Replies

Goes back to a theory I've had for a long time about extremists of both political stripes.

They claim to "love America" but really do not...at least, as it exists in the real world.

They love some mythology that they've created in their own minds as to what it SHOULD be, if only those (fill in the blank) were dealt with properly.

For the extreme Right, it is some iconic 1950's world where everyone was clean-cut, dressed at all times in their Sunday best, and everybody prayed all the time. Oh, and "others" (like Blacks, or Jews, or anybody "strange") wasn't a factor and were out of sight. Sex was missionary only, and was only for procreative purposes.

For the Leftists, it is some world in which it is the responsibility of all successful people to support those who are not, out of the goodness of their hearts if possible, but force if necessary. All lifestyle choices are equally valid; all cultures too. Government control is necessary at all times; lest the proletariat seek to (greedily) rise above their stations. Obviously, no signs of individualism (such as guns or private property) are allowed.

Both sides have some things in common...they would both happily jail or marginalize those who fall outside the norm, and both decry freedom of choice and personal Liberty.

Neither can tolerate any deviations. Both, however, are endlessly frustrated that the vast majority of Americans want no part of either tyranny, and consistently reject it. Frustration turns to rage which turns to demonization and hatred. The term "evil" is applied liberally to even small disagreements of policy.

And so, we get such people as Pat Buchanan and Jesse Jackson, who manipulate such sentiments for their personal gain. They are not so much seers as reflectors who can turn a good phrase, knowing full well what their sycophants respond to. Thus, they make substantial livings.

My concern is that the process...that contained in the Constitution for running the country and changing itself when necessary and approved by a supermajority, is protected and followed. That's why military member swear to uphold the Constitution, not the President or Congress. Foe our country to flourish, and for it to do so in a manner which is safe and free to everyone, that process, as slow and frustrating as it can be, must be defended. When someone tries to short-circuit it, anarchy and terror result.

That doesn't mean I LIKE every outcome, but if that process is followed, wrong results can be ultimately dealt with. The short-circuiters and the extremists are either too lazy to do the work required, or their message is rejected by too many, and so, in their respective ways, they decry the process, along with inconvenient Rights that get in the way.

I actually LIKE America the way it is. There's some bumps and cracks (Gun control and the "war" on drugs are but two), but they are nothing that we cannot fix peacefully, at least at this time. America is a wonderful, vital, vibrant, and fun country whose ideals and ultimate goodness transcend its faults. It needs no "tearing down", and it CERTAINLY does not need some "benevolent dictatorship" to help it out.

What it DOES need is to be protected from its enemies, like those we face now, who would take all that we are and have and trample it into the Earth. To suggest "standing with" them, simply because one's personal moral standards are offended by someone else who is simply enjoying Liberty in their own way, is the very height of arrogant egotism, and smacks of Treason.

Calling it "patriotism" or "morality" goes beyond shaming those words...it is rank, fetid hipocrisy and mendacity writ large.

Well said. I get the feeling, though, that people are aiming at Buchanan as a symbol, rather than considering what he says. From a strictly empirical point of view, there is something in what he says: it is going to be hard for us to preach moral modernization if others see some of its unpleasant results in our own society. One doesn't have to believe that past generations were a golden age or that minorities should be oppressed to see that the message of Krauthammer and others isn't going to go over well in more traditional societies, given what's happened in the West.

And it's not clear that the division runs as some would have it -- between nostalgic reactionary Pat idealizing the bad old days, and forward-looking modern moralists who accept the present. For one of the defenses or excuses in this last scandal has been to blame the conduct in the prison precisely on modern morals or on pornography or on homosexuals. In other words, some of those who are the harshest on Buchanan, adopt views very similar to his when it suits their purpose. This suggests that there's more to his take on things than many will give him credit for.