"Are Democrats the New Tories?"

ChronWatch ^ | 10/20/2003 | Jon Alvarez

[jonalvy44]

"Are Democrats the New Tories?"
by Jon Alvarez

Are Democrats the new Tories? In light of recent events concerning the war on terrorism, it would appear so. The Tories of the Revolutionary Era--or Loyalists as some called them-- chose to side with the British insteard of their fellow colonists. By siding against American interests in the war on terror, Democrats and their allies have taken on the role of the Tories. History will not look favorably upon the Democrats due to their constant opposition to efforts to ensure American success in Iraq. The Tories of the Revolutionary War period were ''vilified as offenders against the public good who acted out of ignorance, cupidity, or moral obtuseness.''[1] That sure sounds like the Democrats of today. By standing on the wrong side in the war on terrorism, are Democrats to suffer the same fate?

As America comes under attack not only from the adherents of radical Islam, but also from other countries jealous of our strength and virtue, one must wonder whose side certain Americans are on. Democrats, their allies on the left, and American Muslim groups have crossed the line in their opposition to the actions of our country and their loyalty must be questioned. When does such opposition become treasonous? Madeline Albright telling the French that they were ''a little bit right'' is not the best way to display one's loyalty.

Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are leading the Democratic Party into an abyss from which they may never return. Their irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric, coupled with their failed campaign to defeat the $87 billion package for our troops and the rebuilding of Iraq, makes it obvious that they are opposed to any effort that would guarantee American success in Iraq.

Republican politicians need to take a tougher stance and begin questioning the loyalty of the Democrats. The American public is beginning to recognize that the Democratic Party does not want America to succeed in Iraq. Regardless of a politician's stance on Operation Iraqi Freedom, the fact remains that America is embroiled in conflict and should receive the full support of all in Congress. Despite the misrepresentation of the situation in Iraq by the liberal media and the Democrats, we are winning the battle in Iraq. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose it because of treachery at home.

The Democratic candidates for president have also crossed the line via their vicious attacks on the character of President Bush. What kind of message does that send to our soldiers? Several candidates have even demanded an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. What kind of message would this send to the world? Would they prove Saddam Hussein right, that by studying the film "Black Hawk Down," one could devise a strategy to best defeat the soft Americans? Imagine the reaction of terrorist organizations around the world. No wonder Al-Quada and the Communist Party of America are rooting for a victory by the Democrats in 2004. It's time for all Americans to recognize that the Democratic Party is not rooting for America to win this war. The alternative is unthinkable.

Sadly, it would appear that Muslim organizations in America are also choosing the wrong side in the war on terror. Despite claims that they are opposed to terrorism, groups such as CAIR and the AMC have acted in a manner that is in direct contradiction with such claims. American Muslim groups have made it clear that they will endorse the Democratic candidate in 2004. This speaks volumes about how sincere these Muslim groups are with regards to being a partner in the war on terrorism. Surely they realize that the citizens of the United States are not going to be very tolerant of their eccentric and secret ways if our country comes to resemble war-torn Israel. The message to Muslims should be clear: get serious about the war on terror and be a part of the solution, or face deportation and internment camps.

Speaking of others joining the Democrats in the Tory camp, Hollywood continues to shame the memory of Bob Hope. Just this week, actor Ben Affleck chose to attack the Patriot Act and President Bush in a most vicious manner. Haven't these Hollywood celebs learned anything from the Dixie Chicks? By siding against American interests in protecting itself, Hollywood also places itself on the wrong side of the battle. Rather than offering a united front versus terrorism, celebrities and leftists whine about perceived loss of liberty. Where are the gulags and mass graves in America? How many American citizens have been awakened by a knock on the door, only to be whisked away by men in trench coats? It would appear that those crying the loudest about lost liberties, while failing to list one freedom they have lost, must have something to hide. Why else would they be so vocal in their opposition? Has anyone noticed that all of these anti-war celebrities who made the claim that they support the troops, but not the war, have participated in zero USO tours to Iraq? I thought they were entertainers?

Patriots applaud the actions of the Bush administration in rooting out terrorist cells within this country. Their actions appear to be working, for arrests have been made and we have had no attacks since 9/11. Patriots stand by the Bush administration while it works to protect us at home and destroy terrorism abroad. The Democrats are walking a fine line with respect to their open opposition to American interests. Their continued actions to oppose and obstruct calls into question not only their patriotism, but also their loyalty. They may soon find themselves in the uncomfortable position of being seen as a friend to our enemies, a position the Tories of old discovered did not sit well with their fellow countrymen or the history books.

[Redbob]

Don't sully what little "good name" remains to the Tories by identifying them with Dimocrats!

Shoot, the Tories could at least pretend to acting on principle, as I'm sure many did - there were those who just could not believe that their own King was treating them so badly.

Dimocrats OTOH long ago gave up "principles", many of them even before Bill Clinton.

[Redbob]

"Republican politicians need to... begin questioning the loyalty of the Democrats."

"Ann Coulter!
Paging Ann Coulter!"

[jonalvy44]

LMAO--thx for the good laff. That was funny.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

This article is stupid as hell, written by someone who has absolutely no idea who Tories were other than "they're not around anymore."

Honestly . . . I hope you didn't write this waste of letters.

[jonalvy44]

care to explain why it's stupid, in your opinion? Or are you just throwing out an emotional comment because you don't care to be considered a traitorous buffoon on the wrong side of history?

[TheAngryClam]

I find it funny that you refer to the Tories, who were the ones to resist a radical uprising against their rightful sovereign and their own country, "traitorous buffoons."

[jonalvy44]

the truth hurts, i guess. The Loyalists chose to side with an oppressive king/Parliament against their own neighbors, who valued freedom and representation. I don't write history, I just analyze and draw comparisons.

Might I ask where YOU stand on your views with regards to the Bush administration?

[bobjam]

Athens was a very open minded and free thinking society...the place liberal academics dream of. Then she got into a little war with Sparta- and lost. After the Peloponesian War, Athens became much less tolerant of what was to them as political correctness is to us. Will America go the same route? If the liberals succeed in making the War on Terrorism our Peloponesian War, will they follow the same fate as Socrates?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

care to explain why it's stupid, in your opinion?

Where to begin . . .

For one thing, Tories were the conservatives of their day. American Tories thought the best way to preserve their rights as Englismen was to remain allied, politically, with England. Whigs, on the other hand, were the radicals of their day. American Whigs thought the best way to preserve their rights as Englismen (yes, as Englishmen) was to petition the King and Parliament for redress of a number of grievances surrounding the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, and a whole host of lesser Acts passed by Parliament to help England recoup her losses after the Seven Years War (French and Indian War here in America). When civil redress didn't work, radical Whigs engineered a number of violent protests (riots) in Boston and in other eastern seaports like New York, Providence, and others, destroying a good deal of property in the process: virtually stopping the administration of the Intolerable Acts through fear and intimidation, blacklisting, economic boycots, solemn leagues and covenants, you name it.

So when an essay accuses today's Democrats of being modern Tories because of a perceived disloyalty to their country, that essay is by its very nature ridiculous. Why in the world do you think they called Tories "Loyalists?" For advocating the overthrow of British rule in North America?

Or are you just throwing out an emotional comment because you don't care to be considered a traitorous buffoon on the wrong side of history?

Hardly . . . I actually know the history. The author of this piece clearly doesn't have even a rudimentary grasp of it, and I daresay the author of this piece is the one "throwing out emotional comment(s)." If the author of the piece is you, well, I suggest you actually know what you're writing about before you write it.

[bert]

New Tories?

No, they are the remnents of the old Tories. All the good people went west leaving the Tory residue in the North East.

[marty60]

New Tories? Over the weekend I heard on Fox that the same arguments were made to stop Americas plan to Kick Hitlers A**. Old man Kennedy (amb to Eng.) was one of the worst offenders. Seems ole Teddy is just spouting his old mans thoughts. Dumocrats have always love death and destruction by evil dictators.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people trying to smooth over the true characteristics of this evil dumocrat cancer we have in this county.

That's the problem with their critics, no guts.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

All the good people went west leaving the Tory residue in the North East.

Actually, most Tories who refused to see the light went northwest into Ontario, northeast into the Canadian Maritimes, or east to England. In New England, Tory land and property were confiscated.

[hattend]

Ann Coulter coming up on Rush Limbaugh show in the second hour.

[jonalvy44]

You miss several key points, of which your oversight and attitude clearly leads one to believe you to be a Democrat and a Bush-basher, thus your attempt to argue my points:

1. The colonial legislatures petitioned the government of England for years concerning the abuses they felt were aimed at them.

2. The patriots of the day represented the majority of the populace with Loyalists representing approx 30%.

3. The English gov't was oppressive in its handling of the colonial legislatures, at times disbanding them. Thus attempting to silence the voice of the American colonists.

Thus, the patriots of the day had exhausted legal means to seek redress of their grievances.

There is another comparison we could make between the Tories (Loyalists) and Democrats today: Willingness to surrender autonomy and control to a foreign gov't (King George or the United Nations).

I do appreciate your efforts to point out discrepencies in my article, but once again, you are wrong. Democrats today are on the wrong side of the issue, just as the Tories of that day were. Your attempts to argue that provide conclusive evidence in my mind that you are both a Democrat and a Bush-hater. I know it drives most Democrats mad to think their "patriotism" is being questioned, but not only is their patriotism being questioned, so is their loyalty.

[TheAngryClam]

Not in the least. Your comparison is just plain wrong. As detailed by another poster, the people more in common with the anti-war crowd, who engage in street riots and property destruction, were the Whigs, who would turn into the revolutionaries.

And you're welcome to analyse and draw comparisons, but when such comparisons are based on a very fundamental misunderstanding of the facts surrounding the American Revolution, your analysis plainly looks stupid. Before I answer your question, let me pose one to you: did you attend public schools? That's the only thing I can think of for such a fundamentally bankrupt understanding of the history of the Revolution.

And I don't like Bush very much, because while his foreign policy is decent, his domestic policy sucks- one cannot tell it from Clinton's apart from the judges, for whom he refuses to fight. Discretionary spending in non-defense areas is up massively, there's talk once again of amnesty for illegal aliens, he praised the Supreme Court's affirmative action decisions, and on and on. Regardless, I will be voting for the man in 2004 because I enjoy how upset the left gets when it loses, even though it really wins domestically with Bush.

[TheAngryClam]

Wrong.

King George and the British Parliament was not a foreign government- it was their own government.

Unless, of course, you think the Federal Government is really a foreign government of, say, the state of Hawaii, since it is, after all, thousands of miles away over the ocean.

[jonalvy44]

You wrote "And I don't like Bush very much" sums up quite a bit.

The gist of the matter is that the Democrats are on the wrong side of history. They are siding with the enemy of their neighbors. They will go down in history as a morally corrupt group, same as the Loyalists. As for King George, they may have well been a foreign gov't. The majority of Americans involved in the Revolution were here for several generations and felt no strong bond with England as it was an ocean away. Different culture, etc.

Remember, this is American history. Not English history or World History. It's the story of America and it's struggles from birth on...

I had a strong education. We said the Pledge of Allegiance, were taught that America became a free country by fighting a corrupt and out of touch monarchy, and have grown to represent the greatest triumphs of man. What part of that education was wrong?

[jonalvy44]

Hemingway's Ghost: Wasn't Hemingway a communist?

I'm very familiar with the Loyalists. I prefer the use of the term "Tory" as the Loyalists were not loyal to their colonial neighbors, but rather an oppressive monarchy.

[jonalvy44]

we shall see. I think many Americans are growing weary of "pc". Look at immigration as one area where the politicos are still unwilling to touch it for fear of losing the minority vote. We will have to deal with it.