Posted on 04/17/2003 1:59:42 PM PDT by forty_years
A Few Thoughts on "Anti-Americanism" By Donnel Jones, April 16, 2003
Noemie Emery has an excellent screed in the Weekly Standard taking down the anti-Americanism (that word again, more about later) of the Liberal/Left side of America at a time that should be a celebration of American resolve and principle: the date of April 9, 2003, a day to make America proud.
Instead we get: [t]he terrible news that President Bush had pulled off a tremendous success and was being hailed in the streets as a conquering hero has sent the left into a state of despair and confusion from which it has yet to emerge.
And this:. . . Ron Rosenbaum has this to recount in the New York Observer: "Today, a friend told me a story about a spiritual person, a man of the 'peace' movement. His first reaction, when apprised of early optimistic reports of Iraqi surrenders . . . was to exclaim in anguish, 'Oh, no, this is going to help Bush!'"
You get the picture. It's all about Bush. In smart aleck mode, I'll call this "Bushophobia," a collective and terrible fear gripping the minds of people who aren't turning the pages as history's book goes into hyper-overdrive these days. Those afflicted with this fear wait at the train station, in the dead of night, under a blank and velvet sky, something Hopperesque in their solitude and alienation as they sit in near slumber on the wooden bench and . . . the train never arrives.
History is passing Liberalism by because of a paralyzing overdose of nostalgia. We all know America will never be the same again after 9/11. The difference is, conservatives have decided to take action and DO something about it. It has chosen, and by no means is this a comfort but an awesome responsibilty, to enage directly with history. Bush carpet diem. Liberalism has taken the back seat and complains like children who want a hamburger.
Yes, there are distinctions. Those on the far right hate Bush too and expressed their opposition to the invasion of Iraq. To the extreme right we get this. There are Liberals who have had their reservations but, nonetheless, declared their sincere "support of our troops." These Liberals are to be commended. They have behaved patriotically. I know of a Marine who does not fully agree with the invasion of which he has been an invaluable part. He may or may not be a Liberal. He does his duty. Why? He's a patriotic American. Why, again? He's a Marine. Semper Fi. Always faithful. God, I love the Marines!
So people of good will can disagree and oppose Bush's radical turn in foreign policy. They can still be patriotic, support our troops, but believe America has taken a wrong turn.
What is "Anti-Americanism"? "Anti-Americanism" is not necessarily betrayal or treason, but it could be depending on action and context. It is by no means confined to the left half of the political spectrum though the greater number of its sympathizers are found there. Liberals have a right to be suspicious if the term is indiscriminatingly directed against them.
In brief, the charge of "anti-Americanism" can be safely weighed against those who would be proud of the accusation or, at the very least, amused by it. Visions of McCarthy and his good 'ol boy Nixon will come to mind, the appellation becoming a badge of honor conferred by reactionaries who have no use for the "Alliance Francaise" or who are not embarrassed by the presence of MacDonald's in Karachi.
An open animus of the U.S. is a clear sign and we all respect people's first amendment rights to express this animus. "Bush is Hitler." Fair enough, though it is so unfair morally and ethically. As Ms. Emery points out, [l]et us recall that one of the first acts of George W. Bush after September 11 was to urge Americans not to misuse or abuse the Muslims and Arabs among us. The mercifully few times that he was disobeyed are played up by this press as examples of our unending bloodlust and bigotry. Perhaps you are waiting for them to utter a cross word in the direction of nos amis in Old Europe [in reference to anti-Semitism on the Continent]. Don't hold your breath.
Anti-Americanism is not always so proudly displayed but it does entail in some a queasy dose of self-loathing. In this case, anti-Americanism is self-directed and is usually the temptation of more sensitive souls. America has done bad. Yes, America has sinned. The failure that most exemplifies this mood is the constant spectre of Vietnam. Tonkin Bay is the nadir of America. Thing is, one DOES have to move on. Hell, if the Germans can forget about Hilter, almost pronto, we can at least remember our wrongs in Vietnam and make sure they don't happen again.
That's the nostalgic part of it. Anti-Americanism revels in the broken-record of American failures. Perhaps there is a certain elan at living "at the end of times," at the end of an empire America never had. This is not the place to debate what should be obvious: our invasion of Iraq is not another Vietnam. The war was lost in Vietnam. It is won in Iraq. And that occurred on April 9, 2003. For the anti-Americans, though, it is ALWAYS about Vietnam, even with the blantant military success not even the New York Times and CNN can entirely deny.
Undoubtedly, the loyal opposition can, and should, offer their constructive criticism of how to deal with a post-war Iraq. Instead of berating Bush and seeing the invasion as sheer opportunism, patriotic Liberals can offer their perspective that can prove quite useful and necessary in the months ahead.
"Anti-Americanism" is the belief that no counsel will ever help, that America is doomed to failure, that looting is worse in a liberated Baghdad than a riot at a soccer match, that it is all about oil and not national security and moral principle, that morality itself is reserved for stuffy patriotic fools unless, of course, one speaks of America's moral wrongs.
Yet this anti-Americanism will very much play a role in our national politics. It must not be countered by censure or undue opprobium, but confronted by a clear belief that the battle, the war, against Islamist terrorism or any form of international terrorism must be defeated and that, in the process, the peoples of the Middle East are freed from their tyrannical governments. Yes, those same governments the U.S. and the rest of the West have supported for too long.
Terrorism. Never to be appeased. Never to bring us down.
Semper Fi.
Yes but what's the difference an adult puppet and a juvinal puppet?
That means the same "read my lips" group that was assembled under old Bush is now assembled under junior Bush
It was Sr. Bush who said that, not some group, it was a mistake for which he paid dearly but it has very little to do with the current President
and their direction then was tax and spend
I see quite the opposite with this President. He has cut taxes once, he's trying for more, and I predict he will continue those efforts throughout his time in office. He would like to see spending controlled, congress does not want to control it much at all.
and prop up the UN and I'm not so sure that will not be the final result this time.
He just got through taking the UN to the woodshed. In case you missed it, when the UN wouldn't play ball what did he do, he ignored them and did the right thing IMHO.
Maybe I just like "the glass is half full" way of looking at things. I remember the last president all too well.
Yes, seemingly so. I just cautioned that the end result may be something we do not expect.
Hmmm. Let's compare. Clinton had a scandal every month. Bush hasn't had any. Hillary tried to make herself a second president. Laura Bush hasn't done that. Clinton sold out our national security to China. Bush hasn't done that. Clinton never reacted in any significant way to terrorist attacks on American interests. Bush has responded resoundingly. Clinton defiled the Oval Office. Bush has treated the office with respect.
I could go on and on - but to anyone who bothers to compare the two, the reasons are clear as to why Clinton was despised by the right - for damn good reason. Why is Bush despised by the left? Because he is willing to act in the national interests of this country, something the left simply cannot stand.
Oh, and since you're comparing Kosovo to Iraq, let's look there as well. Both Iraq and Kosovo were not sanctioned by the UN - but Mike Farrell approved of Kosovo but not Iraq. Intervention in Kosovo made matters worse. Intervention in Iraq will, in all likeliehood, make matters better for Iraqis. And, most importantly, Kosovo had no bearing on this country's national interests and security - but Iraq does.
Only the shallowest of thinkers try to draw moral equivalence from superficial similarities.
Dude, we've been analyzing this stuff on FR for years. We understand just fine what is going on.
If you truly believe that the left hates our guy because he is "willing to act in the national interests of this country," then thats your opinion and you're entitled to it, limited in scope as it may be. Even to the casual observer however, I believe it goes much, much deeper than that.
Oh, there might be some peripheral matters, such as their lingering resentment about Florida. But, in the end, it's about their viewpoint towards America and Bush's willingness to promote our security and interests, as opposed to Clinton, who would only intervene when the so-called "taint" of American interests did not cloud the morality of what he was doing, or something like that.
It's important to put "perception" itno the equation. To understand exactly what drives the left in their adversity toward Bush is to understand how to mobilize and move their opinion, thus better securing the position of the President.
Eh, once again, we've faced these left-wing nimrods for years, from face-to-face at demonstrations to internet activism to the media. We've got a pretty good idea of who they are and what they're about, but if you are arrogant enough to think that it takes YOUR opinion to make us complete, go ahead and utter it here. Just don't expect folks to particulary like you much with that kind of attitude, especially when you try to draw a moral equivalence between our dislike of Clinton and the left's dislike of Bush.
However, if you feel there's simply no argument at all, and you're right about everything, and anyone who is against Bush's foreign policy is just flat out wrong, and the left is just stupid (should I continue with the generalizations?), then so be it.
I have my own disagreements with Bush in many areas. However, just because I'm dressing you down here, you fall back on the lame bushbot attack with no evidence to support your claim. Boy, you're really establishing your credibility in a hurry here /sarcasm.
I'm certainly not going to enlighten you.
Well, that's the first thing you've gotten right, although not for the reasons you think...
There he goes again - you're too good for the likes of us.
Invariably, there's always some "know-it-all" who discounts any opinion which differs from his as meaningless and ignorant, and turns meaningful dialogue into baseless attacks.
Oh, that's priceless. You come barging in with this kind of statement:
I think the hatred expressed by the right toward Clinton is every bit as vile as the hatred expressed toward Bush from the left.
And then act all like the innocent, hurt party. What a joke.
I'm happy for you that you feel like you've "dressed me down," and I'm sure you take comfort in that rather than for one split second even thinking that maybe, just maybe, there's a little different viwpoint out there from what you have, and that you might actually learn something by addressing it versus bashing it.
No, I've seen folks like you come here many times and act like us rubes can't possibly know squat without your input. And watched as they get their opinions demolished by those who actually know something.
You've won, you got me. I'm not here to disrupt, I'm here to discuss and learn. You?
I really don't care squat what you think of me. Anyone who compares what this site feels about Clinton to what the left feels about Bush doesn't have anything to add to the conversation here. Oh, and BTW, I lurked several months before I posted here, it actually is quite helpful - you realize you have a lot to learn and then post accordingly when you start.
I think the hatred expressed by the right toward Clinton is every bit as vile as the hatred expressed toward Bush from the left.
And then immediately said this:
It's been some time since we've had a leader who has shown the ability to rally the nation into being together. I think Bush did this beautifully following 9/11
And then said this on another thread:
I know the passion I felt against Clinton when he was in office.....
So you think Bush has displayed solid leadership, had strong passions against Clinton, yet draw a more equivalence between those who hate Clinton and those who hate Bush. That is a phenomenon called "incoherence" - but it's curable, especially if you drop condesceding attitudes like this one that you displayed on another thread:
Really, you can't be so simplistic in your approach to trying to understand what it is that the left has a problem with. Look deeper, young grasshopper..
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.