Posted on 03/13/2002 12:03:22 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Liberals used to accuse me of being an extremist radical right-wing superpatriotic cold warrior. I didn’t exactly enjoy having these labels slapped on me, particularly by Mom, but at least I could understand why some people used them. They were a caricature, which is an exaggeration of real features.
Lately, though, I’ve been called some unflattering names by people I used to think of as my fellow conservatives. One, a radio talk-show host, has gone so far as to call me “anti-American.”
How did I go from being superpatriotic to being anti-American, or even, as some have called me, “treasonous”? I haven’t joined the Taliban, endorsed terrorism, waged war against the United States, taken bribes from foreign governments, or sold sensitive military secrets to Chinese or Russian spies. Wherein, then, have I offended?
That’s easy. I haven’t joined in the spirit of primitive patriotism that is expected of us in wartime. In fact I deny that such patriotism deserves to be honored as patriotism.
Discerning anthropologists have enumerated traits by which certain social types may be recognized. You’ve seen the lists: “You may be a redneck if ...”
In the same way, I think there are traits by which we can identify an anti-American.
If, for example, you think the U.S. Government should abide by the Constitution even during wartime, you are anti-American. If you think the government should at least declare war before waging it, you are anti-American. If you deprecate a war that hurts and kills innocent people without achieving its stated goals, you are anti-American.
That’s not all. If you judge your own country’s government by the same standards that you apply to other countries’ governments, you are anti-American. If you think America is not immune to the sins that have often afflicted other countries, you are anti-American. If you think our government has made us enemies we don’t need, you are anti-American.
If you think that even America’s “good wars” — the Civil War and World War II — had terribly tragic results for this country and the world, you are anti-American.
America is an extension of Western civilization, one of whose deepest principles is rationality. The Founders of the American Republic established standards, embodied in the Constitution and explained in The Federalist Papers, by which that Republic and its rulers should be judged. They didn’t expect automatic submission to the government; on the contrary, they set down the grounds on which citizens should criticize the government and, if necessary, remove its officers. A true patriot would be a critic, not a serf, of the government.
This whole approach was in deliberate contrast to the principles of absolute monarchism. A loyal American could judge his government wanting, because the people, not their rulers, were sovereign. They would have no sacred ruler set over them in the name of God and claiming divine authority.
But this original sense of measure has been lost. To judge your government by its own supposed criteria — the specific and limited powers named in the Constitution which our officials are sworn to uphold — is disloyalty and treason. Obey, or be damned!
This reversion to primitive authoritarianism would have shocked the authors of the Constitution. But they are more alien to today’s “patriotism” than the Taliban. Today they would be considered anti-American.
Those men assumed that the Constitution would be a constant rein on the Federal Government. It would be used to rebuke any attempted usurpation of power; and for a while, it was. But in times of war especially, the Constitution has proved a frail instrument. During the Civil War, as Paul Craig Roberts recently put it, Abraham Lincoln “exalted the Union above the Constitution.” Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt went much further than Lincoln. All three are now honored as “great presidents.” Those who respected constitutional limitations are said to have been “weak presidents.” And George W. Bush is already being praised, in some “conservative” quarters, as a “great president.”
The question of constitutionality rarely comes up, except in the feeble and marginal whimpers of pseudo-constitutionalists such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which actually favors socialist-style government in most respects. No president has ever been removed for exceeding his powers. President Bush doesn’t even have to worry about that.
So if you consider the ruin of a noble experiment in limited government “Americanism,” just set me down as anti-American.
What do you think of Walter Williams?
Good question.
I have noticed a lot of people who used to be perhaps on the right or conservative are pretty much little different than the radical leftists of the 60's in their viewpoints.
Weird stuff.
I suggest getting your head screwed on straight.
A perfect example of this new Primitive Authoritarianism is John Ashcroft. He professes to believe that every day, in abortion mills, people are being murdered. But if you, a citizen, interfere with the killing, John Ashcroft will swoop down and make sure that you are removed, and the killing proceeds. He calls his collaboration in the killing of American babies "enforcing the law." He calls his collaboration in battening down Roe v. Wade on our society, in defiance of the Constitution, "enforcing the law."
This is a prime example of Primitive Authoritarianism. Ashcroft is a perfect specimen of the Blind Obedience theory that was supposedly rejected for all time at Nuremberg.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer, buddy. Apparently, Joe isn't aware that Congress first authorized the "use of force necessary" to combat terrorist forces, and then renewed and extended the authorization within the past few weeks. Both resolutions, lawfully passed by the Congress, ensure that we HAVE declared war before waging it. To imply otherwise is foolishly dishonest.
Relax, Joe. All is not lost.
The PATRIOT act has an automatic sunset provision. It is not an eternal threat to our liberties.
The war on Terrorism is the same thing as Jefferson's war on the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800's, and THAT war didn't cost us our liberties. (In fact, I doubt most Americans remember THAT war, but that is another issue entirely). Neither will this war, no matter how long it takes (I'm betting it'll be over in less than 4 years).
What irks me more than anything is civil libertarians using extreme mischarictarizations of current events to imply that our liberties are disappearing. NO SUCH THING IS HAPPENING, or, at the least, it is not happening ANY faster than it has in the past 100 years.
Stop whining and get on with your life, Joe.
:) ttt
Congress doesn't need to formally declare war (by using the word "war", anyway) in order to wage one on a foreign enemy. All Congress has to do is issue a joint resolution authorizing the Executive agency the use of military force.
I am not sure that Clinton ever got such authorization, except for perhaps the Ever Mighty Kosovo War (what a joke).
With respect to the "War on Terrorism," Congress has authorized it, and it is a constitutionally valid war. For more information, go to www.congress.gov and look up the following Joint Resolutions:
House Joint Resolution 64, 107th Congress:
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
...
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Senate Joint Resolution 23, 107th Congress:
(says basically the same thing).
Both were debated, voted on, and passed by each house of Congress. The Joint Resolution was passed by a Congressional Joint Committee. This was the Law of the Land, effective 14 September 2001.
(I will have to hunt down the extension Resolution - It didn't turn up in the same search as these, so they may have chosen different wording for it...)
:) ttt
But who did Congress authorize Bush to wage war against? It seems to me that it's not good enough for Congress just to say "we authorize the president to wage war on terriorism" or "anyone who attacked us" because then all the president needs to do wage war without end against anyone he wants to is to call that country "terrorist" or say that one of its intelligence agents "met with a terrorist" or that the country is developing "terrorist weapons of mass destruction." That makes the authority to declare war into a semantic argument, with the rest of us trying to figure out what the meaning of "is" is.
If congress wanted the president to wage war against Iraq, it should have said "Iraq." Otherwise the president could fall off the wagon, tie one on and decide one day that he now agrees with the PLO, that Ariel Sharon is the real terrorist. By that standard, there'd be nothing to stop him from waging war on Israel (or Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Iceland, Switzerland and the Seychelles.)
Naw, you're not anti-American. You're pro-liberty, pro-Jeffersonian democracy and pro-what-it-at-least-used-to-mean to be American.
Does anyone know who that radio talk show host was, and when and in what context did the talk show host make that statement?
When people complain about "losing" their civil rights I want them to ask themselves one question: What do you think your rights would be under Shira Law?
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.