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.
Translation: No, I've never done a bit of activism, so I'm pound the table and yell to distract from that fact.
All you have to do is actually say yes or no. I guess that's too difficult a concept for you to master...
We'll close this little exchange with the caption from a sign by the veteran protester Doctor Raoul:
If Osama was a piece of ass, Clinton would have nailed him
Hope that pegs your personal hate meter. Just about everyone else who has seen that sign has laughed their ass off...
Are you counting PTA meetings as activism?
Now, how much of that was directed against Clinton? I asked specically about that type of activism, not activism in general.
But, in the end, I was able to define it for myself.
There's one theme, over all the others, present in the writings of early American Political Thought: it pops up in Jefferson's writings, in the works of pamphleteers; Hamilton, Madison and Jay hammer on this theme over and over and over again in the Federalist Papers and it's this:
Europe Sucks. Whatever form of government we institute, it's of fundamental importance that there isn't any chance - at all - that we turn out like Europe.
So I think I've decided that anyone who's "Anti-American" - in the non-treasonous sense of the phrase - is simply anyone who looks to the opinions of Europe for guidance in governmental, social or artistic issues.
You don't have to love apple pie; you can love cherry pie. That's the American Way. But if you love cherry pie for no reason other than it being the preferred pie of France or Germany and you think I should love cherry pie because Europeans do, you are anti-American.
Make no mistake about it.
Check the posting guidelines - I'll address anyone I care to here, it's an open forum. And I'll continue point out to the rest of the forum the nonsense you are uttering on this thread. Us Clinton-haters are vile. Rush is a hate-monger.
Don't like it? Tough.
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.