Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Few Thoughts on Anti-Americanism
The War to Mobilize Democracy (netwmd.com) ^ | 4/16/2003 | Donnel Jones

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.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antiamerican; antiamericanism; bush; conservative; liberal; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 last
To: A_Spot_of_Reality
And, yet again, you fail to answer a simple question - what are the kinds of causes you have participated in as an activist?
81 posted on 04/18/2003 2:02:24 PM PDT by dirtboy (The White House can have my DNA when they pry it from my ... eh, never mind, let's not go there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

To: A_Spot_of_Reality
Once again, in what causes have you been active?
83 posted on 04/18/2003 2:28:29 PM PDT by dirtboy (The White House can have my DNA when they pry it from my ... eh, never mind, let's not go there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

To: Mustang
It's sad and too bad...you've been around FR since '97, and have not learned a damn thing. :-(

Or, perhaps I have learned what others refuse to learn. Don't be too hard on yourself, you may be just one of many who have been duped by political opportunists.

85 posted on 04/18/2003 2:45:06 PM PDT by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: familyofman
Call it what you want and we can argue semantics all day long. Had we stayed, fought the war like a war and not political chess, we would have prevailed. Read the post war interviews, there was no doubt that we had military superiority. We did not have the political fortitude. We did not have civilian leadership with conviction. Our civilian leadership took the politically expedient route, tucked their tails between their legs and QUIT. Had we stayed and prevailed, maybe South VietNam could have become another South Korea?
86 posted on 04/21/2003 11:37:54 AM PDT by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: caisson71
"Had we stayed, fought the war like a war and not political chess, we would have prevailed."

I agree that we would, could & should have won, but as you say the "leaders" didn't allow that to happen. That is really the tradgedy that Colin Powell and others learned from. If you don't want to win - you probably won't. To quit after putting so much in imho is bordering on criminal.

87 posted on 04/21/2003 12:53:09 PM PDT by familyofman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson