home  |  book  |

Winning by Losing The Sub-prime Blame Game

print view

Democrats Say: We Are Too Patriotic

by Christopher Chantrill
March 04, 2007 at 9:42 pm

|

AMONG THE NUMEROUS issues on which Democrats are hypersensitive to criticism—or as you and I might say, critique—is patriotism. Do not dare question a Democrat’s patriotism, at least not like Vice-President Cheney:

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people … try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

Speaker Pelosi was having none of that:

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," Pelosi said.

That is odd, because a real Democrat ought to be proud of dissenting from the president’s policy, like Howard Zinn, who said back in 2002:

While some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. In fact, if patriotism means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles. And if we’re exercising that right to dissent, it’s a patriotic act.

So why didn’t Speaker Pelosi come right out and say it: “I am dissenting from the president’s policy and that is the highest form of patriotism?”

We know why she didn’t. Despite the ingenuity of historian Howard Zinn Democrats aren’t patriots. They don’t like patriots and they don’t believe in patriotism. They quote Dr. Johnson out of context: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” They inveigh against “aggressive nationalism,” and its inevitable wars, just as they inveigh against religion and religious wars. They believe in supranational institutions like the European Community and the United Nations.

But Democrats know that Americans are patriotic, certainly Republicans and independent voters. They know that they cannot afford to be seen as unpatriotic. That is why the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2004, Senator John Kerry (D-MA), opened his acceptance speech with a military salute and the words: “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.”

The whole thing was as false as a three dollar bill. Democrats hate having to do stuff like that, but they know that they must, for they cannot afford to concede the patriotism thing to the Republicans.

Democrats are wrong about patriotism and the nation state, as they are wrong about many things. The nation state is not something to be ashamed of. It is a remarkable achievement. It is the largest successful attempt at human community that transcends blood kinship.

The stunning achievement of the nation state is to draw the boundaries of trust not with blood but with language, and then to pretend that we are all related by blood. We still use the language of blood kinship when we talk about the nation: mother country, spilling American blood, our American family, patriotism (from the Latin: pater, father).

Not only do Democrats not believe in patriotism, they also don’t believe in dissent. Whatever Howard Zinn may say to his pals at TomPaine.com about dissent being the highest form of patriotism, don’t try to practice dissent any time soon, at least not around Democrats.

Try to suggest that we should reform Social Security and see where it gets you.

Try to suggest that we should give parents the right to send their children to the schools of their choice and see where it gets you.

Try to suggest that maybe the best place for a child is with its married biological mother and father and see where it gets you.

If Democrats don’t believe in patriotism and they don’t believe in dissent, what do they believe in?

Oh yes. Equality.

Now there is a curious thing about equality. You could line up all the people in the world, share out all the goods in the world, and make everyone equal. But the next morning the world would be unequal again. Some of the people would have used their goods to start a business, and others would have blown it on a great big party. It is impossible to obtain human equality without the micromanaging power of government.

And that’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want to use the power of government to control Al Qaeda. Democrats want to use the power of government to control Americans.

Which is more patriotic? You make the call.

Christopher Chantrill blogs at americanmanifestobook.blogspot.com.

Buy his Road to the Middle Class.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.

 

 TAGS

Chappies

“But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.”  —Freddy Arbuthnot
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison

Hugo on Genius

“Tear down theory, poetic systems... No more rules, no more models... Genius conjures up rather than learns... ” —Victor Hugo
César Graña, Bohemian versus Bourgeois

Education

“We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.”
E. G. West, Education and the State

Faith & Purpose

“When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of ages—they seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings...”
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990

Conversion

“When we received Christ,” Phil added, “all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.”
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh

Postmodernism

A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ’merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy

Faith and Politics

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable... [1.] protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; [2.] recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family... [3.] the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
Pope Benedict XVI, Speech to European Peoples Party, 2006

China and Christianity

At first, we thought [the power of the West] was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity.
David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing

Religion, Property, and Family

But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family. Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit

Conservatism

Conservatism is the philosophy of society. Its ethic is fraternity and its characteristic is authority — the non-coercive social persuasion which operates in a family or a community. It says ‘we should...’.
Danny Kruger, On Fraternity

US Life in 1842

Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism

Society and State

For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008

presented by Christopher Chantrill

 •  Contact