Thinking of Voting the Status Quo this November 2nd? Think Again…

Several people have sent me this very well written article published on Hot Air (*). While everything written is factually correct, there is quite a bit missing that would give voters a better perspective. Therefore, I’m going to add the missing pieces to this article since it is vitally important that people vote INFORMED this election. Before I delve into this, I will disclose a few “disclaimers” with the hope to avert subsequent commentary based on false interpretations of my position and purpose of writing this article.

First, this article is not being written to bash George W. Bush or lay blame solely on him for the current economic situation. The following is being written with the intent to better inform people and demonstrate the danger of putting establishment Republicans back in power.

Second, it is important to note that the “genius” idea of “affordable housing” is solely attributed to leftists. This was the Democrats’ baby from day one; however, it got by with “a little help from their friends” on the other side of the aisle.

Lastly, I am not in any way suggesting that people vote third party, or that a third party is the solution. I have never nor will I ever devote myself to ANY political party. What I am suggesting is to NOT vote the STATUS QUO. If you live in a district that has a solid Republican running (i.e. a Meg Whitman, a Pat Toomey, a Rand Paul); then by all means, vote for that candidate! Sadly for me, Illinois is one of the most corrupt states in the union run by a strong political machine; and there is clearly no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have run this state into the ground, and the Republican establishment has done an excellent job keeping candidates who are serious about shrinking government off the ballot. Therefore, I will be voting straight Libertarian until I have viable option, or when candidates with a libertarian view can successfully infiltrate the Republican Party.

Now that my position is clear, let’s get into the task at hand…

The first section on Andrew Cuomo, the current New York gubernatorial candidate, is spot on. In a nutshell, leftists had a dream of giving everyone a home, regardless of whether or not they could actually afford it; and they would get taxpayers and the Federal Reserve to finance this dream. Cuomo did play a major role in expanding the power of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Perhaps his opponent, Carl Paladino, should focus on bringing this issue to light instead of making absurd statements about homosexuals.) The comment Paul Krugman made was also a nice touch to illustrate the insanity of these policies and his ineptness as an economist.

In the next part of the article where props were given to the Bush Administration is where we run into a problem. While it’s true that President Bush and some Republicans tried to pull back the reins on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; these attempts were pathetic, misguided and very half-hearted. Why? The answer is that it was very difficult for President Bush to reverse his position after he spent the first two years of his presidency touting these very policies. Need proof? Let’s take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

The following video is part of a speech Bush gave way back in October of 2002. He addressed the gap between Black and Hispanic home ownership relative to overall home ownership. He was proud to announce that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will address the “shortage of capital” needed to close this gap and that a low-income home buyer could have “just as nice of a house as anyone else!” Of course, taxpayers will finance all of this, which he alludes to in the next clip.

Video One

The first clip, “Video One,” was not one of Will Ferrell’s better impersonations on Saturday Night Live; but for those who doubt that George Bush would actually say what he did, I’ve taken the liberty of finding clips of him in the flesh…

Video Two

“Video Two” was a speech given by Bush on May 17, 2002. In this video, he talks about not one but TWO government entitlement programs designed to assist people in buying a home they cannot afford. The first was the “American Dream Down Payment Fund” where he actually admits that this program will be funded by the taxpayers! Even the most devout leftists know better than to say that directly! The second was the “Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit,” whereby each state received a $1.75 per capita in tax credit dollars in 2002, with an index for inflation. This, of course, was yet another misguided government program designed to encourage real estate developers to build in economically distressed areas.

If that wasn’t bad enough, he talked about the importance of the role of the federal government to provide affordable housing. His intention was to get a “sustained commitment” from the private sector. How was that achieved? That’s where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac came into play. The idea was to expand capital by having the government put a stamp of approval and guarantee reckless lending. Banks loaned money recklessly because the government guaranteed their idiocy!

If you are getting indigestion, I recommend you stop the video because your stomach won’t be able to take the last part of the clip. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Not only does he foolishly imply that the federal government empowers people, he goes on to say that we must “use the mighty muscle of the federal government along with state and local governments” to encourage home ownership! I honestly don’t think one would hear that come out of Barack Obama’s mouth. The MIGHTY MUSCLE of the federal government?? Why in the world did the left despise this man? They should have embraced him!

Video Three

I never took it personally when I was called an “economic charlatan” by a former graduate school professor, as “Video Three” demonstrated the prominent line of thinking at the time. It was very obvious that my opinion would be considered daft, especially when I voiced it long before 2007.

Here we have the Bush Administration, who by this time tried umpteen times to “rein in” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, denying the impending economic disaster. At this point in time, it was obvious to many prominent classical liberal economists the magnitude of the disaster that was coming our way. The problem is Bush already slept with the left on this issue. The Democrats, namely Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who sat on the congressional financial committees, were indeed blocking any attempts for reform. However, Bush couldn’t take it a step further because he was treading on dangerous ground in the sense where he had to “180” his position and admit that the policies he flaunted were going to be responsible for a major economic meltdown. That’s political suicide, especially when the left would jump all over him for reneging on his word to help minorities; and leftists knew very well who they can blame (and still blame) when things came crashing down. Due to the fact that Bush was worried about the post-911 economy, he thought inflating investment in the housing market was the way to go. When it became obvious that disaster was looming, what was his answer? More REGULATION and more government expansion, as the next video illustrates. Oh how that works so well. I wonder if he idolized Herbert Hoover because his legacy is that of a modern day Hoover.

Now, it is time for the grand finale. Please stay with me my Republican cheerleaders! It really is for your own good that we travel backward in time.

Video Four

“Video Four” takes us to late 2007, where Bush still believes that the fundamentals of the nation’s economy are sound. In the meantime, our dollar is worth less than a roll of toilet paper, gas prices are shooting through the roof and inflation is everywhere. The man still had the audacity to suggest that the subprime market was “innovative.” He cited the problem with adjustable-rate mortgage (ARMS) rates rising, but he didn’t give the real reason why ARMS rates were rising – INFLATION. I also wonder just where Americans got that “overly optimistic assumption” regarding the performance of the housing market.

He then proceeds to demonize those “irresponsible lenders,” who were only playing by the rules the government laid out for them – the very rules he advocated during the first few years of his presidency. On top of that, he has the arrogance to ask lenders to renegotiate the terms of these loans so they could hold paper with sub-par rates of return, which only leads to future economic turmoil. This is certainly not a sympathy vote for the lenders, as they should have moved beyond their short-sighted view of temporary government security. That will cause your demise every time.

The real kicker here is when he clearly stated that it is not the job of the federal government to bail out the lenders and investment houses. Interestingly enough, one year later, he came on national TV and said we had to “abandon the free market to save it.” He ended up signing into law one of the largest financial bailouts on record.

In the latter half of his speech, he talked about more government programs to combat the crisis – specifically “FHA-Secure.” It is important to note that all this program did was keep the prices of homes inflated; and worse, moved MORE people into federally backed loans. Further expanding the role and influence of the government in the housing market was Bush’s answer when it should have been the opposite. So much for reining in the role of government sponsored enterprises! They should have been ABOLISHED.

All I ask of everyone who reads this column is to HONESTLY answer the following questions:

• Can you see President Obama giving these same speeches, and are the positions exactly the same? Do you understand that Obama has simply expanded on these very same policies?
• Are you confident that establishment Republicans will rail against reckless government spending and the current Obama agenda? Have you read the GOP Pledge to America?
• Are you able to now see how establishment Republicans have laid the groundwork for the current economic state?
• Will you admit to the danger of blind partisan voting?

The latter question is probably the most important, as it is ultimately responsible for the current tyrannical government.

Once again, the purpose of this column was not a Bush-bashing session. I am also aware that George W. Bush is not on the ballot this coming election; BUT the establishment Republicans, some who played a role in helping the leftists in this country achieve their dream, ARE on the ballot! For your own sake and for the future of this country, do not vote blindly this election.

Leftists cannot enact their agenda in this country without help, and the Republican establishment gave them plenty of help all through Bush’s eight years. Government interference in the housing market goes all the way back to FDR. The Carter administration resurrected and expanded the role of government in the housing market; and it was former members of the Clinton Administration (all mentioned in the Hot Air article), that are directly responsible for sowing the seeds of the current economic meltdown. It is very true that Democrats were the masterminds of a scandal that would make Bernie Madoff envious; but the beauty of it all for the left was that they had a staunch ally in George W. Bush to keep those dreams alive. They also had a perfect scapegoat to blame when it all came crashing down. Let’s not re-elect more scapegoats.

How many people believe that these policies were solely Republican? The left has done an excellent job in indoctrinating people into believing this foolish nonsense. Note some of the commentary on the videos. However, Republicans are just as guilty for going along with the plan. What ideology does the Republican establishment stand for? We just saw a Republican President talk about the “MIGHTY MUSCLE” of the federal government! With rhetoric like that, why fear Obama? After seeing these clips and understanding the history, one can only conclude that A) establishment Republicans are clueless stooges or B) their ideology is a less extreme form of socialism. Neither sits well with me, and it should be a grave concern for American citizens that all we have is a choice between social engineering of varying degrees. It is important to understand that every economic meltdown that has occurred over the past century has been a result of government social engineering and market steering gone bad.

For all who think that a Republican takeover of Congress is all that is needed to stop the Obama agenda in its tracks had better wake up and smell the coffee and brush up on history. Until we as a nation come to grips with the fact that government will not solve wealth inequality (it will only contribute to it), right social wrongs, pad our retirements and cure all of our ills, government will only work to erode what little liberties we have left. Until people stop falling for these populist tactics and get educated, brace yourself for more of the same.

Please vote INFORMED this election…


*http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/10/24/how-george-w-bush-destroyed-the-economy-in-only-eight-short-years/

Five Finger Death Punch

So the shit heap called “health care reform” passed the House of Representatives by only a few votes. If Rep. Stupak and his group of 6 hadn't caved to a promise of relevancy, it would have died the death it deserves. But never doubt the ability of politicians to sell principles for peanuts. The reform bill, warts and fixes and all, will become law and we will, for the time being, have to deal with it.

But, in my view, the bill itself is not the problem. It's a big ugly tumor, but there's a underlying cancer eating away at the body of the American people: entitlements. The entitlements craze began under less than ideal circumstances. During the Great Depression, FDR thought the best way to help the economy was to help the people, or so we're told. A massive welfare state was created to give the masses some buoyancy. In a time of mass poverty and unemployment, it's understandable that people would embrace such programs, even if they ended up hurting the economy and prolonging the Depression. After the Second World War and the recovery of the American economy (in no small part due to the destruction of the rest of the world), the entitlements stayed and grew. Social Security ballooned, Medicare was created soon after, welfare expanded; the new wealth American was swimming in was turned into gifts from the state to the people.

But these gifts aren't free, as supporters and receivers like to think. EVERYTHING comes with a cost. EVERYTHING has a price. Your welfare check is money from taxpayers. Grandma's social security is paid for by today's young workers. From the President's salary to your neighbor's new tax credit paid car, EVERYTHING the government gives you is paid for by someone else.

That said, I understand, grudgingly, that our modern society requires some kind of social safety net. There will be people who need some help: the very poor, the very old, the very feeble, etc. There is good cause for a basic social safety net, but there is no cause, no argument, no valid idea that can back the bloated, feces covered, child eating monster that the modern American welfare state is. You can justify giving a check to a widowed grandmother having to raise her dead daughter's kids in a trailer park in Jena, LA. But you can't justify, AT ALL, giving out government checks to well-off seniors dancing the salsa with Palo the Pool Boy on a Caribbean cruise.

Not 3 years ago, the late Ted Kennedy was screeching for the expansion of SCHIP, the child version of Medicare, to middle class families. The middle class is the middle class because it can afford things like coverage for kids. It can afford to pay a mortgage. It can afford many things, just not all things, as the rich can afford. Why in God's name would you expand something made to cover the poorest and weakest of children and expand it to people who don't need it?

Control. Power. Votes. Stone headed ideology. Probably all three mixed in with personal crap we don't really care about. The point is that the entitlements and the social safety net they're based on are unjustifiable and unsustainable. When they first appeared, there were tons of kids to pay for it. The Boomers, my “favorite” generation. Today, the Boomers are getting old and dying off, and America's birthrate is dropping like Nancy Pelosi's cheeks. The crash of entitlements and the social net is unstoppable as long as we keep borrowing, keep spending and keep expanding. Greece, the grandfather of the West, shows what happens when you don't stop the government gravy train from speeding towards oblivion.

Yes, the health care reform bill is a massive mistake, but the real problem, the systemic cancer destroying the fabric of this nation minute by minute, is the culture of entitlement. The culture of wants being turned into needs. The culture of a greedy, narcissistic, unbelievable STUPID generation (and its children) trying to squeeze every benefit it can from the modern world before they pass on. There is no way, no how, no fucking chance that the government, let alone the economy, can handle any more without completely collapsing. I don't want it to happen. I like the world as is, but there needs to be changes, sacrifices and hurt if we're going to stop it from being any worse.

But with a government that thinks like this...

“In doing so, we will honor the vows of our founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’  This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people.  This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country.“

*facepalm* *headdesk* *panface*

...it's going to be a long fight. A very long, hard and ugly fight.

In the clichéd words of Matt Damon's Roy Miller, “Get your game face on.”

Consistent

Moments of change happen to people every single day. Babies are born. Parents die. Children die. A house burns. A theft. A rescue. An opening. A closure. These things come in the billions everyday. Moments crashing into another over and over in towns, cities, farms and forests. Everywhere. There wasn't an iota of human existence that hasn't been touched by the forces of the world.

There's always been a mystic feelings to watching history. I can never place my finger on it, but it was there. It's there like the sun each morning, even through the smoke of the brushfires or the black cover of a mountain storm. It took a normal day that was blue and calm and transported me to a place out of step with what came before it. The sun didn't look right. The air had a tinge of uncertainty. The world that I saw wasn't the world that I experienced just moments before.

And yet, the world had never changed, not in the sense we short-lived intelligent animals think of as change. Not in the sense of the creation of the solar system or the destruction of the dinosaurs. Those things are real, forever change. Change that utterly ended the world without destroying it. I've been alive twenty four years and what I've been alive to see has simply been the reiteration of the natural truths of human existence in new and interesting forms. The events themselves are new, no doubt, as, for example, the Romans never put a man into space (nor did they do it in a race against Carthage), but the basic reason behind the events have never, ever lost their force.

These forces are so primal, so natural, that we dress them up in new words to disguise what they really are. When you talk about the Final Solution, you are not just talking about the genocidal dictates of a race-oriented national socialist dictator, but you are also talking about a hatred. Pure, deep tribal hatred. Something that repeated itself dozens of times 20 years before the Nazis and dozens of times 20 years after them. When you talk about the fall of the USSR, you are not just talking about the fall of communism, but you are talking about the felling of a single empire which took the place of a previous empire, which in turn took the place of the empire before it. During those empires, the Russian people never tasted freedom, nor do they taste it today. Before the Suffrage Movement, oligarchical Sparta had equal rights for women while democratic Athens shunned the gender. Where the first human and civil laws were created thousands of years ago now lays the bloody print of a dead dictator, one who took from another bloody dictator, who was given his patch of land from an empire that spanned the globe.

If you talk to those who dream of the future of progress and push for our civilization to reach for social perfection, they seem to think what they're doing has been done before. Our leaders, past and present, the ones with the vast visions and the big plans, they saw history as progressive. They saw the moments of humanity individual and apart from other moments. What they didn't know is these things they pine for are not new nor are they special if you put them up against the rest of history. The tale of human civilization shows we human beings, and our human nature, is consistent in its ability to bring us to greats highs like Babylon and its laws, Sparta's equality among the sexes, Athens' experiment with democracy, the Bill of Rights, the liberation of Europe from Nazi, then Soviet tyranny; and in its ability to bring us people like bloody Nero, the Athenian mob, Spartan infanticide, Persian tyranny and murder, the antebellum slave trade, the Islamist terrorist blowback of the Cold War. And all these things are just customs or events in the life time of our modern nations. Dare we think of what could come in our lifetime that may rival the fall of Rome, the Spartan-Athenian War or the Second World War?

When the television told me change is on the way, or a spry newborn revolutionary wanted me to ride the tide of liberation, I followed. When the bombs dropped on Belgrade in 1999, I thought it was new. When the towers fell, I thought it was new. Even when our President was elected last November, I still had that feeling of history. And yet, it wasn't truly there. There was something repetitive about it. Something old. His name was different, his voice was different, even his skin was different, but I'd be damned if I didn't think I saw a tinge of our past, let alone the past of Western civilization, in it. This is why we can't ignore the clues of our past and the words of our Founders. They saw the past, they read the histories and they knew the follies of narcissistic peoples. They enshrined the highs and build walls to prevents the lows. There's a reason they talked and wrote of God-given rights and of human nature and not of the rights we may have later or of the need to implement social justices and save humanity. It's not because they wanted to inspire us to run headstrong into the future, spreading the gospel we think we read in our nation's events, taking for granted that we are safe in our democracy (nay, republic). It's because they wanted to warn us against thinking our future was new, that our actions are unique and that our choices are impossible to fathom from so far in the past.

I don't know what will happen in the future, but what I know is I see the signs of human consistency. It could be before I die or after I die, but if we do not heed to the histories of our human nature, we shall become an example to the future republicans of some lucky, distant nation.

Cross-posted at Conservative Today

My God Wears A Suit

Most people like to talk about politics and religion just as much as they like to have a root canal with only a shot of Jack to put them under. Other, like me, like my fellow bloggers and others, talk of it, but try to keep it apart. Some, though, don't even know they're preaching when they talk. These people, usually the far left, are astounded when you tell them they sound like a religious person. Welcome to political religion, folks.

For most of the existence of conflicting ideologies, religion and politics were pretty much interwoven. Got a problem with the monarchist next to you? Probably has to do with his God just as much as his ideas. Around the Renaissance, politics and religion slowly separated, though it was never fully pulled apart. During the 1700s and through the American Revolution, the idea to keep politics out of religion became a mainstay of our Founding Fathers. Jefferson's letter that talks about the separation of church and state was about limited government, not expanding government to suppress public religious expression, as the ACLU seems to think.

Arriving in the 20th century, we come across a new faith, a dangerous faith. This faith comes in the form of extreme nationalism, collectivism, ethno-centrism and secular fanaticism. Governments like the Nazis, the Fascists, the Stalinists, the Titoists, the Khmer Rouge, the Maoists, and so on. These so-called atheists, anti-Christians and pagans did not embrace the traditional religious view. In fact, they did their best to wipe it out. Italy imprisoned the Pope, Germany wiped out Jews, Christians and Gypsies, China annihilated traditional beliefs and monuments, Russia devastated the Orthodox Church; all this was done in the name of not another God, but in the name of an ideology. In the 20th century, political religion was born.

In today's America, we've recently seen political religion rear it's head in the historic election of President Barack Obama. A masterful organizer, the President rallied both leftists, liberals and moderates to his cause. He also had a following that bordered on a cult. School teachers had their students sing songs about him. Artists superimposed Obama on various religious figures. Smart kids like Ezra Klein couldn't keep from gushing huge amount of love onto their blogs, articles and speeches. Many may have voted for him because they liked his ideas, but there were plenty of people that were more enamored with future President Obama than with future President Obama's policies.

I bring up political religion because there are some true believers out there and the health care debate has flushed them back out into the spotlight. May it be Tweets that know the health care bill will "provide". Or the complete dishonesty of outlets like MSNBC who portray armed protesters as racists, but their example was an armed conservative black man who's ethnicity they cleverly cropped out of their footage.

Thanks to our system, we have yet to have a mass movement like that of the Fascists or Nazis or Maoists. Our decentralized society allowed for one part of the country to fall into the political religion trap while other, smarter folk realized the danger and voted the leaders out of Congress or the Presidency. Alas, the way our government is centralizing every year, it may come to a point in the far future where a fanatic ideological movement may have the ability to co-op the entire country. It won't be soon, of course, but I wouldn't doubt that by the time I'm old enough to not get Social Security, we may have to deal with such a movement, but only if nothing from now 'til then changes.

The Myth of the Monolithic Conservative: A Conservative History - Burke

I: A CONSERVATIVE HISTORY

BURKE

"The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations." -Edmund Burke

The so-called father American conservatism (some call him the antithesis) was Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke and his titan book Reflections on the Revolution in France. Burke found the French Revolution abhorrent on ideological grounds, as did many Americans like George Washington and John Adams. Unlike our Founders and their war to retain the rights of Americans, the French revolutionaries had the goal of totally remaking France based on a utopian vision of a new republicanism. A vision that wasn't readily agreed upon to the point inter-factional violence killed between 20 000 and 40 000 people and ended up crowning a little Corsican as emperor. Of the revolutionaries, Burke said: "Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thoroughbred metaphsyican. It comes nearer to cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passions of a man." [1]

Burke's main philosophy was that traditions and customs of states, especially states that have lasted for centuries, are a greater base for a nation than abstractions outside the natural order. Burke's England was one that had evolved from feudalism and monarchy to a country with much more separation of powers and protection of rights than any other nation, though nothing like modern liberal democracies have today. Burke found a slow, stable change much more appealing than the violent re-creation of a nation as the French attempted. In the 209 year since the French Revolution ended France has gone through over a dozen coups, revolutions and flips of ideologies. In the exact same time, the US has gone through one civil war, and the UK has gone through none.

Burke's lineage to American thought has be contented by both liberals and libertarians. Allen Guttmann held that Burke were "utterly remote from American life", affirming a thesis by Louis Hartz that said the only American philosophical tradition was that of John Locke [2]. Burke's adherence to British tradition alienated him from the more liberty maximizing factions in conservatism (F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mieses), but Kirk contends that Burke's defense of the natural truths of man, for which our Founders fought to defend, is what makes him part of the American time line. It's up to the reader's views to determine the authenticity of Burke's views on American life, but it cannot be denied that his writings on the dangers of the French revolution and on revolutionary theories have influenced countless numbers of conservatives.

[1] Kirk, Russel. The Conservative Mind, Seventh Revised Edition pg. 26

[2] Nash, George H. The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945. pg 173

The Myth of the Monolithic Conservative: Introduction

I came across a quite cerebral post by David Neiwert (which I passed on to Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, since its right up his alley) in which he counters accusations of ACORN fraud with examples of real and perceived GOP fraud. He ends his post with:

"So why do Republicans hate democracy? Maybe because they are the party of Oligarchical White Privilege."[1]

Other than being outlandishly false [2][3], it propagates a myth pushed by the ideological enemies of the right: that conservatives are mindless, lockstep robots that take orders from the top and spread them to the bottom, and because we have no analytical ability we vote ourselves into poverty and oppression. Journalist and ardent Democrat Thomas Frank wrote a whole book on the subject [4] with mixed reception. The most accurate of criticism being on his claim Kansas has suffered under the Republicans [5]. And it can go without citation that on any day in the leftist blogging community there will be a charge of Republican/conservative groupthink, most likely using terms and examples recently found at their favorite blog. By no means is this only a left-wing phenomenon as the internet is full of copycats and pusdeo-intellectuals touting their ability to read, cut-and-paste and type quickly. The prevalence of the myth of the monolithic conservative or the myth of monolithic American ideologies be ignored. Both damage honest discussion and the truth of the history of American politics.

THE MYTH OF THE MONOLITHIC CONSERVATIVE

INTRODUCTION

"To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere … The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living." -R.J. White

The perception of conservatism has been tainted by the GOP with its reliance upon the Religious Right and its abandoning of its classical liberal foundations these past eight years. A large chunk of new voters now, as I did only a few years ago, see conservatism as a tyrannical, jingoistic, religion-driven, oligarchical ideology. This is a child's view, of course, but the exponential exaggeration have basis in reality, what small basis that may be. The few overreaching parts of the PATRIOT ACT [6][7], the over-the-top and unnecessary scare mongering for the Iraq War[8], the courting of Evangelicals and the corporatist policies [9] has given much ammunition. One cannot solely blame the GOP, of course. The media, the Democratic political machine and the liberal and left-wing community have gone to great lengths to tarnish the entire idea of being conservative [10], at times disgustingly so [11]. To get the right idea of what conservative thought is one must look at the history of conservatism, its history, its adherents and its many branches and the disagreements among them. There is no greater folly than to underestimate the ideas of men, as we will see.

On Patriotism: Introduction

NOTE: I know have a number of series already in the works, but that's just how I roll. This blog is geared towards intellectual pursuits, but punditry isn't exactly out of the question, just not a top priority. Enjoy!

INTRODUCTION

No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots. -Barbara Ehrenreich [1]

A few months ago in a Facebook group called Atheism, Logic and Truth I came across a plea for help from the dark depth of the Midwest. Apparently, this lonely and persecuted teenage atheist was in dire need of liberation from the roving bands of Christians that inhabit her region and her nation. She wished to be whisked away to Europe where "free thinkers" reside, where anyone can say and do what they wish without the hell of religion to interfere in her intellectual pursuits. Coming to her rescue were the very same well-read, well-groomed supermen from the Continent. In responses that could defeat even the most ardent intellectual conservative, the superhero Europeans railed against the injustice of "ultra-nationalism" and of that damned Christian "morality". Calls for rescues of the mind were made. Keyboard-led assaults on the evil American state, the rabid zealotry of "Jesus freaks" and the "backwards" population were deemed successful. Self-congratulations abound on another mind saved. The world was safe from those damned patriotic Americans.

Then I arrived with heretical statement: "You're wrong about America."

Blasphemy! Ignorance! Close-mindedness! The calls of the intelligent and the sane assailed my wrong-headedness. How dare I defend free speech when there are still churches standing! How dare I call it liberty when a poor teenage girl must endure repeated encounters with people who believe in God! How dare I attack France for its socialism and racism, or Britain for its ban on self defense, or Germany for its economy! How dare I hold my country in my heart and mind! Patriotism is for the small. Patriotism is for the weak. And that is why Europeans will defend their way of life from any criticism!

Patriotism has a bad rap in America. To the outsider, it seems as though the worst political criminals hide underneath Old Glory in attempt to garner support from the stupid proles that inhabit the less sophisticated areas in this nation. This is true, they do. Alas, to the outsider, like the open-minded Europeans, that's all they want to see. They don't see the love in the eyes of grateful citizens when their uniformed loved ones return. They don't see the respect given to the flag by both young and old. They don't see the dedication to improvement of this nation by all thinkers of all colors and creeds. One does not need to be on the right to be a patriot. Some of the most American of musicians are of the left. Some of the most revered founding fathers like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, if living today, would garner scorn from the lesser minds of the conservative movement for their ideas.

In this series I'll explore the ups and downs of patriotic feelings in the United States. From the words and actions of our Founders to the calls for empire with Manifest Destiny to the fascistic years of Wilson and Roosevelt to the present where even presidential candidates reject the flag based on misguided views of patriotism. I intend to prove that patriotism is not of one political stripe or another, but a special spiritual current in American culture. That its not hate that drives one to raise the flag, chant "USA! USA!" or feel revulsion at those who disdain our symbols, our heroes and our culture, but of a deep and reasoned love for the unique nation we live in, work in and defend with our words and our actions.