Skip to comments.Two Americas: John Edwards Had A Point
Posted on 11/29/2004 1:32:38 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Apparently Senator Edwards had a close brush with the truth some months back, though like the proverbial "broken clock" that shows the correct time twice each day, he didn't linger for long on the cusps of reality. According to Edwards, we live in a split society, which he described as the "two Americas."
Edwards attempted to portray this nation as being divided between the "haves" and the "have nots," by which he delineated between those who are financially well-off, as opposed to others who struggle to make ends meet. However, another far more insidious divide exists across the nation, as evidenced by the election results. But beyond his suggestion of national disunity, Edwards got things entirely wrong.
America does not suffer from a chasm separating its economic strata, but one that distinguishes between those who embrace the virtues and heritage that have cemented the nation in its greatness, and those who hold complete contempt for such things. The latter group would gladly shed them in exchange for the progressive philosophies of a fading and decaying Europe that fancies itself as enlightened.
President Bush's impressive win notwithstanding, this breech holds the potential to completely tear the country in two. It exists in the hearts and souls of a populace whose differences so far outweigh their commonality that any pretense of national "unity" has simply ceased to be.
At one time, presidential races were conducted between two fundamentally moral and principled candidates, who may have differed on economic policy and other details of their approach to governing, but who ultimately stood on common ground regarding their fervent concern for the well being of the nation.
Candidates who lacked moral character, patriotism, or integrity were doomed to defeat before the campaign ever began. The recent "near miss" of a Kerry Presidency shows that this situation has changed, and not for the better.
It may be heartening to point to the record vote received by President Bush, but the truth remains that John Kerry, despite having collaborated with the North Vietnamese in a time of war, received nearly as many votes as did the President. Furthermore, he openly professed a belief that American soldiers dying for the United Nations was more honorable than such a sacrifice on behalf of the Stars and Stripes.
In one America, deriding national sovereignty and collaborating with the enemy in wartime constitutes nothing short of treason. But in the other America, questioning the "patriotism" of such behavior is itself an unspeakable outrage. Much has changed since the decade of the 1980s when Ronald Reagan, a real American hero, ably rescued the nation from the tempest of the Cold War.
During the Reagan years, any thought of cutting and running from the likes of Osama bin Laden would be considered cowardly and shameful. Yet only days before the election, Bin Laden essentially threatened those American states that would support President Bush. Though a warning of this nature would, at some former time, cause an enormous backlash, in the America of 2004, it barely resulted in a ripple among the tracking polls.
Following the election, left-wing mouthpieces such as Eleanor Clift have talked of "Blue State" secessions and a mass liberal exodus to Canada. With this prospect comes their threat of Middle America losing its most "creative" minds.
Despite the left's reverence for the imagination and artistic propensities of those regions, it was not the poets and artists who distinguished themselves on 9-11, but crass and common firemen and police. Nor were the terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq routed by elitists in academia, but by the less than erudite efforts of the armed forces.
Of course the U.S. military is itself symbolic of those testosteronal excesses that the left so deplores. In stark contrast, "masculinity" where any can be found in the blue zones of "effeminate America" manifests itself only in the animalistic sense, taking on the form of gang violence and the sexual exploitation of women.
More appalling still is the fact that it is actually celebrated by the liberal intelligentsia as such. True masculinity, of the variety that fosters fatherhood, character, and chivalry, is greatly reviled, hence the liberal obsession with destroying the Boy Scouts.
In truth, even within the so-called "Blue States," liberal culture dominates only in a few concentrated areas. Fortunately for those tiny regions, a vast nation of traditional sense and values yet remains intact, shielding them from the grim consequences of their nihilistic ways.
Can't we all just get along? :-)
I gladly welcome the thought of civil war. All the liberal panywaists won't know how to fire a weapon and the US Military will undoubtedly support the Red States (or quit and join a Red State army). Bring it on, Eleanor.
"During the Reagan years, any thought of cutting and running from the likes of Osama bin Laden would be considered cowardly and shameful."
Lebanon ring a bell?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Reagan fan. But this writer needs to bone up on his recent history before he starts his lectures.
More aptly red country vs blue cities.
There are two Ameircas, but both are not occupied by Americans. The Americans voted for Bush and our future. And the Hate-Americans voted against Bush and our future. Nobody voted for John Kerry.
That's why he combs his hair that way!
Yes, because the Euro-like blue voters can't live without the red voters, and the red voters could quite easily live without them. We forgive, but it will take a hard dose of reality to bring the blue voters around. Even 9/11 didn't wake up the blue NYC voters.
"I gladly welcome the thought of civil war. All the liberal panywaists won't know how to fire a weapon and the US Military will undoubtedly support the Red States"
We could just have the civil war re-enactors fight it out.
And red vs blue ?? Reality is 99% red states with a couple dozen "blue voting districts" - which is exactly the way god intended. (as in the "whiners" need to be packed tightly together as not to need to travel too far for their pity parties)
This is NY!
Kerry was a Viet Nam War re-enactor while the real war was
still being fought!
Agree. Talking to these idiots is a waist of time. Action Jackson to the rescue. Push'um back Way Back -to Canada. Next step is then the RINOs.
My first thought was Vietnam.
Yeah, we have a problem but I'm encouraged to know we're starting at a majority base of 51%. It wasn't certain before this election where this country stood. I'm heartened after the results.
We still have room to grow. There are still too many people that reflexively vote Dem because "presidential races were conducted between two fundamentally moral and principled candidates, who may have differed on economic policy and other details of their approach to governing, but who ultimately stood on common ground regarding their fervent concern for the well being of the nation."
We need to educate them this is no longer the case. If we are successful the Dems will bottom out at around 35-39% Then it's about educating the young apart from liberal indoctrination and allowing the remainder of the 35-39% to die out.
Maybe the Red states should start withholding some agricultural products from the Blue states.
See this link for some interesting farming maps.
Spouting words does not demonstrate understanding the situation.
It's just like saying it's after 5:00 somewere. You are bound to be right.
SINCE the Reagan administration, while we "reds" have been making a living, raising our kids and being active in our churches communities, the "blues" have become progressively more dependent on therapy, support groups and prescription meds just to maintain their psychological fantasy world. So the answer is "yes".
I didn't understand that part either. Bush didn't "run" from Binny anyway : if 9/11/01 hadn't happened, the Bush administration would have followed the game plan of concentrating on domestic side and the Talibunnies would still be ruling Afghanistan. The 2004 "threat" didn't slow down voter turnout at all.
In ancient times the Barbarians were beyond the gates, now the Barbarians are the urban dwellers.
Communists/socoalists ALWAYS try to divide normal people into mutually exclusive categories and then drive wedges between them by characterizing the differences as inequities.
It is a failed tactic!! Yet, the lefties still love to emphasize the differences between the "wealthy" and the rest of us. So, when Bush returns 10% to the guy who paid $200,000 more in taxes last year than I, and I get nothing, I'm supposed to be outraged.
The ultra-left wing, arrogant elitist, neocommunist, Eurinal-loving democrats simply do not understand the essence of being an American and living in our country. We are not stupid, as they believe.
Once they are safe, then we wall-off the blue regions, kick 'em out of the Union, and let them try to create their Brave New Society according to their heroes Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim.
After that, we'll get to watch 'em rapidly collapse into the 3rd World squalor they seem to hold in such high esteem.
They would learn not to bite the hands that literally feed them.
This is coming out of the mouth of some guy that makes millions a year on somebody else's suffering? That alone makes him a "haves" sucking off the "have nots". He should certainly be well versed in that, materially.
The real "haves" and "have nots" are the people who still have some depth in their soul, that understand that this country was not founded on the principles of materialism. Edwards & Co. lost this election to a power much greater than his understanding of siphoning off material possessions.
Even North Carolina hates him, just as Tennessee hated Al Bore. These people are so disconnected with reality, I don't even know how one could make a Sunday comic strip of it.
Yes, there are two Americas: the one embraces the Founding principles, and the other seeks to pervert them.