Showing posts with label Patriotism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patriotism. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

No, We Aren't

(Inauguration Day, 2009)

It is ironic that Jamie Foxx, one of many pop-culture icons on hand Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial lauding America's first pop-culture president, Barack Obama, would quote the late Thurgood Marshall during early inaugural festivities:
“Each of you as an individual must pick your own goals. Listen to others but do not become a blind follower. Do not wait for others to move out. Move out yourself. Where you see wrong or inequality, speak out, because this is your country, this is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on.”
Has there ever been in the history of the American people a more blind, conformist, passive and incurious mass than those who have deified Barack Obama? Have you met a single Barack Obama supporter who has an original thought in his or her head about the man? Have you met anyone informed about who this parvenu actually is, what he stands for politically, and what he has actually ever accomplished? This is a president without a resúmé, and yet "change has come!" This is a president who has neither a record of success nor one of failure, and yet "hope is here!" Granted, a case can be made that the election of George W. Bush to the office of president is incontrovertible proof that one needs no qualifications to serve in the Oval Office, but at least Bush had been something, even if that something was a failure. He may have only been a governor of a large state; he may have only been a poor businessman. But at least he had a record, a provenance; even if his life was replete with failure and mediocrity, we could map those failings for ourselves. But Barack Obama, whose only notable qualification is that he has been perpetually running for president, is surrounded by millions of folks who adore him, blindly, mindlessly (and even cynically); he is revered for doing nothing more than, as Hillary Clinton said during her campaign, giving a speech (or two). Jamie Foxx urges the very people who have acted like a common, disinterested and mindless herd not to "become blind followers." The irony is too great not to note.

Inauguration Day. This is NOT a great day for America, though I will say it is an exciting and important day for Americans who have been under the impression that America has been such a bastion of racism that the election of a person with darker skin than white could never be elected to the presidency. I am happy for those who find some message of potential and possibility in his election. But today is a bad day for those who disagree with the over-arching theme of the inauguration -- that "We Are One" -- for the simple reason that America is not one. Over 56 million people voted against Barack Obama: 46% of those who bothered to go to the polls believed he was not fit to be president. And there is no evidence -- NONE! -- that those who opposed him, and STILL oppose him, harbor ANY racial ill-will against him simply because his skin is dark. There are millions of disenfranchised voters not applauding this day -- for reasons having everything to do with ideology, with policies -- and nothing to do with race. Those who voted against Barack Obama do not see "change"; instead they see 1992 and corruption, scandal, in-fighting, smoke-and-mirrors promises, and deception.

We are not one.

I am grateful to a Boston radio talk show host for reminding me yesterday of one of the political left's mantras repeated during the bulk of the Bush presidency. That mantra was shouted even by Hillary Clinton in the wake of Bush's (and her) decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq: We heard "Dissent is not unpatriotic!" from all sectors of our nation's disenchanted. But if dissent was patriotic under the Bush regime, it is surely as glorious under the Obama regime. I admit I do not hold much in common with the host who reminded me of my right to dissent, but I do accept his commentary that the double-standards inherent, not only in the press but in the Democratic Party itself, are so despicable that dissent is not only the only option, it is the noblest option.

For this citizen to be in good standing with his own conscience and convictions, dissent is my only choice. And no, I am not afraid of the ridiculous rejoinder that I must therefore be a person who supports inequality, injustice, racism, oppression, torture, war and "the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer." Moral rectitude is not, even by a long shot, the banner flying over the Democratic Party and its new president. I dissent against deception. I dissent against idolatry, of worshiping a mere man. I dissent against the claim that "America's standing in the world" as defined by pop-culture has been elevated by the new imperialists moving into the White House, led by a pop-idol president. I dissent against the obvious socialistic plans of the new regime; I dissent against the fear-mongering used by Mr. Obama to push down the throats of the American people a "stimulus package" that we need "urgently," and I do so noting that such dire and frightful forecasts coming from Mr. Obama's lips are religious in nature and not one whit factual: he claims to know outcomes he cannot know, telling us we "must" do X and Y before it is "too late," that we are in "imminent danger" and we MUST act with a "preemptive" strike against this mother-of-all recessions. (The economic alarm rung by Mr. Obama sounds exactly like the "non causa pro causa" global warming fallacies used by the likes of Mr. Al Gore.)

I dissent against the idea that America looks to a president, some guy in Washington, for inspiration. For guidance. For direction and hope and a moral compass. I dissent against the day we have become so pathetic we must be reminded by a president and a Congress that we need "national days of service," as if America heretofore had been struggling to find volunteers: that until we all saw Barack Obama roll paint on a wall yesterday, Americans had no idea that helping others was a good thing. I dissent against the idea that kindness is to be a matter of law, and not a matter of grace.

And not only do I dissent against the welfare state, I dissent against those who believe the state -- the collective unified as one -- and not the individual acting in freedom, is the basis of the American constitution. I dissent against the new master/plantation mentality already evident in the new regime -- that the master will provide jobs, stimulus, safety, ease -- if we all just comply, if we all just pick our cotton and stop our partisan bickering -- and give the fruits of our slavish labors back to the master to redistribute fairly among those who are "less fortunate." I dissent against a state that seeks to enslave and indebt its citizens to itself. And I dissent against the Ponzi scheme that is the Obama regime's economic plan.

I dissent against the blindness of people like Bono -- who has made himself into a god, perhaps a lesser god. He seeks to eradicate poverty, and yet can countenance -- and participate in -- an inauguration costing more than $105 million. Recall the OUTRAGE over President Bush's intent in 2004 of spending a mere $40 million for his inauguration -- and Bush's party was during the heights of a sterling and thriving economy. Today home foreclosures are at an all time high; Barack Obama has warned us of how dire things are in this recession. And yet things are not so dire that he and his minions would consider refraining from blowing hundreds of millions of dollars on pop-idols and party favors. (Barack Obama believes Americans will overlook these huge expenditures, or so it is reported.)

We are not one. And no we can't.

In honor of the words of Thurgood Marshall, I shall indeed pick my own goals. I will NOT be a blind follower. I will fight injustice and evil and idolatry everywhere I see it. I will NOT be like the common herd that has gathered at the beck-and-call of pop-culture, baptized by the zeigeist, at the National Mall.

Peace through dissent.

BG

Saturday, July 05, 2008

A Daily Kos Blogger Asks, "Are You A Patriot?"

Kossack ScottyUrb discusses patriotism at the Daily Kos, and I would encourage you to read his "Are You A Patriot?". At least, I urge you to read the first 23 comments that follow that interesting essay (it won't take long).

I ask, is Urb right about patriotism? Instead of a true patriot being that American who becomes a sacrificial lamb to his country and neighbor, as Urb suggests, can a self-serving individual be a patriot? If I DON'T care for my neighbor's well-being, am I unpatriotic?

If you have been reading left-leaning op-eds for any length of time, you will recall that many of them express disgust at an administration that does not call on its citizenry to sacrifice, particularly in this time of war. Urb hints at the same sort of noble sensibilities; he'd like to see more sacrifice, not less.

But the question is this: Are not those fighting in the name of the United States on the front of terrorism doing so precisely so NONE of us will have to sacrifice? Is that NOT the highest goal: that our soldiers are fighting so that we are FREE to choose to sacrifice -- or not? In fact, isn't that the very highest ideal and the very proof of a tremendous and wonderful nation, that it is strong enough to protect its citizenry without that citizenry even noticing?

So, too, it seems to me, is patriotism's very soul: to live in a place where "To be or not to be?" IS the very question. You are free to be patriotic; you are free not to be patriotic. You are free to be neighborly, and you are free not to be neighborly. You are free to be altruistic, and you are free to be egotistical (in fact, if we were all altruists, there would be something akin to chaos, or total social and moral stagnation: altruism NEEDS selfish people, no?)

Urb's essay (or, more specifically the comments that follow) proves that people only feel good about their country when it is right. I have explored this idea before, and it seems to me rather unassailable, at least in many instances: the difference between a conservative and a liberal when it comes to patriotism is that a conservative is much more likely to scream out "My country, right or wrong!" while a liberal will only proclaim "My country ... only when right!" I do not hold too tightly to my distinction, though I do believe it is not without merit. As I've said elsewhere, a conservative will love his family no matter how dysfunctional, while a liberal will only love his family only after it has gone to therapy.

True patriots, such as Urb and his guests, disdain unconditional patriotism; the only meaningfully true patriotism is conditional, and those conditions, alas, are entirely liberal and progressive. America the beautiful ...but only when good, right and thoroughly in line with leftist doctrine.

That is what I hear in the comments by Urb and his guests. I wonder what you might hear.

But, I must stop myself, for I know many conservatives who disdain this country -- who do not love it -- when it is controlled by liberal and/or Democratic policies. Perhaps, then, we can only conclude that patriotism is always directed at a future possibility or a nostalgic past; it is never current, America is never good enough. America can only be good enough some other day -- If only we elect this man!; If only we pass this law! -- or could only have been great on a day long since lost.

But I have one more thought on this matter, and it is a question: Isn't a true patriot that person who is willing to die for his country, even if that country is not as good as it could be? (Imagine this country fully and totally liberal. Could such a country ever assemble a military defense force consisting solely of volunteers? I don't think so. Perhaps that explains why so many of our military volunteers are indeed conservative: they really WILL sacrifice for others, others who disdain them.)

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Saturday morning coffee, politics over easy (A poem)

They speak loud enough to prove their pedantry
speaking in bold espresso terms of Bush coming before shove
into an unjust war between Iraq and a hard peace
against a man everyone calls a tyrant,
to say the least

she speaks ex cafédra that democracy works only for an educated public
but the public is no longer educated, which she says so shrewdly
the coffee cools in the decanters; and her man seconds the motion.
She no doubt is educated beneath that new age
progressive bandana all democrat and rich, rich with the verse
of the New York Times, its ink on her hands though
she has New Hampshire mud on her boots which were
assembled in live-free-or-die China
she's a swelling progress and she just knows

I lean over and tell her she should run for president.

I ask her: Is there a more tedious group than these ignoramuses
wandering our voting-booth streets,
so blithely content to read the Union Leader
or the Wall Street Journal, utterly led by the nose by kneejerk polity?
and she nods so knowingly, her eyes deep with pity
and concern for the dulluminati, those big Texas idiots swaggering
thoughtlessly through the world of the refined political idea
who trample the lofty smart bombs of prose in the center-of-the-
universe New York Times' op-eds, the command center for all
the right ways to really, really think.

I tell her how I once was ridiculed for writing a quasi-patriotic
poem, allegedly wrapped in red, white, blue, celebrating freedom in the
quiet and the noise. But the flag is only red, I tell her, with blue and
white splashed upon it. No matter how fervent, the very
peace we choose floats on that red sea, always, forever, irreversibly
We can't make the whole flag white or blue or clear or even smart
and she begins to fling her mud

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.