Enemies Foreign and Domestic: 2005
Domestic Enemies: 2010
Foreign Enemies: 2015
Posted on 10/20/2003 9:31:19 PM PDT by kattracks
In part one, I described nine areas of major conflict between the Right and the Left in American life, a conflict that rivals the First Civil War in intensity, though thankfully not in violence. Here in part two, I describe 15 others.
The Left regards American nationalism as dangerous, is more comfortable celebrating world citizenship and prefers that America follow the lead of international organizations such as the United Nations. The Right celebrates American nationalism, distrusts world organizations, prefers that America lead humanity and regards the United Nations as largely a moral wasteland.The Left believes that sensitivity to minorities' feelings trumps the majority's will. The Right believes that when not immoral, the majority's will trumps that of the minority. For example, because some employees do not celebrate Christmas, the Left believes that organizations should rename their Christmas party the "holiday party." The Right believes that because the vast majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, the party should be called a Christmas party.
The Left believes that a woman must have an unrestricted right to choose an abortion but no right to choose a silicone breast implant. The Right believes that society must decide when abortions are moral and legal but a woman has the right to choose to have a silicone breast implant.
The Left believes that attacking world poverty will greatly reduce Islamic terror. The Right believes that poverty is largely unrelated to Islamic terror.
The Left believes that George W. Bush attacked Iraq mostly for economic gain. The Right believes George W. Bush attacked Iraq to protect America and to change the Arab world for the better.
The Left believes that a high rate of taxation of people who earn more money is a moral imperative. The Right believes that allowing people to keep as much of their money as possible is a moral imperative.
The Left identifies with the values of most university professors in the liberal arts and values their insights. The Right regards most of these professors as moral idiots.
The Left believes that the greatest danger to mankind, as former Vice President Al Gore wrote in his book "Earth in the Balance," is the threat to the environment. The Right believes that the greatest danger to humanity is, as it always has been, human evil.
The Left believes that marriage should be redefined and that judges alone are entitled to do so. The Right believes that the millennia-old definition of marriage as between members of the two sexes is inviolable and that it can't be redefined by jurists.
The Left believes that in terms of parenthood, all a child needs is love, whether that love comes from a single parent, two men, two women or some other adult. The Right believes that children do best with the love of two married parents of the opposite sex.
The Left believes that opposing race-based college dorms, graduation ceremonies, congressional caucuses or professional organizations is racist. The Right believes that race-based college dorms, graduation ceremonies, congressional caucuses and professional organizations are racist.
The Left believes that labeling any enemy of the United States "evil" is wrong. It was wrong when President Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire," and it was wrong when President George W. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil." The Right believes that not labeling such regimes "evil" is a sign of moral confusion and appeasement.
The Left is preoccupied with health. Leftist parents are more likely to believe that it is preferable that their teenager cheat on a test than smoke. Parents on the Right are more likely to believe that it is better that their teenager smoke than cheat.
The Left believes that just as America and the Soviet Union were equally responsible for the Cold War, Israel and the Palestinians are equally responsible for Middle East violence. The Right believes that just as the Soviets were responsible for the Cold War, the Arab enemies of Israel are responsible for Middle East violence.
The Left believes that criticism of Christianity is important and that criticism of Islam is bigoted. The Right believes that criticism of Islam is important and that most criticism of Christianity is bigoted.
I am well aware that not everyone on the Left agrees with every leftist position and not everyone on the Right agrees with every rightist one. Nat Hentoff is a leftist who doesn't support abortion rights; Pat Buchanan is a rightist who doesn't support Israel. But the existence of individual exceptions does not negate the fact that all the positions listed here as Left or Right are correctly labeled.
The fact is that this country is profoundly divided on virtually every major social, personal and political issue. We are in the midst of the Second American Civil War. Who wins it will determine the nature of this country as much as the winner of the first did.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Most of the 'division' in America can be traced back to underlying differences that are evident in how the two groups view the second amendment, as you very eloquenly summarized.
Things will start to get intersting once the "domestic enemies of the Constitution" have a numerical majority, while the supporters of the Constitution have most of the intellect and work ethic in this country. The latter group also has more guns :-)
and the will to use them
Enemies Foreign and Domestic: 2005
Domestic Enemies: 2010
Foreign Enemies: 2015
I recommend a subdued version of this old classic for the Constitutionalists/Patriots/Good Guys:
True. Prager's essay is such a hodgepodge. Most often it looks like he compares the left activist wing of the Democrat party with mainstream American attitudes. But some of the views he attributes to the right are out of the mainstream as well.
Why not judge opinions about Islam and Christianity, Israel and Palestine, "most university professors in the liberal arts" and silicone breast implants on their own merits rather than prejudging everything one way or the other? Some arguments on each side may be valid, others invalid.
It's not likely that everyone would agree on everything. We start from different assumptions and argue in hope of convincing each other. In the process we learn more about issues, about what we believe ourselves, and about what is politically possible. And where we end up counts as much as where we start out.
The country is divided between the parties at something like 50-50, but that doesn't mean that all citizens are mobilized and polarized and passionately adhere to one tribe or another. The experience of the last decade or so has been hard fought elections, but no major policy changes one way or the other.
Of course if the left or right falls down completely we will see such radical changes, but I wouldn't count on it. The political system more or less works to direct political passions into contructive channels where they have to face reality and moderate their demands.
And if it is the case that one gets one set of views just by living in Manhattan, and another by living in Muskogee (which isn't true), people are smart enough to see beyond this to the things we have in common as a nation and a people.
And should be shot down ON THE SPOT as the treasonous dog that he is
Something like this:
Right here you go! Woodland or Desert....
-archy-/-
When the editor of my newspaper kicked me upstairs from news photography to writing a column he subsequently found good enough to include in the dozen or so other midwestern newspapers he published set down the direction he wanted my material to take, he told me I had carte blanch so long as a recalled two things: our paper was literally on the breakfast table of a lot of rural farm families, and he wanted as little as possible that'd really upset that meal or be over the heads of those with limited education but a lot of native intelligence and hard-won practical experience. And he told me that he wanted his paper to be the sort that if a visitor from 50 years past arrived via time machine, he could return with a copy of our rag and be set for life.
I never had much of a problem with that.
-archy-/-
The battalion commander was in that track we just lit up? No $h*t? Well, I never liked going before no promotion boards anyways....
-archy-/-
And should be shot down ON THE SPOT as the treasonous dog that he is
Ash-and-trash is a fairly nasty detail, but somebody's got to do it.
I had a New England Westinghouse 1915. Got it for $40.00 ten years ago. Best forty dollar gun I ever had.
That's about what I had in the first former Finnish M28-30 that came my way, from Estonia in a horribly cobbled-together East German SKS stuck reworked with beechwood and milky epoxy filler, rebuilt to Finnish standards, and remain in awe of what those rifles can do. Some of them were built on NE Westinghouse and Remmie Nagant actions as well.
-archy-/-
There's another.
For how long?
Gotcha. You're on, and welcome.
-archy-/-
I happened to be at a Republican Party event (back when I was actively supporting the party) in mid-November of 2000 when all this was going on.
One of the speakers got up and opened his remarks by stating something to the effect that Klinton had declared martial law and sent in his goons to help with the vote count.
The room got very quiet as his words sunk in-- I think most people there beleived what he said, at least briefly. After a few moments, the speaker said he was "just kidding".
Needless to say, there were a lot of pissed off folks. I don't think anyone else in the room really cared what else he had to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.