Posted on 05/13/2003 1:58:06 PM PDT by TBP
Whatever It Is, They’re Against It David C. Stolinsky, M.D. Wednesday, May 14, 2003
I don't know what they have to say, It makes no difference anyway. Whatever it is, I'm against it. – Groucho Marx in “Horse Feathers” Total negativism is an appropriate attitude for Groucho’s zany version of a college president. His ridiculous dance in an academic robe still makes us laugh.
But negativism is not an appropriate attitude for citizens of a republic. It is still less appropriate for leaders of a great nation. And it’s not at all amusing.
When a small child learns he can say “no,” he may try to use this new ability constantly. He may go through a stage where he says “no” to everything. He may throw tantrums and make everyone miserable.
But one way or another, he must learn to get along with others. He must come to the uncomfortable realization that the universe doesn’t revolve around him.
That is, part of growing up is learning not to be a self-absorbed narcissist who believes everyone else must conform to your ideas and desires.
But not everyone grows up. Some adults remain emotional children. They stamp their feet and scream “No!” to anything not precisely according to their wishes. They have acute sensitivity to anything that irritates them. But they have utter insensitivity to what they do that irritates others.
President Bush visits an aircraft carrier to honor those who risked their lives to bring the war in Iraq to a speedy conclusion. They stamp their feet and scream “No!” They accuse him of staging a purely political stunt.
But they applauded when Bill Clinton used an aircraft carrier to haul himself and scores of aides and reporters to the anniversary of the Normandy landings in 1994. They pretended not to notice when dozens of the ship’s bathrobes and towels went missing.
They object loudly when Bush arrives to bring our thanks to the troops. But they said nothing when Clinton and his aides left with the towels.
And they cheered as Clinton “led” troops across the White House lawn after they returned from one of his pseudo-military operations.
Now there’s a principled attitude for you.
That is, when a real leader celebrates a real victory with the troops, they complain. But when “their” president ostentatiously pretended to lead, they cheered.
Whatever Bush does, they’re against it.
We liberate a nation in three weeks with amazingly few casualties, both coalition and Iraqi. They emphasize the casualties, especially the children. They moan that the war took three weeks. But when “their” president took over seven weeks to seize one building at Waco and kill nearly everyone there, including 26 children, they said nothing.
That is, when a real leader achieves a real victory in record time, they stamp their feet and scream “No!” But when “their” president took longer to produce a tragic failure, they remained mute.
The naysayers also said nothing about the thousands of civilian casualties caused by Clinton’s high-altitude bombing of Serbia, including personnel at the Chinese Embassy. Imagine their howls if Bush had caused an embassy to be bombed.
Whatever “their” president did, they approved. But whatever Bush does, they’re against it.
President Bush proposes tax cuts to stimulate a lagging economy. They complain that the rich will benefit, and blame the lagging economy on tax cuts that have not yet gone into effect.
But they forget how Bill Clinton’s tax increase caused the economy to stumble during his first term – which he admitted. They forget how John Kennedy advocated a tax cut by noting, “A rising tide raises all boats.”
That is, they forget what generations of economists taught us about stimulating the economy. They forget what prior Democratic leaders did. They stamp their feet and scream “No!”
Whatever Bush does, they’re against it.
Of course, if the president had proposed a tax increase, as they do, they would have opposed it. Then they would have recalled prior lessons of what to do in a recession. Whatever Bush might have done, they would have been against that, too.
The Bush administration announces terrorist alerts and raises the level to “orange.” They ridicule these as political stunts to keep people frightened.
But they said nothing when the Clinton administration belittled the first attack on the World Trade Center as a “domestic” incident. They said nothing when we failed to react to the bombing of our barracks in Saudi Arabia, to the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, or to the near sinking of the USS Cole.
That is, when alerts result in no attacks, they stamp their feet and scream “No!” But when attacks resulted in no alerts, they approved, because “their” president was in charge.
Whatever Bush does, they’re against it – even if it makes them safer.
The president nominates judicial candidates that the liberal American Bar Association deems “well qualified.” They complain bitterly about “far right” conservatives who would shred the Bill of Rights. They charge the president with applying a “litmus test” to exclude liberal candidates.
But at the same time, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president declares that if elected, he would use his own “litmus test.” That is, they accuse the president of doing what they want to do. They stamp their feet and scream “No!” to so many nominees that some courts slow to a crawl for lack of judges.
Whomever Bush nominates, they’re against them.
The president refers to an “axis of evil” and “evildoers,” and goes so far as to mention God. They ridicule his statements, not because they don’t believe those nations are evil, but because they don’t believe anything is evil.
They insist that war memorial crosses be removed from public land. They insist that “under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. They stamp their feet and scream “No!” to any hint of religion. And to show their “tolerance” and “inclusiveness,” they use the courts to push their secular beliefs down people’s throats.
But when prehistoric Kennewick Man was found to have Caucasian features, they insisted that Native Americans be allowed to bury him, because Native Americans believe themselves to be the only early Americans.
That is, they claim that the First Amendment forbids anything deriving from the Judeo-Christian tradition, but – inconsistently – that we must defer to other belief systems.
Whatever the Bible says, they’re against it.
In a spasm of negativism, three Democratic representatives, including a former Democratic House leader, go to Iraq just before the war begins. They declare that they don’t trust President Bush but that Saddam’s word should be taken at “face value.”
They stamp their feet and scream “No!” They claim to prefer a murderous tyrant to their own president. But, of course, they don’t see him as “their” president. Perhaps they are far enough removed from reality that they think of Al Gore as “their” president, and they surely look back with fondness on Bill Clinton.
But George W. Bush? Are you joking? Whatever he does, they’re against it. Not because it isn’t right. Not because it isn’t working. But just because he’s doing it.
Sincere, principled people favor what they believe is right and oppose that they believe is wrong.
But opportunists have no guiding principles except self-interest.
They are for visits to aircraft carriers when their president does the visiting.
They are for military operations when they do the operating.
They are for economic stimulus when they do the stimulating.
They are for acting against terrorists when they do the acting – or pretend to.
They are for “litmus tests” when they do the testing.
They are for shoving beliefs down people’s throats when they do the shoving.
They are for trashing our president when they do the trashing.
But if their political opponents do anything similar, they’re against it.
Groucho portraying the naysaying college president was really funny. Democratic leaders acting like bratty children aren’t at all amusing.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net.
Wonderful point. Of course, the answer is that Waco was a religious thing, and we all know how much the lefties loathe religion.
Great post, written in plain English, no spin, just plain DISGUSTING fact after fact, ugh.
THE ACQUISITION OF POWER: DEMONCRATS SUCK
I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!
Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!
I'm opposed to it.
On general principles I'm opposed to it.
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn -
"Whatever it is, I'm against it!"
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
"I'm against it!"
-Groucho Marx as Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff
president of Huxley College in "Horse Feathers".
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.