Patriotic pretension: President Bush and the un-Americanism of the right
Needless to say, there's been a lot of reaction in the blogosphere to President Bush's Sunday speech on Iraq. Two leading conservatives, Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey, even live-blogged it.
Also needless to say, those on the right loved the speech and took advantage of the opportunity to slam Democrats and other opponents of the war -- indeed, to slam anyone and everyone who doesn't toe the right's ideological line. For example, Malkin, never one to put civility and openmindedness before partisan gamesmanship, referred to "the dire consequences and costs that the Democrats' defeatism would impose not only on the Iraqi people, but on all Americans as well".
It's just that sort of political and ideological correctness that has taken over so much of American conservatism in recent years. The not-so-subtle message is that all criticism of the war, aside from the desire for more war, is defeatism -- worse, it's nothing short of anti-Americanism. You oppose the war... you even oppose the way the war is being conducted... you challenge the powers-that-be in any way... you're un-American... and you'd impose "dire consequences and costs" on "all Americans".
Do I even have to say this? Obviously, I do:
America is a nation born of dissent. To be American is to be able to dissent -- to say no, to seek alternatives, to refuse to be told what to do and to think and to say. Is that not the American way?
Those like Malkin and her ilk on the right simply don't know their history. And they certainly don't know what it means to be an American. If I may say so, they're the most un-American of all.
**********
In contrast, there has also been some thoughtful reaction to Bush's speech. For example, Echidne offers some great play-by-play commentary. So does AMERICAblog.
Most of all, though, see my friend The Anonymous Liberal, whose excellent post picks apart Bush's speech and exposes it for the same old nonsense that it was: "Long story short, I was underwhelmed by the speech. Nothing about it struck as being a serious attempt to address any real criticisms being leveled against the administration. It was just more of the same stale rhetoric. More straw men and fly traps." But make sure to read the whole thing. The long story is worth a read.
(I picked apart Bush's Dec. 14 speech here -- this one was just more of the same.)
Also needless to say, those on the right loved the speech and took advantage of the opportunity to slam Democrats and other opponents of the war -- indeed, to slam anyone and everyone who doesn't toe the right's ideological line. For example, Malkin, never one to put civility and openmindedness before partisan gamesmanship, referred to "the dire consequences and costs that the Democrats' defeatism would impose not only on the Iraqi people, but on all Americans as well".
It's just that sort of political and ideological correctness that has taken over so much of American conservatism in recent years. The not-so-subtle message is that all criticism of the war, aside from the desire for more war, is defeatism -- worse, it's nothing short of anti-Americanism. You oppose the war... you even oppose the way the war is being conducted... you challenge the powers-that-be in any way... you're un-American... and you'd impose "dire consequences and costs" on "all Americans".
Do I even have to say this? Obviously, I do:
America is a nation born of dissent. To be American is to be able to dissent -- to say no, to seek alternatives, to refuse to be told what to do and to think and to say. Is that not the American way?
Those like Malkin and her ilk on the right simply don't know their history. And they certainly don't know what it means to be an American. If I may say so, they're the most un-American of all.
**********
In contrast, there has also been some thoughtful reaction to Bush's speech. For example, Echidne offers some great play-by-play commentary. So does AMERICAblog.
Most of all, though, see my friend The Anonymous Liberal, whose excellent post picks apart Bush's speech and exposes it for the same old nonsense that it was: "Long story short, I was underwhelmed by the speech. Nothing about it struck as being a serious attempt to address any real criticisms being leveled against the administration. It was just more of the same stale rhetoric. More straw men and fly traps." But make sure to read the whole thing. The long story is worth a read.
(I picked apart Bush's Dec. 14 speech here -- this one was just more of the same.)
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
7:46 AM
2 Comments:
America is the nation of dissent? I don't think so. More than half the country voted for the other guy and Bush still won. They now live under his regime. You can speak your dissent, but you're not going to get your way anyway if you're not the guy in power.
By
Anonymous, at 12:01 PM
Bush certainly isn't the greatest president we've ever had, and he certainly believes in a very strong executive, but would you lay off calling it a "regime"?
How can Bush be a dictator if he's struggling in the polls, losing support, and unable to get a lot of his agenda through?
I like Canada but let's not be snootiful vis a vis America. We may fight like siblings, but at the end of the day, I'm sure you're glad that we're at your border and not Mexico or China.
Furthermore, the electoral college was designed to give the smaller states more leverage in an election. It wasn't designed so that the popular vote would always prevail. Quite the contrary, it was meant to sweeten the pot for the smaller states. While I may prefer the abolition of the electoral college, it worked the way it was supposed to. The supreme court thing was sketchy, I won't deny that though.
But it would be nice if people would calm down and not view Bush as Satan incarnate. He may be a really bad president and may be reckless and power-hungry, but he will be out of office in a few years.
By
Anonymous, at 1:27 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home