United States gave Iraq biological and chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Filner was probably relying on a Newsweek article of Sept. 23, 2002 which cited classified Commerce Department documents in reporting that the Reagan administration allowed Iraq to import several shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" that were known to have potential biological warfare applications.

Wilson argued with Filner, who would not retract his claim, and then launched into a series of attacks. According to Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post, Wilson blustered that "This hatred of America by some people is just outrageous. And you need to get over that", then "accused Filner of harboring 'hatred of America' four more times, of being 'hateful' three times and of being 'viscerally anti-American' once." Grove does note that Wilson sent him this apology afterward: "If I said something in the heat of the debate that was taken as critical of the congressman's patriotism or commitment to this country, I apologize."



As for Rush Limaugh, a brief perusal of the Internet produced several dozen quotes in which he called war protestors and leftists more generally "anti-American" and "Anti-Capitalist". Some examples:

"...the sponsors of these protests were not peace protesters at all. They are all talking about racism, environmental wackoism, feminism or other liberal causes. Very little about these protests was about the war in Iraq.

If they were for peace, they would give every dollar they raise to the U.S. defense department because it's the U.S. defense department that keeps the peace and liberates the oppressed in the world and gives them the opportunity to have freedom, which is what we want for Iraq. It's beyond me how anybody can look at these protesters and call them anything other than what they are: anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro Marxists and communists." - this particular quote is all over the internet - even on the Fox News web page!

....

"To see Bill Clinton, of all people, go to Vietnam and appear lovingly, dotingly, reverentially in front of a bust of a communist leader of North Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, was bad enough. Then I read the news copy that accompanied the photo. It said that Bill Clinton received a "rapturous" welcome from the people of Vietnam.

Rapturous, my friends! Do you understand? The word rapture is associated with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and there is Bill Clinton getting, according to the press, a "rapturous" reception.

I want those of you who served in Vietnam, and those of you who didn't but are members of the military, who feel and think that this man and his administration have turned up their noses at the institutions and traditions that you've all believed in, to know that I understand how you felt when you saw that picture.

You must ask, "Is there no justice at all in this world?"

Well, folks, hang tough. In my view, it's no different than Jane Fonda and her Hanoi Jane pose at an anti-aircraft gun that was used to shoot down American pilots like John McCain. I want those of you who had the same reaction to know that - and I don't say this with any intention of being funny - I feel your pain. I really, really do."

....as regards good ol' Limbaugh, it was Limbaugh who vocally promoted the photo of John Kerry at an antiwar rally with Jane Fonda to prove Kerry was similarly anti-American - a photo which was later proven to be entirely doctored...

from his radio show on 9/23/03:

"“General Wesley Clark wants to turn over US foreign policy to groups who hate the US and are sympathic to terrorists."

...

on education:

"What makes the education establishment so hostile to America? Because, in the last 25 years, a relatively small group of anti-American radicals have bullied their way into power positions in academia. And while they preach about the evils of “cultural imperialism,” they themselves are, ironically, the ultimate practitioners of it. "

....

And hey, David Limbaugh has gotten in on the action too...

"While these antiwar types in America recoil with feigned outrage at the suggestion they're anti-American, when was the last time you heard them praising America? I'm waiting."

....

Laura Ingraham, who I think you'e praised in the past, published a book in 2003 called Shut Up and Sing: How Elites From Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America. The inside flap of the book reads:

"They think you're stupid. They think all freedom loving Americans are stupid. They think patriotism is stupid. They think churchgoing is stupid. They think flag-flying is stupid. They despise families with more than two children. They are sure that where we live - anywhere but near or in a few major cities - is an insipid cultural wasteland. "

And here is Laura Ingraham in response to antiwar protesters in Washington D.C.:

"If one sentiment captured the tens of thousands who converged here, it was a deep sense of anti-Americanism. Theirs is a world in which America, not Saddam Hussein, is the Great Satan. Where America, not global terrorism, is the true threat. Where America, not the UN, is consistently wrong in interpreting major world events."

...

Is it your position that all of these people are way out on the conservative fringes? Including William F. Buckley Jr. and the California Republican Party, both of whom have publicly supported college papers like the The Dartmouth Review and The Patriot, which routinely fling charges of anti-americanism at their ideological opponents?

I'm not saying all conservatives think all liberals hate America. I'm not saying you think that, or that most of the conservatives on here think that. I'm not saying that George W. Bush thinks that, or is personally responsible for other people thinking that. I do, however, think that it is utterly beyond dispute that the right-wing repeatedly uses charges of anti-americanism as a rhetorical strategy against their ideological enemies, that these charges are absolutely ubiquitous in the mass-media and appear on an almost daily basis, and that in light of this rhetorical climate, it makes perfect sense for Democrats who give a crap about such matters (i.e. - not me!!) to talk about "taking the flag back."

M

[Mary]

I had some fun at yahoo.com looking up phrases to see the frequency with which they appear online... obviously, these are just random web sites, so they don't establish any kidn of official party doctrine or anything, but I do think the results are soooo overwhelming that it's hard to deny the rhetorical climate of America today is such that anti-american charges are far more frequently lobbed in the direction of democrats and liberals than vice versa:

"Anti-American Democrats" : 105 hits
"Anti-American Republicans" : 20 hits
"Anti-American Liberals": 633 hits
"Anti-American Leftists": 711 hits
"Anti-American Conservatives": 28 hits
"Anti-American Rightists": 2 hits
"Anti-American Right-Wingers": 0 hits
"liberals are anti-american": 324 hits
"conservatives are anti-american": 23 hits
"the left wing is anti-american": 1,160 hits
"the right wing is anti-american": 10 hits
"liberals hate america" - 1,580 hits
"conservatives hate america" - 164 hits

Total hits associating liberals with america-hating: 4,513
Total hits associating conservatives with america-hating: 247
Ratio of charges against liberals to charges against conservatives: 18 to 1 (or approximately 5% as many charges against conservatives as against liberals)




...again, I don't think these web pages represent official views of Republican politicians or antyhing like that, but I do think that comments by Democrats about "taking back the flag" are responding to this kind of rhetorical climate, and I so I understand where these Democrats are coming from and why they feel under siege.

M

[melon1]

With all those references claiming that the Left hates America, perhaps there are so many of them because the Left does indeed hate America and tries to change it into something it isn't and never has been. I won't be as polite as Chrisfan on this subject because I have always believed that the Left wanted to change America into something it wasn't, in the eyes of Americans and in the eyes of the rest of the world - to make us more cultured, in a word: European. The Left generally hates, yes hates, the heritage of Christian morals in America and being identified by them when in fact that what this nation was founded on, not just "taxation without representation". They love to point out slavery and Jim Crowe and all the unjust things from our nation's past that we've grown out of and try to tag it onto Christianity when it was in fact white Christian males who put an end to the slave trade. They hate any image of America that is portrayed to the rest of the world that they can't take and control which would show us to be a bunch of weaklings who are feel guilty of our own existence and don't believe in using military force unless we're attacked first. They believe that unborn babies should have no say or no right to decide whether or not they want to live. They believe in equality for women to the point of putting them on the front lines of battle. All in all, they believe in everything that scares me to death to think my children will have to live under their rule.

[PC]

I bet you're glad you don't live in Europe, melon.

And, I, for the record, do not hate America. I don't believe it is absolutely flawless, but it's a great country nonetheless.

[Proud]

punkchick, if there's anywhere around here i can agree with on politics, it's you. *bows*

[melon1]

I bet you're glad you don't live in Europe, melon.

According to my father, a recent study shows that Europe is now as pagan as any other continent. I believe he said they were actually more pagan than any other continent now, but I don't have the facts to back that up.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Melon1 said:

I have always believed that the Left wanted to change America into something it wasn't, in the eyes of Americans and in the eyes of the rest of the world - to make us more cultured...

Heaven forbid you should be exposed to a bit of culture, eh Melon?

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

More seriously, you're right about Europe being more secular. We have healthy separation between church and state, and a far more agnostic population than Africa, Asia and the Americas. I don't know about Australasia.

The European nations you might regard as more 'religious' are the Roman Catholic ones (are you okay at this point Melon? ) - Spain, Italy, and Portugal, plus the Greek Orthodox Church.

And yet ironically, in terms of social programmes, healthcare, taxation policies, benefits etc, we have a range of policies that I believe are far more consistent with Christian sentiment, despite the fact they've been implemented by godless pagans. No such thing as lapsed health insurance over here, for example. We actually look after our poor.

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

Is it your position that all of these people are way out on the conservative fringes? Including William F. Buckley Jr. and the California Republican Party, both of whom have publicly supported college papers like the The Dartmouth Review and The Patriot, which routinely fling charges of anti-americanism at their ideological opponents?

It is my position that rhetoric such as that you highlighted from the right does not really differ all that much from rhetoric from the left claiming that Republicans are stomping on the Constitution, acting in treasonous ways, etc etc. I would say that it's about equal in frequency. It SEEMS to me that on the left, it comes from higher-up office holders, but that could very well be my perception. So, as I said in response to Punk Chick, it makes absolutely no sense to me that the leaders on ONE side that is equally guilty of the "offending" act would be calling for an end to the other side doing what they are equally guilty of doing.

[chrisfan]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

And yet ironically, in terms of social programmes, healthcare, taxation policies, benefits etc, we have a range of policies that I believe are far more consistent with Christian sentiment, despite the fact they've been implemented by godless pagans. No such thing as lapsed health insurance over here, for example. We actually look after our poor.

Believe it or not, Christians actually do look after the poor too. Christ taught us to care and love each other ... not to pay taxes and expect the government to do the heavy lifting.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Chrisfan said:

Believe it or not, Christians actually do look after the poor too. Christ taught us to care and love each other ... not to pay taxes and expect the government to do the heavy lifting.

I know full well that Christians profess to look after the poor. That's why I find it odd that our 'pagan' European governments actually do, whilst so many American Christians love a hawkish right-wing administration whose main concern is the rich.

Hey, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you don't have people with lapsed health insurance, because all the rich beneficiaries of Bush's tax-cuts have come to the fore, and donated enough cash for free universal healthcare. Obviously I'm just cynical in assuming rich people generally weren't that altruistic. My mistake.

[chrisfan]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

I know full well that Christians profess to look after the poor. That's why I find it odd that our 'pagan' European governments actually do, whilst so many American Christians love a hawkish right-wing administration whose main concern is the rich.

Hey, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you don't have people with lapsed health insurance, because all the rich beneficiaries of Bush's tax-cuts have come to the fore, and donated enough cash for free universal healthcare. Obviously I'm just cynical in assuming rich people generally weren't that altruistic. My mistake.

Well you can continue to do everything you can to mis-represent the side you don't agree with, and in doing so, you sure do paint a grim picture of just how evil those people are. OR, you could look at things realistically, and accept that there are actually ways to look at problems of the world other than the way you do which are not evil ... they're just different from your preferred approach.

The way you have painted the "do everything to help the rich" approach of the Bush administration is crapola. As is your assumption that if the government is not fixing hte problem, then obviously nothing is being done to fix it. Just one example of a solution to one of the problems you've cited ... The United Methodist church has instituted a discount prescription program where any member of their church (non-members may be elgible too I think, but I"m not sure) can get just by asking for it a card that gives them large discounts on prescription drugs if they don't have insurance coverage for it. The government isn't needed for all solutions JLLM!

Geez, I wish we could get back to the goold old days where you actually showed respected to opposing viewpoints.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

By the way, not all people have the time, nous, or organisational capacity to budget for and then regularly donate money to charity, even if they have the inclination to do so.

Also, it's hard as a citizen to gauge which areas need most attention, and where the money is most needed at any given time. Why not charitably vote in a government that believes in things like free medical drugs, universal healtyhcare, higher benefits, and in effect let those with the big picture apportion the funds accordingly? It's actually more effective that way, and I can assure you that the beneficiaries of those social benefits are more appreciative of that than they are of people sending some random funds to specialist charities when they can be arsed.

If you can accept that I believe that argument, then you should understand why I see reliance on private charity as misguided at best. At worst, I think the reliance on private charity as part of this "small government, personal responsibility" dogma is actually just an excuse for fat people to hold onto as much of their income as possible, for their own selfish concerns.