I've been called plenty of things over time..."Uncle Tom," "Oreo," "Sellout," & "Lawn Jockey" for starters. But now, a new epithet has been tossed my way: "Bush-bot." Posted on 09/26/2002 10:23:10 AM PDT by mhking
I've been called plenty of things over time..."Uncle Tom," "Oreo," "Sellout," & "Lawn Jockey" for starters. But now, a new epithet has been tossed my way: "Bush-bot."
Presumably, the name is used to refer to someone who follows lock-step the policies of the Administration and the President in a "cult of personality." While I find that I whole-heartedly support the war on terrorism in general and the war on Iraq in particular, to call me a "Bush-bot" would be furthest from the truth.
In considering an "appropriate response" to those who would accuse me of being guilty of being a part of a "cult" following the President, I've found myself introspectively examining my journey to this point.
I grew up in Gary, Indiana, in what some have considered a disadvantaged community. I didn't see it as such. I have both my mom and dad to thank for that. They're both educators, my father retired, and my mother soon to be. My dad was a high school assistant principal and a junior high principal over the years - coming from the teaching ranks himself. My mom is a social studies teacher at the local performing arts school.
My dad's folks lived across town from us, and also had strong social and cultural ties in the community.
I have referred to Gary as a "Peyton Place" of sorts, where everyone pretty much either was related to or knew everyone else in town. Even now, if I run into someone whom I don't know from Gary, within three names, we end up coming across a common friend.
When I was coming up, if you discussed politics in Gary, it was automatically assumed that you meant Democratic politics. In my mind, black equalled Democrat, period. I bought into the mantra that "liberal" meant good and "conservative" meant bad, without question. Of course, as a youngster, I thought I could change the world that way as well. We all had that "invincible power" at that age.
When I went to college, first at Purdue, then at Howard, I continued to follow "the party line" as set forth by the so-called black leadership, but I began to question parts of the message that were being presented to me. I didn't think much about it though - my mind was on business and trying to make money. Plus I had other things on my mind: the woman who I currently refer to as "She-who-must-be-obeyed."
Rachel and I got married in late September of '85, and settled into living and working in Washington. I had started working in radio as a disk jockey while I was in high school, and had dabbled in news while I was in college, with my most notable stint as an intern at the old WAVA radio in it's rock & roll days.
By the early 90's, our finances had crashed and burned, and the first of our three children had been born, with number two on the way. I started to dabble a bit more in political discourse, in the form of hosting a cable television program in Gary. That led to hosting the morning drive talk show on the local talk station.
As opposed to the traditional notion of black folks yammering and complaining to each other, I took a different tact. I challenged people to think outside of the box (as I used to put it) and to question the assumptions that the black leadership was feeding us with. By summer of '94, I was asked to come run a black talk station in Atlanta. I eagerly took up the challenge.
WIGO was a challenge at that. I settled into the morning drive slot and soon discovered that I truly was a conservative. Pryor Tire had bid in for a contract with the Atlanta Public Schools and won the lowest bid. The school board tossed the bids, since Pryor was not a minority-owned business, and awarded the contract to a black-owned small company in Atlanta. The board hadn't made that specification in advance, which ticked me off to begin with, but the reaction I got on the air the following morning was what cinched the deal for me.
I said that I was disappointed with the board's decision, as well as the reaction of "civil rights leader" Rev. Joseph Lowery of the SCLC. Lowery said that the decision was fair because it helped a black business get ahead.
After being blasted on the air by caller after caller who not only disagreed with me, but insulted me personally, I said that I was embarassed to be black in Atlanta by that decision. In my mind, you cannot change the rules to suit you simply because things don't go your way. The decision was as simple as that. As was my decision. Shortly after that point, I joined Project 21, and moved forward from there.
My core beliefs are just as simple. We all have rights. I don't have any more, nor any less rights just because I'm black. I believe that we must have financial accountability in government. I believe that individuals must also be accountable for their own actions. We must have a strong defense in order to secure our freedoms, and a small government allows us to hold and keep those freedoms. A large, bureaucratic mess does nothing but benefit a small number of people, and those are the ones in power.
I describe myself as a hawk; a fiscal and constitutional conservative. Socially, I find some moderation, simply because I have no desire to impose my morals on someone else, as I have no desire to have someone else's morals imposed on me and mine. What consenting adults do in privacy is none of my business, provided they are not harming another, nor breaking the law. I've no desire for "Big Brother" to watch my every move while I'm in private.
There are some decisions that a man and wife must make within the bounds of privacy, and I respect that. But at the same time, when in public, appropriate comportment is not only desired, but required. This is the only way a society based upon common freedoms and liberty can truly exist.
I fully support tax reform - and I support the elimination of the present system of affirmative action. I am not as foolish as to say that the playing field is level, but the present system of "fixing" that playing field just plain does not work. Replace it with something that does. I don't have all the answers, but there needs to be examination and development of a system that will answer that social and fiscal problem.
While I support the Bush Administration on the war, I find a deep chasm between myself and the administration on the issue of immigration. We have no business opening up the borders of this country to illegal immigrants. If we do, the "trickle" of people who hop the Rio Grande will turn into a torrent that we won't be able to stop.
I trust the administration to fight the war on terror at home, but we certainly should have more say in terms of how it is being fought. Detaining Grandma while Ahmed is allowed to go through airport security, for example, is not the way to handle it.
Some would call me a "libertarian" - little "L" - and while I find I have much in common with them, I cannot comfortably support the LP itself. I've found that the independant thought that goes into that doesn't do much to support the conservative cause. I wish them well, and hope that one day we can stand together to defeat liberalism.
Does that make me a "Bush-bot?" I don't think so. Perhaps a bit zealous in my beliefs. But not a slave to anyone's "cult of personality." Just a dad, a husband, a son, a man. One who is proud to be conservative and proud to be an American
I consider myself a conservative with libertarian - little "L" - leanings.
You sound like much the same.
Nope. Those who throw that epiphet at anyone who supports the president are the type who are what I have coined "Conservatively Correct". They demand that conservatives only support people who agree with them 100% even if it means that instead of someone who they might agree with 65% of the time they get a Democrat that they will disagree with 100%. Anyone who dares support a candidate with less than Conservatively Correct credentials is therefore a hypocrite or a mind numbed robot. They OTOH revel in their moral superiority of never compromising, despite the fact that they only help the Democrats by doing so.
xsmommy linked it to WFTD for all of us to read.
Thanks, xs!
"Repeat for effect"
WFTD?
I see libertarianism as being a direction, rather than
a destination. We will never reach a point of federal
government being restricted to defending the country
and delivering the mail. However, pursuing
smaller government is necessary, and the last
I looked that was part of the conservative cause.
The gulf between conservatism and the Republican
party leads, IMO, to the bot characterization.
That is, throwing out conservative principles to
defend whatever line the Party is taking today
is the mark of unanchored partisanship.
The steel tariffs are a good example. When
criticized for this attempt to buy votes, the
hardliners defended it a being necessary to
defeat Democrats. Now that the administration
is watering down and pulling back from these price
supports the bots are hard pressed to
shift principles fast enough to keep some
sort of fig leaf in place. Don't be a bot.
Think and vote what you really believe.
That is the essence of democracy.
The labels serve only to divide.
Bush-bot or Bash-bot.
That is who I am. That is who we are. That is how we will survive and succeed.
Nice to finally "meet" you.
Pure gold!
I will never forget that man, and his anger and pain. I wonder how his viewpoints have evolved since that day.
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.