Exceptional: What Conservatives Believe
_Why are conservatives so mean? For that matter why do they gather in tea parties and demonstrate by the hundreds of thousands against our nice African-American President? They must be racists! At least that's the meme Democrats and most of the news media would like you to believe. Indeed, for the past four years whenever anyone has raised a policy objection to something President Obama proposed it seemed guaranteed that all the talking heads over at MSNBC and CNN would somehow manage to bring race into the discussion. Why, you can't go an entire day on either of those networks without someone claiming that the only reason anyone could possibly oppose the One is because of his skin color. Isn't it reasonable then for the average person to assume that if so many smart and attractive people like these media talking heads keep repeating the conservatives are racists mantra so often, it must be true?
If all you watched was CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/PBS and MSNBC, this meme might be the only thing you know about conservatives and why they believe what they do. But, think about this... If opposition to President Obama is based on bigotry, then a clear majority of Americans are obviously racist extremists. After all, in the last election they voted out key Obama ally Nancy Pelosi and placed that evil John Boehner in charge of the House of Representatives. The same country that elected its first black President just four years ago has voted against him and his party in every major election since. But, if we as a nation were somehow not racist in 2008 when we elected Obama, then it seems that we have suddenly regressed back into our old habits of institutional bigotry and oppression in just a few short years. Or is it possible that the more the American people find out what President Hope 'n Change's policies really are, they don't like them all that much? Nah, that can't be it. Conservatives are just mean and racists to boot and they have hoodwinked the rest of America into supporting their anti-minority biases. At least that's the prevailing spin coming at us daily from the talking heads of the media elite. After all, they reason, it really couldn't be policy differences because to have a disagreement on principle that requires some serious thinking and we all know that can't be true because those same wizards of smart in the lamestream media also inform us that conservatives are dumb too. Like that idiot Bush, and Reagan, and Palin, and Perry and Bachmann and well just about everyone in the Republican party. They are all either mean or stupid.
Well, if all this opposition to President Obama and his policies isn't an honest disagreement about philosophy, then conservatives just plain suck right?
If all you watched was CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/PBS and MSNBC, this meme might be the only thing you know about conservatives and why they believe what they do. But, think about this... If opposition to President Obama is based on bigotry, then a clear majority of Americans are obviously racist extremists. After all, in the last election they voted out key Obama ally Nancy Pelosi and placed that evil John Boehner in charge of the House of Representatives. The same country that elected its first black President just four years ago has voted against him and his party in every major election since. But, if we as a nation were somehow not racist in 2008 when we elected Obama, then it seems that we have suddenly regressed back into our old habits of institutional bigotry and oppression in just a few short years. Or is it possible that the more the American people find out what President Hope 'n Change's policies really are, they don't like them all that much? Nah, that can't be it. Conservatives are just mean and racists to boot and they have hoodwinked the rest of America into supporting their anti-minority biases. At least that's the prevailing spin coming at us daily from the talking heads of the media elite. After all, they reason, it really couldn't be policy differences because to have a disagreement on principle that requires some serious thinking and we all know that can't be true because those same wizards of smart in the lamestream media also inform us that conservatives are dumb too. Like that idiot Bush, and Reagan, and Palin, and Perry and Bachmann and well just about everyone in the Republican party. They are all either mean or stupid.
Well, if all this opposition to President Obama and his policies isn't an honest disagreement about philosophy, then conservatives just plain suck right?
All kidding aside, the thing that I find most disturbing about the myths that the left use to portray conservatives is that it shows how little they really understand us. You know, we conservatives know what we believe and we are pretty darn sure we know what progressives believe (even if they are rarely willing to come out and tell everyone the truth). However, it is simply amazing the number of people who know that conservatives suck, but at the same time, have no idea what American Exceptionalism is and why it is so important to everything that the movement stands for. American what? Exactly!
2=====================================================================================================
Which brings me to one of the conversations I had that convinced me to write this book. You see, I was riding in a car with a relative who is a major county big-wig for the Democrat Party. He had a bumper sticker on his car for one of the few Democrat Congressman in a swing district to survive the GOP wave of 2010. So, I asked him about that election and boy did I get an earful!
Our conversation started when I inquired about the particulars of that congressional race. I figured that, given his relationship with the Democrats there, I might get some useful analysis and new insights. Instead, I got a diatribe about what an extremist the Republican who his Congressman beat is. This explosion of vitriol immediately sparked my curiosity as to what kind of cretin this member of the GOP might be. Is this guy really a wingnut or has partisanship so blinded my relative that he can't even tell the difference anymore.
According to what my kinsman (let's call him "Mike") told me, the Republican in the race ended up getting almost fifty percent of the tally and lost the election by only 900 votes. As a long time observer of the political scene in general and elections in particular, that immediately told me that this particular candidate is in the solid middle as far as political thought goes within that district. An extremist, by the very definition of the word, is someone who is on the fringes of accepted thought and will usually lose a race in a swing district by double digits. Yet, this guy came within a razor’s edge of winning. So, to say that this candidate was a bit too conservative for that district I can easily accept. But, an extremist?
When asked to clarify what kind of reactionary positions this zealot proposed, "Mike" informed me that this wild eyed fanatic believes in returning to having State Legislatures picking Senators.
"That makes him an extremist in your mind?" I asked.
"Oh, absolutely!" He replied.
I countered that I could make a very rational and logical argument for why this view is a better way to select Senators than the current system.
"Does that make me an extremist too?" I queried.
For the sake of family harmony, he didn't rise to that bait, but clearly that's what "Mike" must believe, right? Logically that also means he believes that 49.9% of the voters in his district are extremists as well. All because they believe in restoring the method of electing Senators that our Founders originally wrote into the Constitution. Incredible, eh?
To me, this is emblematic of how blind partisanship has distorted people's minds to the degree that they cannot see any other point of view except their own. While this is true of both sides, it is particularly prevalent among those on the left. Amazingly, as far as liberals are concerned, those who want to outlaw abortion are extremists, but people who believe in every imaginable type of abortion on demand including partial birth abortion and the killing of babies who survive a botched abortion process (which Obama voted for) are not. People who want to go back to electing senators by State Legislatures are extremists (which, I guess would make the founders a bunch of crazed fanatics too), but people who object to each voter having to show a photo ID or want felons to vote are not. People who want to put up a fence on the border and deport all the illegal aliens in the US are extremists, but those who want open borders and amnesty for them all are not. Do you see where I am going here?
3======================================================================================================
The reason political discourse has completely fallen apart in this country is because good people like my relative bandy about such derogatory and inflammatory words like extremist and racist as easily as they draw a breath. However, because they are constantly fed this meme by the politicians and media that they support and watch, they have no idea that it is they who are actually on the fringe. Having traveled so far down the road of their partisan ideology, they can no longer tell the difference between spin and reality. While I feel that I must repeat that I believe this is true of both sides of the political spectrum in this country, the level of vitriol and name calling on the left seems to dominate their discourse. Most of us understand that there is simply no reasoning with the truly partisan. It's like talking to a brick wall or "Mike"as the case may be. Very little can be profited from it. Thus, civil and fruitful discussion of the issues is hijacked. This is actually by design and is all part of the leftist Alinsky playbook, but I'll get to that more in the next chapter.
I knew this going into the conversation, but I hoped that I still might learn something from "Mike's" unique perspective as a Democrat operative. What I found out instead, was how little someone so thoroughly engaged in the political process understood about his opponents. You see, later on in the conversation, I pointed out that I don't support President Obama because I don't think that he believes in the concept of American Exceptionalism. And that's when "Mike" blew his top!
The vehemence with which the President was defended by my relative would make Barrack proud. Yet, I stood my ground. I told "Mike" that I was shocked by his reaction. After all, one would have to be either blind or ignorant not to understand my objections to Obama's Big Government agenda coming, as I do, from a distinctly conservative point of view.
"What does that have to do with the American Dream?", my relative asked incredulously.
I responded that the American Dream and American Exceptionalism are not the same thing. Remember that brick wall? Well, no matter what I said to my dear, dear kinsman, I could not convince him that there was any difference and there the conversation died.
Splat!
Right into the brick wall.
Any chance "Mike" had of learning the philosophical underpinnings of why his party got shellacked by the Tea Party was lost by his stubborn faith in his own ignorance.
4======================================================================================================
This ignorance of conservative philosophy is a huge part of the problem we have here in the United States. When I was in college I had to read Marx and Engels and write papers on the concept of class war. Having attended the hallowed Ivy League walls of Columbia University, God only knows how many courses I took in which the books and professors disparaged Western Culture and dead white men in favor of multicultural claptrap. So, I wondered, how could someone graduate high school, go on to college, get a graduate degree and rise to the height of Democrat party politics and not know the definition of American Exceptionalism? How could one have lived through the entire Reagan presidency and still not understand how important to conservatives this concept is?
It was then that I realized that if this was the case for "Mike", it is probably the case for far too many of our fellow citizens. No wonder no one is able to have civil discussions anymore. No wonder people feel as if they live in two entirely different worlds. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from, then you can't have a meaningful discussion. Clearly, this misunderstanding or ignorance of conservative ideology is what makes it so easy for left-wing politicians and their media stenographers to convince so many that conservatives are all racist meanies.
However, despite the leftist spin that conservatives just want to "conserve" or "restore" America back to some 1950's Father Know's Best, male patriarchy, white picket fence, racist and sexist America, the truth is that what we are trying to "conserve" is the vision of the Founding Fathers of a nation based on the concept of individual liberty:
2=====================================================================================================
Which brings me to one of the conversations I had that convinced me to write this book. You see, I was riding in a car with a relative who is a major county big-wig for the Democrat Party. He had a bumper sticker on his car for one of the few Democrat Congressman in a swing district to survive the GOP wave of 2010. So, I asked him about that election and boy did I get an earful!
Our conversation started when I inquired about the particulars of that congressional race. I figured that, given his relationship with the Democrats there, I might get some useful analysis and new insights. Instead, I got a diatribe about what an extremist the Republican who his Congressman beat is. This explosion of vitriol immediately sparked my curiosity as to what kind of cretin this member of the GOP might be. Is this guy really a wingnut or has partisanship so blinded my relative that he can't even tell the difference anymore.
According to what my kinsman (let's call him "Mike") told me, the Republican in the race ended up getting almost fifty percent of the tally and lost the election by only 900 votes. As a long time observer of the political scene in general and elections in particular, that immediately told me that this particular candidate is in the solid middle as far as political thought goes within that district. An extremist, by the very definition of the word, is someone who is on the fringes of accepted thought and will usually lose a race in a swing district by double digits. Yet, this guy came within a razor’s edge of winning. So, to say that this candidate was a bit too conservative for that district I can easily accept. But, an extremist?
When asked to clarify what kind of reactionary positions this zealot proposed, "Mike" informed me that this wild eyed fanatic believes in returning to having State Legislatures picking Senators.
"That makes him an extremist in your mind?" I asked.
"Oh, absolutely!" He replied.
I countered that I could make a very rational and logical argument for why this view is a better way to select Senators than the current system.
"Does that make me an extremist too?" I queried.
For the sake of family harmony, he didn't rise to that bait, but clearly that's what "Mike" must believe, right? Logically that also means he believes that 49.9% of the voters in his district are extremists as well. All because they believe in restoring the method of electing Senators that our Founders originally wrote into the Constitution. Incredible, eh?
To me, this is emblematic of how blind partisanship has distorted people's minds to the degree that they cannot see any other point of view except their own. While this is true of both sides, it is particularly prevalent among those on the left. Amazingly, as far as liberals are concerned, those who want to outlaw abortion are extremists, but people who believe in every imaginable type of abortion on demand including partial birth abortion and the killing of babies who survive a botched abortion process (which Obama voted for) are not. People who want to go back to electing senators by State Legislatures are extremists (which, I guess would make the founders a bunch of crazed fanatics too), but people who object to each voter having to show a photo ID or want felons to vote are not. People who want to put up a fence on the border and deport all the illegal aliens in the US are extremists, but those who want open borders and amnesty for them all are not. Do you see where I am going here?
3======================================================================================================
The reason political discourse has completely fallen apart in this country is because good people like my relative bandy about such derogatory and inflammatory words like extremist and racist as easily as they draw a breath. However, because they are constantly fed this meme by the politicians and media that they support and watch, they have no idea that it is they who are actually on the fringe. Having traveled so far down the road of their partisan ideology, they can no longer tell the difference between spin and reality. While I feel that I must repeat that I believe this is true of both sides of the political spectrum in this country, the level of vitriol and name calling on the left seems to dominate their discourse. Most of us understand that there is simply no reasoning with the truly partisan. It's like talking to a brick wall or "Mike"as the case may be. Very little can be profited from it. Thus, civil and fruitful discussion of the issues is hijacked. This is actually by design and is all part of the leftist Alinsky playbook, but I'll get to that more in the next chapter.
I knew this going into the conversation, but I hoped that I still might learn something from "Mike's" unique perspective as a Democrat operative. What I found out instead, was how little someone so thoroughly engaged in the political process understood about his opponents. You see, later on in the conversation, I pointed out that I don't support President Obama because I don't think that he believes in the concept of American Exceptionalism. And that's when "Mike" blew his top!
The vehemence with which the President was defended by my relative would make Barrack proud. Yet, I stood my ground. I told "Mike" that I was shocked by his reaction. After all, one would have to be either blind or ignorant not to understand my objections to Obama's Big Government agenda coming, as I do, from a distinctly conservative point of view.
"What does that have to do with the American Dream?", my relative asked incredulously.
I responded that the American Dream and American Exceptionalism are not the same thing. Remember that brick wall? Well, no matter what I said to my dear, dear kinsman, I could not convince him that there was any difference and there the conversation died.
Splat!
Right into the brick wall.
Any chance "Mike" had of learning the philosophical underpinnings of why his party got shellacked by the Tea Party was lost by his stubborn faith in his own ignorance.
4======================================================================================================
This ignorance of conservative philosophy is a huge part of the problem we have here in the United States. When I was in college I had to read Marx and Engels and write papers on the concept of class war. Having attended the hallowed Ivy League walls of Columbia University, God only knows how many courses I took in which the books and professors disparaged Western Culture and dead white men in favor of multicultural claptrap. So, I wondered, how could someone graduate high school, go on to college, get a graduate degree and rise to the height of Democrat party politics and not know the definition of American Exceptionalism? How could one have lived through the entire Reagan presidency and still not understand how important to conservatives this concept is?
It was then that I realized that if this was the case for "Mike", it is probably the case for far too many of our fellow citizens. No wonder no one is able to have civil discussions anymore. No wonder people feel as if they live in two entirely different worlds. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from, then you can't have a meaningful discussion. Clearly, this misunderstanding or ignorance of conservative ideology is what makes it so easy for left-wing politicians and their media stenographers to convince so many that conservatives are all racist meanies.
However, despite the leftist spin that conservatives just want to "conserve" or "restore" America back to some 1950's Father Know's Best, male patriarchy, white picket fence, racist and sexist America, the truth is that what we are trying to "conserve" is the vision of the Founding Fathers of a nation based on the concept of individual liberty:
We conservatives believe that America is exceptional because we are the only nation on the face of the earth in which the individual is sovereign over the state. As a result of this bountiful blessing of freedom, Americans have created the greatest society the world has ever known. This freedom is what has made us an exception among nations and the most free and prosperous. Thus, the concept of American Exceptionalism is the very basis behind all conservative philosophy as President Reagan so eloquently expressed throughout his presidency.
5=======================================================================================================
To amplify this a bit more, here is the Wiki definition which states:
American exceptionalism refers to the opinion that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations. Its exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation",[1] and developing a unique American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire".
Note that nowhere in this definition is there any discussion about immigration, upward mobility or anything remotely resembling the definition of “the American Dream”. According to the Wiki definition, American Exceptionalism is about an ideology. It is a philosophy based on some very concrete ideas, not a dream based upon material or worldly success. Now, the fact that we are exceptional did create the foundations for the American dream and opportunity for millions, but the concept of American Exceptionalism is more than that. After all, the golden promise of America wasn’t that everyone could have a Cadillac in their garage or that the streets were paved with gold, but that everyone was free to pursue his or her own dreams whether or not that included a house with a white picket fence in the picture or not. American Exceptionalism is, in my opinion, not an economic or material model; it is fundamentally a philosophical and political one.
The United States is exceptional because we were the first nation to change the relationship between the rulers and the governed. For the first time in history, we the people were the bosses and our rights came not from men, kings or popes, but from God Himself. In America, we are all equal in God's eye and under the law. We the people hold the power and those powers not expressly given to government are left to the states and to individuals. Most importantly, the Constitution strictly limits what those powers will be as to prevent government from ever becoming a tyranny. In other words, the people are the masters of our own destiny. Think about what a huge, huge deal that was at the latter half of the eighteenth century. Why, it was revolutionary! It was an exceptional idea that changed the world. When a modern conservative, libertarian or tea party person thinks about American Exceptionalism, this is what they refer to.
For people like me, American Exceptionalism is what makes this country great. We are not Europeans or like any other idea of government that has come before or since. We charted a new course and a new concept of freedom. We are a country founded on the principle of maximum individual liberty possible under a civil society and strictly and constitutionally limited government. People are to be given the utmost latitude for self-government and the pursuit of their own happiness. That is what made us the freest society that man has ever known and that is what enabled us to take in millions of immigrants from every corner of the world and give them a shot at opportunity and prosperity. That is the country our Founders created and what many of us feel has been lost due to years of leftist and progressive policies.
5=======================================================================================================
To amplify this a bit more, here is the Wiki definition which states:
American exceptionalism refers to the opinion that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations. Its exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation",[1] and developing a unique American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire".
Note that nowhere in this definition is there any discussion about immigration, upward mobility or anything remotely resembling the definition of “the American Dream”. According to the Wiki definition, American Exceptionalism is about an ideology. It is a philosophy based on some very concrete ideas, not a dream based upon material or worldly success. Now, the fact that we are exceptional did create the foundations for the American dream and opportunity for millions, but the concept of American Exceptionalism is more than that. After all, the golden promise of America wasn’t that everyone could have a Cadillac in their garage or that the streets were paved with gold, but that everyone was free to pursue his or her own dreams whether or not that included a house with a white picket fence in the picture or not. American Exceptionalism is, in my opinion, not an economic or material model; it is fundamentally a philosophical and political one.
The United States is exceptional because we were the first nation to change the relationship between the rulers and the governed. For the first time in history, we the people were the bosses and our rights came not from men, kings or popes, but from God Himself. In America, we are all equal in God's eye and under the law. We the people hold the power and those powers not expressly given to government are left to the states and to individuals. Most importantly, the Constitution strictly limits what those powers will be as to prevent government from ever becoming a tyranny. In other words, the people are the masters of our own destiny. Think about what a huge, huge deal that was at the latter half of the eighteenth century. Why, it was revolutionary! It was an exceptional idea that changed the world. When a modern conservative, libertarian or tea party person thinks about American Exceptionalism, this is what they refer to.
For people like me, American Exceptionalism is what makes this country great. We are not Europeans or like any other idea of government that has come before or since. We charted a new course and a new concept of freedom. We are a country founded on the principle of maximum individual liberty possible under a civil society and strictly and constitutionally limited government. People are to be given the utmost latitude for self-government and the pursuit of their own happiness. That is what made us the freest society that man has ever known and that is what enabled us to take in millions of immigrants from every corner of the world and give them a shot at opportunity and prosperity. That is the country our Founders created and what many of us feel has been lost due to years of leftist and progressive policies.
6=======================================================================================================
When you hear a tea partier talk about taking the country "back", this is what they are talking about. As Ronald Reagan told the nation in 1964:
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
This is not some kind of racist or nostalgic yearning for some pristine and perfect America that once was. It is a desire to restore our country to the founding principles of individual liberty and limited government that made this country exceptional in the first place. That single paragraph is the essence of what those in the Tea Party stand for. It is the fundamental principle that all conservatives and libertarians base their whole belief system on. This is a key point whose knowledge allows someone who grasps its essential meaning to understand what is happening politically in the US right now. One doesn't have to agree with it, but by understanding what motivates those of us on the "right", it allows someone to see beyond the spin of the Democrats and the media that conservatives are just dumb racists and opens up entire avenues for thought and discussion.
However, this kind of dialogue is something those on the left wish the American people to avoid. They hated it when Reagan was president and used the bully pulpit to preach his conservative philosophy. They hated it worse that he was so successful in changing the political paradigm that he won three terms as president (come on, we all know Bush 41 won Reagan's third term). But, what really got their goat was when he made "liberal" a dirty word. In fact, Reagan so destroyed the left's political philosophy in the minds of the American people that Bill Clinton had to go around talking about how the era of big government was over and the Democrat party had to re-brand themselves as "progressives" instead of liberals. Boy, how that burned them!
Therefore, as far as the left is concerned, the less you know about what conservatives really believe the better. The more ignorant you are about the Founders, the better. The more they can repeat their mantra that conservatives are nothing but mean, racist idiots the happier they are. In fact, they aren't just hoping that people don't know what conservatives are trying to conserve, they are counting on them not knowing much about their true history or even basic civics:
When you hear a tea partier talk about taking the country "back", this is what they are talking about. As Ronald Reagan told the nation in 1964:
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
This is not some kind of racist or nostalgic yearning for some pristine and perfect America that once was. It is a desire to restore our country to the founding principles of individual liberty and limited government that made this country exceptional in the first place. That single paragraph is the essence of what those in the Tea Party stand for. It is the fundamental principle that all conservatives and libertarians base their whole belief system on. This is a key point whose knowledge allows someone who grasps its essential meaning to understand what is happening politically in the US right now. One doesn't have to agree with it, but by understanding what motivates those of us on the "right", it allows someone to see beyond the spin of the Democrats and the media that conservatives are just dumb racists and opens up entire avenues for thought and discussion.
However, this kind of dialogue is something those on the left wish the American people to avoid. They hated it when Reagan was president and used the bully pulpit to preach his conservative philosophy. They hated it worse that he was so successful in changing the political paradigm that he won three terms as president (come on, we all know Bush 41 won Reagan's third term). But, what really got their goat was when he made "liberal" a dirty word. In fact, Reagan so destroyed the left's political philosophy in the minds of the American people that Bill Clinton had to go around talking about how the era of big government was over and the Democrat party had to re-brand themselves as "progressives" instead of liberals. Boy, how that burned them!
Therefore, as far as the left is concerned, the less you know about what conservatives really believe the better. The more ignorant you are about the Founders, the better. The more they can repeat their mantra that conservatives are nothing but mean, racist idiots the happier they are. In fact, they aren't just hoping that people don't know what conservatives are trying to conserve, they are counting on them not knowing much about their true history or even basic civics:
7======================================================================================================
How many Americans know that we don't live in a democracy? How many Americans do not understand the Constitution of the United States, what it means and why it was created? Unfortunately, the answer is far, far too many:
How many Americans know that we don't live in a democracy? How many Americans do not understand the Constitution of the United States, what it means and why it was created? Unfortunately, the answer is far, far too many:
As I mentioned before, when I was at Columbia U., I had to read Marx and Engels for two or three different classes. However, I was never required to read The Federalist Papers at any point during my academic career. I had to read them on my own initiative. I wonder why? No, actually, when I give it even a moments thought, I don't wonder why. I know. Having Americans reading the Founders own words would be much, much too dangerous for the left. Better to have them read Marx and his discredited philosophy that left over a hundred million men, women and children dead.
It has been my experience that the more one knows about the founding of our country, the more appreciation is gleaned for what makes us exceptional. However, far too many people on the left are either ignorant of the philosophy behind the founding or they hold it in contempt. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard left wing professors talk about how the dead white slave owners wrote the Constitution to protect themselves and their wealth at the the expense of everyone else. The Constitution, they claimed, was a document created to enshrine the exploitation of the masses by the landed gentry and the political and business elite of the day. Such ignorance made me want to vomit, but I could see my fellow ivy-leaguers were just lapping it up as if it was manna from heaven. I bet you that our Barry was one of them while he was hanging out with the Marxist professors when he was at Columbia.
Therefore, regardless of whether those on the left philosophically disagree with conservatives because they are ignorant about what conservatives believe or whether they just hold those beliefs in contempt, it is easy to see why the country has become so divided and partisan. As far as conservatives and libertarians are concerned, Barack Obama and the modern Democrat party are destroying the last shreds of our liberty that the Constitution given to us by the Founders was designed to protect. That statement sounds "extreme" and "mean" doesn't it? I mean, really, Barack Obama is not Hitler. Is he?
No, of course not. But, to understand why progressives and conservatives are at philosophical loggerheads and what animates the tea party in its opposition to President Obama (in fact, why it is called the Tea Party in the first place) it would be helpful to understand the concept of Natural Law and why it is the one of the capstones of conservative philosophy:
It has been my experience that the more one knows about the founding of our country, the more appreciation is gleaned for what makes us exceptional. However, far too many people on the left are either ignorant of the philosophy behind the founding or they hold it in contempt. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard left wing professors talk about how the dead white slave owners wrote the Constitution to protect themselves and their wealth at the the expense of everyone else. The Constitution, they claimed, was a document created to enshrine the exploitation of the masses by the landed gentry and the political and business elite of the day. Such ignorance made me want to vomit, but I could see my fellow ivy-leaguers were just lapping it up as if it was manna from heaven. I bet you that our Barry was one of them while he was hanging out with the Marxist professors when he was at Columbia.
Therefore, regardless of whether those on the left philosophically disagree with conservatives because they are ignorant about what conservatives believe or whether they just hold those beliefs in contempt, it is easy to see why the country has become so divided and partisan. As far as conservatives and libertarians are concerned, Barack Obama and the modern Democrat party are destroying the last shreds of our liberty that the Constitution given to us by the Founders was designed to protect. That statement sounds "extreme" and "mean" doesn't it? I mean, really, Barack Obama is not Hitler. Is he?
No, of course not. But, to understand why progressives and conservatives are at philosophical loggerheads and what animates the tea party in its opposition to President Obama (in fact, why it is called the Tea Party in the first place) it would be helpful to understand the concept of Natural Law and why it is the one of the capstones of conservative philosophy:
So, you see, a large part of conservative objection to the government takeover of AIG, Chrysler and GM wasn't because we hated all those union employees, but that we rejected the Obama administrations belief that they had the right to violate contract law in such a flagrant and dangerous way and we warned that this would set a terrible precedent that all businesses and investors would take into account in their future decisions. In this specific case, conservatives felt that government was acting as just the sort of tyrannical monster our founding fathers set up the Constitution to protect us against.
8======================================================================================================
Conservatives take Lord Acton's famous quote: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" very seriously and we are convinced that what makes the Constitution such a great document is that it puts clear and precise limits on the power of government. As long as we hold true to that document, there will be no Hitlers and no Stalins. As Bill Whittle points out, a bill can pass 435-0, but if it violates the Constitution, into the wastebin it goes. What worries conservatives is that we fear that the current group of politicians leading the Democrat party don't give a flying fig about any piece of crinkly brown paper that sets limits on their quest for power:
8======================================================================================================
Conservatives take Lord Acton's famous quote: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" very seriously and we are convinced that what makes the Constitution such a great document is that it puts clear and precise limits on the power of government. As long as we hold true to that document, there will be no Hitlers and no Stalins. As Bill Whittle points out, a bill can pass 435-0, but if it violates the Constitution, into the wastebin it goes. What worries conservatives is that we fear that the current group of politicians leading the Democrat party don't give a flying fig about any piece of crinkly brown paper that sets limits on their quest for power:
Just so you don't think that conservatives and libertarians are engaged in some kind of black helicopter conspiracy theory (another neat little media meme to tarnish those on the right), this is the way Democrats actually govern when given power:
Yeah, Congressman Hastings, you loveable impeached judge you, that about says it all. You don't care about rules or that crinkly brown paper called the Constitution. You feel entirely entitled to make up the rules as you go along as long as it serves your interests. But, hey, our buddy Alcee isn't alone in his contempt for our founding documents. Far too many Democrats are either dismissive of the concept of American Exceptionalism and the founding or uninformed about its philosophical basis. While the vast numbers of the ignorant is concerning to conservatives, it is those who are dismissive that really worry us.
You see, when you believe that the government should have more power than the individual because only government can make things right... When you believe that individuals can be "perfected" by other more "advanced" and "evolved" individuals, that road leads to tyranny. Regardless of how well intentioned government assuming power over the individual may be, the end result of any philosophy that violates natural law always leads to a bad place:
You see, when you believe that the government should have more power than the individual because only government can make things right... When you believe that individuals can be "perfected" by other more "advanced" and "evolved" individuals, that road leads to tyranny. Regardless of how well intentioned government assuming power over the individual may be, the end result of any philosophy that violates natural law always leads to a bad place:
9======================================================================================================
Perhaps now you can understand why I told "Mike" I don't think President Obama believes in American Exceptionalism and that maybe I am not some mean conservative zealot after all. Can there be any doubt that Barack Obama comes from the point of view that man can be perfected and that government should become the instrument of creating a glorious utopia on earth? But perhaps, I exaggerate. Maybe I have Obama all wrong and I am seeing things in him that are just figments of my imagination. Perhaps, but explain this:
Perhaps now you can understand why I told "Mike" I don't think President Obama believes in American Exceptionalism and that maybe I am not some mean conservative zealot after all. Can there be any doubt that Barack Obama comes from the point of view that man can be perfected and that government should become the instrument of creating a glorious utopia on earth? But perhaps, I exaggerate. Maybe I have Obama all wrong and I am seeing things in him that are just figments of my imagination. Perhaps, but explain this:
The fact that President Obama did not give the kind of answer that Reagan or I might posit, but something much more like what "Mike" would give is indicative of his world view. According to his statement, the President doesn't believe that the United States is exceptional because of our founding documents and the "idea" of America. Instead, he sees us as exceptional because of the American Dream. Only in America, could his story have occurred. That might very well be true. But, if Obama sees no difference between Greek exceptionalism and British exceptionalism and American Exceptionalism other than economics and social mobility, then what exactly does American Exceptionalism mean to him? Because if we are no more "exceptional" than those two countries, or if you follow Barry's logic further, to any country, then there really isn't anything so "special" about America is there? At least, not in the way a conservative thinks so. So, who is right? Is American Exceptionalism just another name for the American Dream? Or is there more to it? How do we define it?
In the end, the only question that needs to be answered to define American Exceptionalism is what exactly is it about America that makes us truly unique as compared to any other country? That really is the fundamental question isn't it?
10======================================================================================================
Are we the only Democracy? No. Are we the only system with a President and a bicameral legislature? No. Are we the only country with a constitution guaranteeing us rights? No, the constitution of the USSR granted even more rights. Are we exceptional because we are the only nation in the world with a huge immigrant population? No, Argentina is also an example as are the current UK and Canada. Is our land particularly beautiful or special or particularly endowed with natural resources? I don't think anyone from another country would make that case. So what makes us exceptional? What makes us different from Europeans, Canadians, Argentinians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians or Indonesians? I think this quote from this USA Today article sums it up well:
Believers in American exceptionalism contend the USA is in a league apart from other nations, not just the most powerful among them.
They note that the United States was formed around the creed of liberty, not by conquest or bloodline. Reverence for the nation's founding and its Constitution has long motivated Americans, including troops deployed in battle who say they are fighting to defend freedom.
"By 'freedom' they mean something that embraces the United States," Wilson says. "Somehow American destiny is linked to these actions. They're linked in ways the average American couldn't reasonably explain that there is something unique about this country."
And there you have it in a nutshell so to speak. I don’t love this country because I think our land is particularly beautiful, or because we are so wealthy and so militarily powerful, or because we are home to virtually all the peoples of the world. Don't get me wrong. These are all great things. But, what I love about this country is the idea of America. And that idea is the freedom bequeathed to us by our Founders.
As I have pointed out, others, like Obama, are adherents to what I call the “American Dream” theory. The President's campaign guru David Axelrod informs us that:
The president cites his own election — the first African-American president, born to modest family circumstances — as proof of the opportunity and possibility that underlie the American dream. That was a theme of the speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 that launched him onto the national stage.
"Anyone who has watched this president over time knows how deeply he values and appreciates American exceptionalism," says David Axelrod, one of the president's closest advisers. "Precisely because of his experience, he is a testifier to American exceptionalism. ... This is at the core of who he is."
From a philosophical point of view, this interpretation makes the fundamental mistake that most progressives do in equating American Exceptionalism with the American Dream. If opportunity and possibility are what make us exceptional, then that depends more on economic performance and social mobility than anything else. In such an interpretation, it is not the dominion of the individual over the state and each individual’s pursuit of happiness with all its inherent inequalities of outcome that is paramount, but something else entirely.
According to this interpretation, we could have immigration for all and equal justice under the law all we wanted, but if the economy was stagnant, like in most of Europe or the rest of the world for that matter, there would be no American dream of ever rising wealth and social mobility. On the other hand, we could have a great economy, but little egalitarianism, no equal justice under the law and selective social mobility like in China.
Therefore, it is not economics or laws of equality or egalitarianism in and of themselves that make us exceptional or different. It is something far larger. It is the philosophy of the unalienable freedom of the individual and his/her God given right to self-government, first and foremost, as the very foundation and bedrock of our society that separates us from any idea past or present. As Americans, we hold our heads up high and proudly proclaim that we are the freest country on earth, Not the richest, but the freest. Most of us conservatives then make the intellectual correlation that we are the richest simply because we are the freest.
11=====================================================================================================
What has made the American Dream possible during our grandparents, parents and our lives, but perhaps not our children's is precisely this framework created by our Founders based upon their unique and transcendent vision. This philosophy and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution it gave birth to, created a climate for a classless society, egalitarianism and a free and open private sector where individuals were at liberty to pursue their ideas and inventions to their fullest. Thus, it is the fundamental belief in individual rights and freedoms that created an environment where wealth could be created at a rate which allows full social mobility and ever greater prosperity for each succeeding generation. These distinctly American and transcendent ideas of our founding principles is the horse that pulls the cart of the American Dream, not the other way around.
Conservatives, like me, would argue that as our rights to self-government and individual liberty have shrunk in direct proportion to the increasing size and power of Big Government in our lives, the American Dream has slowly been eroded, and some would say, even stopped dead in its tracks. To argue that what makes our country exceptional has anything to do with factors other than the unique philosophical underpinnings of our founding and the clear roles that it gives the individual vis a vis his/her Government is missing the point entirely.
That's not Obama's viewpoint, Axelrod says, with a barb of his own: "The difference is he believes American exceptionalism is a trust that you have to continually renew, generation after generation, and not merely a slogan."
A slogan, eh Mr. Axelrod? That's all you think this prime tenet of conservatism is, a slogan? It is no wonder that conservatives feel progressives have no respect for our founding principles. To say that our exceptionalism is not a basic and enduring principle in and of itself, one that is endowed to all of us by our Creator, is a total misreading of the concept. Unalienable rights are not transient. They are inherent and eternal. Freedom is our birthright as Americans. That's what makes us special and that is no slogan.
Think about what Obama's chief spokesman David Axelrod is really saying. Are we only as exceptional as each generation is? Perhaps the Greatest generation was exceptional but not the baby boomers? No, that is not what is meant by the concept. We are exceptional because we are different from “others” and what the founders created was truly different. If each generation does have the capacity to screw up the country, it is only by moving away from that which has made us exceptional in the first place. The only way to "renew" the generational trust is to hold true to the principles that our Founders gave us and to educate our children as to their birthright as we once did. Ronald Reagan often warned that our liberty was only one generation away from extinction, but only if we surrender our God given liberties that were enshrined in the Constitution. As Reagan warned, the farther we have strayed from the founding principles of individual liberty and limited government, the harder the American Dream has become to achieve.
Which brings me back to why conservatives have such a problem with what we perceive as President Obama's utter lack of respect for the founding concepts of individual liberty and limited government. As far as I am concerned, there can be no doubt that Barack and Michelle do not like the country our founders gave us and want to "fundamentally transform it". His words, not mine. She was never proud of this country until her husband became the nominee and his every action is to increase the power of government at the expense of individual liberty.
But, what happens if, in order to transform our country into something "different", Obama and his progressive allies find it necessary to run afoul of the Constitution? Well, never mind that crinkly brown piece of paper. It is irrelevant as far as they are concerned. As you saw Nancy Pelosi say when asked how the health care law could be considered constitutional: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Well, yes, Nancy, a whole lot of us are. It disturbs us when our President nominates a Supreme Court Justice that refuses to defend Natural Law:
In the end, the only question that needs to be answered to define American Exceptionalism is what exactly is it about America that makes us truly unique as compared to any other country? That really is the fundamental question isn't it?
10======================================================================================================
Are we the only Democracy? No. Are we the only system with a President and a bicameral legislature? No. Are we the only country with a constitution guaranteeing us rights? No, the constitution of the USSR granted even more rights. Are we exceptional because we are the only nation in the world with a huge immigrant population? No, Argentina is also an example as are the current UK and Canada. Is our land particularly beautiful or special or particularly endowed with natural resources? I don't think anyone from another country would make that case. So what makes us exceptional? What makes us different from Europeans, Canadians, Argentinians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians or Indonesians? I think this quote from this USA Today article sums it up well:
Believers in American exceptionalism contend the USA is in a league apart from other nations, not just the most powerful among them.
They note that the United States was formed around the creed of liberty, not by conquest or bloodline. Reverence for the nation's founding and its Constitution has long motivated Americans, including troops deployed in battle who say they are fighting to defend freedom.
"By 'freedom' they mean something that embraces the United States," Wilson says. "Somehow American destiny is linked to these actions. They're linked in ways the average American couldn't reasonably explain that there is something unique about this country."
And there you have it in a nutshell so to speak. I don’t love this country because I think our land is particularly beautiful, or because we are so wealthy and so militarily powerful, or because we are home to virtually all the peoples of the world. Don't get me wrong. These are all great things. But, what I love about this country is the idea of America. And that idea is the freedom bequeathed to us by our Founders.
As I have pointed out, others, like Obama, are adherents to what I call the “American Dream” theory. The President's campaign guru David Axelrod informs us that:
The president cites his own election — the first African-American president, born to modest family circumstances — as proof of the opportunity and possibility that underlie the American dream. That was a theme of the speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 that launched him onto the national stage.
"Anyone who has watched this president over time knows how deeply he values and appreciates American exceptionalism," says David Axelrod, one of the president's closest advisers. "Precisely because of his experience, he is a testifier to American exceptionalism. ... This is at the core of who he is."
From a philosophical point of view, this interpretation makes the fundamental mistake that most progressives do in equating American Exceptionalism with the American Dream. If opportunity and possibility are what make us exceptional, then that depends more on economic performance and social mobility than anything else. In such an interpretation, it is not the dominion of the individual over the state and each individual’s pursuit of happiness with all its inherent inequalities of outcome that is paramount, but something else entirely.
According to this interpretation, we could have immigration for all and equal justice under the law all we wanted, but if the economy was stagnant, like in most of Europe or the rest of the world for that matter, there would be no American dream of ever rising wealth and social mobility. On the other hand, we could have a great economy, but little egalitarianism, no equal justice under the law and selective social mobility like in China.
Therefore, it is not economics or laws of equality or egalitarianism in and of themselves that make us exceptional or different. It is something far larger. It is the philosophy of the unalienable freedom of the individual and his/her God given right to self-government, first and foremost, as the very foundation and bedrock of our society that separates us from any idea past or present. As Americans, we hold our heads up high and proudly proclaim that we are the freest country on earth, Not the richest, but the freest. Most of us conservatives then make the intellectual correlation that we are the richest simply because we are the freest.
11=====================================================================================================
What has made the American Dream possible during our grandparents, parents and our lives, but perhaps not our children's is precisely this framework created by our Founders based upon their unique and transcendent vision. This philosophy and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution it gave birth to, created a climate for a classless society, egalitarianism and a free and open private sector where individuals were at liberty to pursue their ideas and inventions to their fullest. Thus, it is the fundamental belief in individual rights and freedoms that created an environment where wealth could be created at a rate which allows full social mobility and ever greater prosperity for each succeeding generation. These distinctly American and transcendent ideas of our founding principles is the horse that pulls the cart of the American Dream, not the other way around.
Conservatives, like me, would argue that as our rights to self-government and individual liberty have shrunk in direct proportion to the increasing size and power of Big Government in our lives, the American Dream has slowly been eroded, and some would say, even stopped dead in its tracks. To argue that what makes our country exceptional has anything to do with factors other than the unique philosophical underpinnings of our founding and the clear roles that it gives the individual vis a vis his/her Government is missing the point entirely.
That's not Obama's viewpoint, Axelrod says, with a barb of his own: "The difference is he believes American exceptionalism is a trust that you have to continually renew, generation after generation, and not merely a slogan."
A slogan, eh Mr. Axelrod? That's all you think this prime tenet of conservatism is, a slogan? It is no wonder that conservatives feel progressives have no respect for our founding principles. To say that our exceptionalism is not a basic and enduring principle in and of itself, one that is endowed to all of us by our Creator, is a total misreading of the concept. Unalienable rights are not transient. They are inherent and eternal. Freedom is our birthright as Americans. That's what makes us special and that is no slogan.
Think about what Obama's chief spokesman David Axelrod is really saying. Are we only as exceptional as each generation is? Perhaps the Greatest generation was exceptional but not the baby boomers? No, that is not what is meant by the concept. We are exceptional because we are different from “others” and what the founders created was truly different. If each generation does have the capacity to screw up the country, it is only by moving away from that which has made us exceptional in the first place. The only way to "renew" the generational trust is to hold true to the principles that our Founders gave us and to educate our children as to their birthright as we once did. Ronald Reagan often warned that our liberty was only one generation away from extinction, but only if we surrender our God given liberties that were enshrined in the Constitution. As Reagan warned, the farther we have strayed from the founding principles of individual liberty and limited government, the harder the American Dream has become to achieve.
Which brings me back to why conservatives have such a problem with what we perceive as President Obama's utter lack of respect for the founding concepts of individual liberty and limited government. As far as I am concerned, there can be no doubt that Barack and Michelle do not like the country our founders gave us and want to "fundamentally transform it". His words, not mine. She was never proud of this country until her husband became the nominee and his every action is to increase the power of government at the expense of individual liberty.
But, what happens if, in order to transform our country into something "different", Obama and his progressive allies find it necessary to run afoul of the Constitution? Well, never mind that crinkly brown piece of paper. It is irrelevant as far as they are concerned. As you saw Nancy Pelosi say when asked how the health care law could be considered constitutional: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Well, yes, Nancy, a whole lot of us are. It disturbs us when our President nominates a Supreme Court Justice that refuses to defend Natural Law:
Could the progressive mindset be any more clear? The woman that Barack Obama believes should sit on the highest court in the land does not believe in Natural Law or if she does, she thinks it is somehow irrelevant to deciding what is constitutional or not. I don't care whether you are on the right or on the left, that thought should be scary to you. Because when you reject the notion of Natural Law, then your rights are no longer unalienable. They can be taken away any time an individual, a judge or a government says so. It'll be for the greater good, you understand. Justice Kagan, Nancy and Barry will keep you safe and secure if only you'll surrender some of your freedom. No need to worry about those pesky God given liberties, eh?
12======================================================================================================
Good old Barry let the cat out of the bag so to speak on his real views on the Constitution during a radio interview
12======================================================================================================
Good old Barry let the cat out of the bag so to speak on his real views on the Constitution during a radio interview
The Constitution a charter of negative liberties? On who? On the government!!! That's who. Barack Obama does not like the fact that government is limited in what it can or must do. In this revelatory peek into the inner workings of his philosophy, Obama states forthrightly that he believes that our founding documents do not go far enough. Why, he is made truly unhappy with those essential "constraints" placed upon government by the founding fathers. Darn them!
From this statement alone, there can be no question that President Obama believes government should be sovereign over the individual. We know this because logic tells us that the only way to guarantee that the state must do something on your “behalf” is to take away, by force if necessary, property from one individual in order to bestow it upon another. Therefore, to make sure that everyone has a “right” to health care, everyone is forced to buy a policy and only a government approved policy and someone else is forced to pay for it. Where is the freedom in that? To give us this new “right” that government is doing “on our behalf” requires an all powerful state with almost unlimited power to redistribute wealth and property. That is hardly what the Founders were thinking when they wrote the Constitution to protect the individual from exactly this type of power grab by the state.
Can anyone really make a serious argument that the above statement calling our Constitution a document of “negative liberties” and hoping for one that intervenes more “positively” in our lives is in any way consistent with the Founders’ vision of limited government? I don’t think so! If Obama’s laws and his ideas are enacted, how would we then become any different, or should I say exceptional, compared to Sweden? Or France? Or Britain? Or Germany?
We would not be. And that is the whole point. What has made us exceptional and different from the rest of the world are those very constraints on government power and a political structure that places individual liberty and self-government at the very top of the power pyramid for the first time in history. If we fundamentally transform our country as Obama has proposed, we will flip that pyramid completely upside down. How, then, will we be any different than all the other societies in the world in which the state is sovereign over its people? When seen in that light it should be obvious to any reasonable person that Obama's vision of government power will end up making the United States no more exceptional than Belgium. Thus, the President has no problem in expressing the notion that every nation thinks itself exceptional. The exceptionalism he believes in is really just another word to describe national pride, a slogan if you will, as opposed to a revolutionary way of living that has stood this country well for generations.
However, if we foolishly follow Obama down the path of an all powerful state that is obligated to "do" things for its people, will this suddenly lead to the kind of social justice that he and the left have promised? Will there no longer be a wealthy elite? Please! As if there is no 1% in Sweden or in any socialist country. Every society has an “elite”. Every society has their own one percenters. The kind of change that Barack Obama and the left envision for America is just a rearranging of the deck chairs determining which new group gets to ride in first class and which gets relegated to steerage. The only difference is whether individuals will decide their own destiny or whether unnamed and unknown others in a distant capital will decide for them. I, for one, would rather choose for myself.
13======================================================================================================
Few people have expressed this unchanging and brutal historical reality better than Peter Townshend of The Who who wrote eloquently in the song Won’t Get Fooled Again about the real world effects of the kind of change promised by the utopians for generations:
There's nothing in the streets,
looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced,
by-the-bye
And the parting on the left is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play,
just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again, no no
Yeah Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
No matter what any man, party or ideology promises you in the form of your new "rights", once you surrender the notion that your freedoms are endowed to you by the Creator, what the government bestows upon you in its beneficence can also be taken away at its whim. The old boss is replaced by the new boss and the new commissar now controls ever more of your destiny. Maybe the people are lucky and the new commissars are all wise messiahs like Dear Leader Barack Obama who are so all knowing that they can make decisions for you better than you can yourself. But, more often than not, they are power hungry flawed tyrants like Kim Jong Un of North Korea.
It reminds me of the scene in George Orwell's Animal Farm where the ruling pigs figured that the responsibility of controlling other animals lives justified them a a larger share of the wealth and came up with the novel new slogan for the farm collective that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Such was the case in the USSR where most everyone was equally miserable except the ruling elite. While the people were promised all kinds of new rights from the state, they suffered waiting on long lines for simple things like toilet paper. All the while, their leaders all had dachas, private limousines , planes and vast access to the pleasures of life.
The knowledge of this ever repeating cycle of history is what makes conservatives so proud and protective of our founding ideals. We know that they are what have kept us free and prosperous for over two centuries. When we hear politicians like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi righteously declare that they have a better vision for us than the one that our Founders gave us, it makes us wary for our liberty. We conservatives are determined that America won't get fooled again with messages of hope and change like so many others have to their everlasting sorrow.
14======================================================================================================
Many conservatives cringe when they see those on the left repeating the mantras and slogans that once again promote the idea that the State is the answer to our problems rather than glorifying each individual's own pursuit of his/her own happiness. We look at the failure of communism, socialism, Greece, Detroit, California and Illinois and we shake our heads in wonder that so many people are willing to get fooled again. This, too, is behind our philosophical opposition to the nation's first black president. After all, anyone looking at President Obama's record with an open mind would have to admit that here is a man who believes that government should be at the top of the power pyramid, not the other way around. When you add his statement that he sees no difference between American Exceptionalism and Greek Exceptionalism and, thus, does not hold our founding principles as a beacon and example to the world, then it is clear he doesn't buy into the concept of our exceptionalism to begin with. To Barack Obama, Amercian Exceptionalism is just a trite patriotic exercise in flag waving. To those on the left, America is definitely not the shining city upon a hill that Reagan imagined:
From this statement alone, there can be no question that President Obama believes government should be sovereign over the individual. We know this because logic tells us that the only way to guarantee that the state must do something on your “behalf” is to take away, by force if necessary, property from one individual in order to bestow it upon another. Therefore, to make sure that everyone has a “right” to health care, everyone is forced to buy a policy and only a government approved policy and someone else is forced to pay for it. Where is the freedom in that? To give us this new “right” that government is doing “on our behalf” requires an all powerful state with almost unlimited power to redistribute wealth and property. That is hardly what the Founders were thinking when they wrote the Constitution to protect the individual from exactly this type of power grab by the state.
Can anyone really make a serious argument that the above statement calling our Constitution a document of “negative liberties” and hoping for one that intervenes more “positively” in our lives is in any way consistent with the Founders’ vision of limited government? I don’t think so! If Obama’s laws and his ideas are enacted, how would we then become any different, or should I say exceptional, compared to Sweden? Or France? Or Britain? Or Germany?
We would not be. And that is the whole point. What has made us exceptional and different from the rest of the world are those very constraints on government power and a political structure that places individual liberty and self-government at the very top of the power pyramid for the first time in history. If we fundamentally transform our country as Obama has proposed, we will flip that pyramid completely upside down. How, then, will we be any different than all the other societies in the world in which the state is sovereign over its people? When seen in that light it should be obvious to any reasonable person that Obama's vision of government power will end up making the United States no more exceptional than Belgium. Thus, the President has no problem in expressing the notion that every nation thinks itself exceptional. The exceptionalism he believes in is really just another word to describe national pride, a slogan if you will, as opposed to a revolutionary way of living that has stood this country well for generations.
However, if we foolishly follow Obama down the path of an all powerful state that is obligated to "do" things for its people, will this suddenly lead to the kind of social justice that he and the left have promised? Will there no longer be a wealthy elite? Please! As if there is no 1% in Sweden or in any socialist country. Every society has an “elite”. Every society has their own one percenters. The kind of change that Barack Obama and the left envision for America is just a rearranging of the deck chairs determining which new group gets to ride in first class and which gets relegated to steerage. The only difference is whether individuals will decide their own destiny or whether unnamed and unknown others in a distant capital will decide for them. I, for one, would rather choose for myself.
13======================================================================================================
Few people have expressed this unchanging and brutal historical reality better than Peter Townshend of The Who who wrote eloquently in the song Won’t Get Fooled Again about the real world effects of the kind of change promised by the utopians for generations:
There's nothing in the streets,
looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced,
by-the-bye
And the parting on the left is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play,
just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again, no no
Yeah Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
No matter what any man, party or ideology promises you in the form of your new "rights", once you surrender the notion that your freedoms are endowed to you by the Creator, what the government bestows upon you in its beneficence can also be taken away at its whim. The old boss is replaced by the new boss and the new commissar now controls ever more of your destiny. Maybe the people are lucky and the new commissars are all wise messiahs like Dear Leader Barack Obama who are so all knowing that they can make decisions for you better than you can yourself. But, more often than not, they are power hungry flawed tyrants like Kim Jong Un of North Korea.
It reminds me of the scene in George Orwell's Animal Farm where the ruling pigs figured that the responsibility of controlling other animals lives justified them a a larger share of the wealth and came up with the novel new slogan for the farm collective that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Such was the case in the USSR where most everyone was equally miserable except the ruling elite. While the people were promised all kinds of new rights from the state, they suffered waiting on long lines for simple things like toilet paper. All the while, their leaders all had dachas, private limousines , planes and vast access to the pleasures of life.
The knowledge of this ever repeating cycle of history is what makes conservatives so proud and protective of our founding ideals. We know that they are what have kept us free and prosperous for over two centuries. When we hear politicians like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi righteously declare that they have a better vision for us than the one that our Founders gave us, it makes us wary for our liberty. We conservatives are determined that America won't get fooled again with messages of hope and change like so many others have to their everlasting sorrow.
14======================================================================================================
Many conservatives cringe when they see those on the left repeating the mantras and slogans that once again promote the idea that the State is the answer to our problems rather than glorifying each individual's own pursuit of his/her own happiness. We look at the failure of communism, socialism, Greece, Detroit, California and Illinois and we shake our heads in wonder that so many people are willing to get fooled again. This, too, is behind our philosophical opposition to the nation's first black president. After all, anyone looking at President Obama's record with an open mind would have to admit that here is a man who believes that government should be at the top of the power pyramid, not the other way around. When you add his statement that he sees no difference between American Exceptionalism and Greek Exceptionalism and, thus, does not hold our founding principles as a beacon and example to the world, then it is clear he doesn't buy into the concept of our exceptionalism to begin with. To Barack Obama, Amercian Exceptionalism is just a trite patriotic exercise in flag waving. To those on the left, America is definitely not the shining city upon a hill that Reagan imagined:
Rather, the shining city is to be disparaged and ridiculed by snarky left wing icons:
It never shines eh, Rachel? It would seem, that as horrible as you think this country has been and still is, the city is shining fairly bright for you right now wouldn't you say? In our society even an avowed lesbian who had some pretty awful things to say against the government when Republicans were running it can make millions and host her own TV show. American sucks doesn't it? Yep, no shining to see here. Let's move on to places where the lamp of freedom really shines bright like Iran or Cuba, eh?
15=====================================================================================================
While the sanctimonious hypocrisy of Ms. Maddow makes me cringe every time I see her, I can only shake my head in sadness because I know that she is a victim of her time. She is a product of the same ivory tower marxist education at Stanford and Oxford that I got at Columbia. The type of indoctrination that emphasized critical theory, gender studies, mulitculturalism and dead white men. In fact, Stanford was the kind of place where just a few years before Rachel started her freshman year, Jesse Jackson led students with the chant: Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Western Culture's got to go! That kind of says it all doesn't it? But, where did this idea that America and Western Culture sucks come about and why has it come to dominate so much of progressive thought to the point that dear Rachel can no longer see the shining city of freedom that is right in front of her eyes? Well, once again, Bill Whittle has the answer:
15=====================================================================================================
While the sanctimonious hypocrisy of Ms. Maddow makes me cringe every time I see her, I can only shake my head in sadness because I know that she is a victim of her time. She is a product of the same ivory tower marxist education at Stanford and Oxford that I got at Columbia. The type of indoctrination that emphasized critical theory, gender studies, mulitculturalism and dead white men. In fact, Stanford was the kind of place where just a few years before Rachel started her freshman year, Jesse Jackson led students with the chant: Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Western Culture's got to go! That kind of says it all doesn't it? But, where did this idea that America and Western Culture sucks come about and why has it come to dominate so much of progressive thought to the point that dear Rachel can no longer see the shining city of freedom that is right in front of her eyes? Well, once again, Bill Whittle has the answer:
Remember earlier when I was telling you that while I was at Columbia, I heard professors trash the Founders mercilessly as being oppressive scum? Well, here is another fabulously rich and successful progressive icon and product of critical theory who thinks America and all she stands for sucks:
Forget the absolute and total ignorance of Michael Moore. It was the industrial North in this country, not the backwards agrarian South that created the wealth that made the US a world power. But, no matter, it is beneath the level of this conversation to even give this idiotic theory the time of day. What is tragic, however, is not that Moore believes this claptrap, but that so many in the audience are clapping and cheering him. What alarms conservatives is not that Moore is delusional, but that this man was invited to sit in the Presidential Box with Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention in 2004. In other words, this kind of anti-American, anti-western bile is now mainstream in the Democrat party.
It is also mainstream at the number one progressive network MSNBC:
It is also mainstream at the number one progressive network MSNBC:
This trashing of the Founders as "embarrassing" and the tired false narrative that American is stolen land whose wealth was borne on the backs of the slaves has now become fully ingrained in the progressive mindset. Conservatives will be the first to admit that this country has made many mistakes in the past like our treatment of the native peoples, slavery and Japanese internment. However, we are also cognizant that as this country evolved more and more to reflect the true ideals of the founding. In so doing, we have created the freest society the world has ever known. We think that's a good thing.
16======================================================================================================
Unfortunately, those on the left still think that this country needs to be "transformed" into something different than the legacy of the tainted past they misguidedly believe we have. Therefore, to hell with those dead men wearing women's wigs. Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The Constitution has got to go! For those of you who think that I am getting a bit too carried away, perhaps too extreme by making that statement, I was at Columbia at the same time as our President. I know what kind of critical theory, multicultural bilge those Marxist professors Barry liked so much were indoctrinating him with. I've read about Obama's mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
Does this mean that I think the President is a communist? Honestly, I don't have any idea. It is unimportant whether he is actually a card carrying member or whether he just subscribes to the idea that the state should be sovereign over the individual because the ideas of the Founders are irrelevant to the problems of the day. My fears in this regard are confirmed when I learn that another icon of liberalism, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, shares the President's opinion that our Constitution is a flawed document because it goes too far in limiting what government can and should do for its people. In a recent interview, she stated that their are better Constitutions for young nations to adopt rather than our own:
16======================================================================================================
Unfortunately, those on the left still think that this country needs to be "transformed" into something different than the legacy of the tainted past they misguidedly believe we have. Therefore, to hell with those dead men wearing women's wigs. Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The Constitution has got to go! For those of you who think that I am getting a bit too carried away, perhaps too extreme by making that statement, I was at Columbia at the same time as our President. I know what kind of critical theory, multicultural bilge those Marxist professors Barry liked so much were indoctrinating him with. I've read about Obama's mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
Does this mean that I think the President is a communist? Honestly, I don't have any idea. It is unimportant whether he is actually a card carrying member or whether he just subscribes to the idea that the state should be sovereign over the individual because the ideas of the Founders are irrelevant to the problems of the day. My fears in this regard are confirmed when I learn that another icon of liberalism, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, shares the President's opinion that our Constitution is a flawed document because it goes too far in limiting what government can and should do for its people. In a recent interview, she stated that their are better Constitutions for young nations to adopt rather than our own:
South Africa? South Africa?!!? Are you freaking kidding me? Disappointingly, the answer is no. And this woman is sitting on the highest court of the land with Justices like Elena Kagan who refuse to say that they believe in Natural Law. Given all that we have discussed so far in this chapter, how could it be that "Mike" and his comrades on the left do not understand why conservatives are so concerned about the direction this country is headed in?
Conservatives are worried that for the first time in our nation's history, the leaders of the opposition party see America in a fundamentally different way than any other generation has before. That's why we are so adamantly opposed to their policies. It isn't because we are a bunch of racists who hate Ameriaca's first black president, but because we know that once our country starts down the road that denies Natural Law and individual freedom, we will be taking a direction that leads away from what has made America exceptional.
What Justice Ginsburg and Barack Obama reject is the notion that it is the Founders’ very recognition that we are endowed by our Creator with our rights that separates us from all other nations and peoples. And, yes, Justice Ginsburg, that alone makes our Constitution better than South Africa's. In my opinion, it is the most important political idea in history. It is to this transcendent philosophical breakthrough: that we owe our rights not to a king, a pope, a dictator, a government (no matter how democratic and benevolent), or any person or collection of people, but to God Almighty himself. God alone is the guarantor of our freedom and liberty and it is His intention that we be free.
To take those freedoms away is therefore an affront to the very essence of God's creation. Our rights are unalienable and inviolate. To take our freedoms away would be a blasphemy and our whole governmental system was set up as to avoid any attempt at the tyrannical usurpation of those rights. The Founders recognized that power corrupts mortal men. Thus, in order to protect the people from the depredations of kings, tyrants, dictators, busybodies and even majorities of well meaning politicians, they created a system of government which prevents that power from corrupting absolutely:
Conservatives are worried that for the first time in our nation's history, the leaders of the opposition party see America in a fundamentally different way than any other generation has before. That's why we are so adamantly opposed to their policies. It isn't because we are a bunch of racists who hate Ameriaca's first black president, but because we know that once our country starts down the road that denies Natural Law and individual freedom, we will be taking a direction that leads away from what has made America exceptional.
What Justice Ginsburg and Barack Obama reject is the notion that it is the Founders’ very recognition that we are endowed by our Creator with our rights that separates us from all other nations and peoples. And, yes, Justice Ginsburg, that alone makes our Constitution better than South Africa's. In my opinion, it is the most important political idea in history. It is to this transcendent philosophical breakthrough: that we owe our rights not to a king, a pope, a dictator, a government (no matter how democratic and benevolent), or any person or collection of people, but to God Almighty himself. God alone is the guarantor of our freedom and liberty and it is His intention that we be free.
To take those freedoms away is therefore an affront to the very essence of God's creation. Our rights are unalienable and inviolate. To take our freedoms away would be a blasphemy and our whole governmental system was set up as to avoid any attempt at the tyrannical usurpation of those rights. The Founders recognized that power corrupts mortal men. Thus, in order to protect the people from the depredations of kings, tyrants, dictators, busybodies and even majorities of well meaning politicians, they created a system of government which prevents that power from corrupting absolutely:
It is those inherent rights that are slowly but surely under assault by the Barack Obamas and Ruth Bader Ginsburgs of the world. The constitutional law adjutant and the supposedly learned Supreme Court Justice don't place the Creator and the inherent rights He bestowed on us anywhere near the top of their priority list when deciding law or making policy. That seems to be a fairly extreme statement to make and I can just hear those of you on the left (yes that means you too "Mike") having a cow right about now as they are reading this, but it is true nonetheless.
17======================================================================================================
For example, you'd think that everyone who claims to believe in American Exceptionalism would know by heart this profoundly revolutionary concept that is found in our Declaration of Independence and is the foundational principle of everything that is "American":
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
There was a time not so far back in our history when all Americans believed deeply in this passage and what it said about America and our unique experiment in freedom:
17======================================================================================================
For example, you'd think that everyone who claims to believe in American Exceptionalism would know by heart this profoundly revolutionary concept that is found in our Declaration of Independence and is the foundational principle of everything that is "American":
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
There was a time not so far back in our history when all Americans believed deeply in this passage and what it said about America and our unique experiment in freedom:
Warning: The volume level on this video is very high. It is advisable that you lower the volume on your device before playing this clip
While the truth was self-evident to JFK that our rights come from God, it isn't so evident to our Barry. On several occasions, Obama somehow omitted the word Creator when talking about this passage. He got the rest of the passage right, he just forgot all about God:
A slip up? A mistake made by someone who uses his teleprompter too much? Perhaps, once. Twice? A little harder to believe and far less plausible. He has, however, in the past, said it correctly so let's cut Barry some slack and say it was just an oversight. However, it is surely not an oversight JFK, I or any conservative would have made.
We revere this passage as if it were holy gospel. To us, to leave out the Creator is like an observant Jew messing up the words to the holy Sh’ma. It is surely, not a passage which someone as supposedly intelligent and well educated as Obama is should have screwed up numerous times. Does this “mistake” mean that he doesn't believe in American Exceptionalism or the importance of the Creator in endowing those rights on every one of us? Maybe not, but a fair person would have to say that it does beg the question. Because to take the Creator out of the equation, changes the concept of each citizens relationship to the government entirely and opens the door, once again, for men to grant or take away rights at their whim. Which of course, fair or not, most of us in the Tea Party movement think Obama is intent upon doing given everything he has attempted and achieved so far. We think that he and his progressive allies are well on their way to making the State sovereign over We The People:
We revere this passage as if it were holy gospel. To us, to leave out the Creator is like an observant Jew messing up the words to the holy Sh’ma. It is surely, not a passage which someone as supposedly intelligent and well educated as Obama is should have screwed up numerous times. Does this “mistake” mean that he doesn't believe in American Exceptionalism or the importance of the Creator in endowing those rights on every one of us? Maybe not, but a fair person would have to say that it does beg the question. Because to take the Creator out of the equation, changes the concept of each citizens relationship to the government entirely and opens the door, once again, for men to grant or take away rights at their whim. Which of course, fair or not, most of us in the Tea Party movement think Obama is intent upon doing given everything he has attempted and achieved so far. We think that he and his progressive allies are well on their way to making the State sovereign over We The People:
You see, when the idea of inherent and unalienable rights is taken out of the equation; when the Constitution is no longer taken as it was written and intended, but transformed into a "living" document that can be changed, not by the difficult process of amendment, but by judicial precedent and a liberal interpretation of its words by nine men and women, then your rights are not secure. When, with the blessing of the likes of Ruth Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, the government can pass a law that forces the citizens to buy a product from an independent company whether they want or need it or not, the people are no longer sovereign. Now, you might totally agree with Obama, Pete Stark, Alcee Hastings and Nancy Pelosi that the government actually does have the authority to do whatever they want and force you to buy whatever they deem necessary for whatever they deem on any given day to be in the national interest. However, I am sure that you can understand why the majority of this country thinks that might be a bit, ohhh what is the word I am looking for… oh yes… extreme!
18======================================================================================================
The point I am trying to make is that someone who believes in the Constitution, who believes in limited government, who, frankly, believes that it is the individual who is sovereign over the state would never push a policy that, for all intents and purposes, makes the state the supreme authority over all. With the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare, that's exactly what has just happened. Power was stolen from We The People and transferred to unelected bureaucrats:
18======================================================================================================
The point I am trying to make is that someone who believes in the Constitution, who believes in limited government, who, frankly, believes that it is the individual who is sovereign over the state would never push a policy that, for all intents and purposes, makes the state the supreme authority over all. With the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare, that's exactly what has just happened. Power was stolen from We The People and transferred to unelected bureaucrats:
The implications of having the "elites" in Washington having power over every part of your life that has to do with health care is staggering. Even giving bureaucrats power over something as basic as contraception exposes how radically the power pyramid has changed. Why, theoretically with this new law there is nothing to stop the government from trying to implement a one child per family policy like they have in China:
While conservatives like Rep. Bachmann don't want government to ever have that level of authority because of our belief in the founding principles of limited government and the philosophy that underlies it, progressives are completely unconcerned or dismissive of them. What Rep. Bachmann was referring to in this piece was head Obamacare bureaucrat Kathleen Sebelius' mandate that all health care policies and institutions must provide free contraception to their patients and employees including abortifacents like the morning after pill. One of the claims that Secretary Sebelius made in defense of this policy was that the government was just trying to save money by limiting pregnancies and that this was a compelling argument that trumped religious institutions complaints that it violated their religious freedoms. As Ms. Bachmann points out, that kind of reasoning gives the government the justification to enact broad and sweeping powers that allows them to arbitrarily violate our inherent rights.
However, as I mentioned before, progressives and leftists don't really care about that pesky Constitution or our founding principles all that much. Why it's just a crinkly old brown piece of paper written by a bunch of oppressive dead white male slave owners wearing women's wigs! Don't believe me? I can hear "Mike" screaming his disagreement even from here. Well, if the President and his minions hold our founding principles high in their esteem and in their priorities while setting policy, then one would think that when one of the jots and tittles of a three thousand page law violated a fundamental unalienable right like religious liberty, they would stop everything and have a serious and in depth discussion about the issue to determine whether it was Constitutional for them to do it. But, as Kathleen Sebelius herself is about to reveal, that was clearly not the case:
However, as I mentioned before, progressives and leftists don't really care about that pesky Constitution or our founding principles all that much. Why it's just a crinkly old brown piece of paper written by a bunch of oppressive dead white male slave owners wearing women's wigs! Don't believe me? I can hear "Mike" screaming his disagreement even from here. Well, if the President and his minions hold our founding principles high in their esteem and in their priorities while setting policy, then one would think that when one of the jots and tittles of a three thousand page law violated a fundamental unalienable right like religious liberty, they would stop everything and have a serious and in depth discussion about the issue to determine whether it was Constitutional for them to do it. But, as Kathleen Sebelius herself is about to reveal, that was clearly not the case:
Kudos to Congressman Gowdy for revealing a few things about what goes on in the minds of those who will be deciding every iota of our future health care destinies. The fact that Secretary Sebelius isn't a lawyer does not excuse her from her responsibility to answer what exactly gives the government the constitutional right to promulgate a law that violates religious liberty. Since she doesn't have an answer other than to say that she is not a lawyer, it is damning evidence that the whole topic of constitutionality is irrelevant to her. She knows what policy the President wants her to implement and nothing will get in the way of her doing so. Not even that pesky crinkly old piece of paper.
19======================================================================================================
Unfortunately, this dismissiveness of the Constitution is typical of those on the left. One can disagree with the concept of America's founding principles and support candidates that want us to be more like other more "advanced", dare I say "progressive" nations, and that's all well and good. Coherent, solid and intellectually sound arguments can be made for that point. However, in order to bypass the crinkly old paper, you need to think like the progressive wunderkind and Obama cheerleader from the Washington Post, Ezra Klein:
"The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."
Ezra Klein is perfectly entitled to think that our Constitution means whatever he or Obama wants it to mean, because it is sooo old and the text is soooooo confusing. I mean that whole right to free speech thing, and that gun thing, it doesn’t really mean what it says. Why, each person can pick and choose what they want it to stand for. And that's pretty much the way progressives view the Constitution. It means whatever they want it to mean on any given day. And while that might be great for enacting things like universal health care, it isn't so good if one wants to safeguard those inherent unalienable rights that make our country unique and exceptional.
Therein, lies the huge partisan divide between conservatives and progressives. We no longer share the same vision of American Exceptionalism that the JFK generation did. The Creator and those rights with which He endowed us are not in vogue on the left. In fact, according to President Obama's Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Timothy Geithner, being an American citizen is not a right, but a privilege. One that must be paid for:
19======================================================================================================
Unfortunately, this dismissiveness of the Constitution is typical of those on the left. One can disagree with the concept of America's founding principles and support candidates that want us to be more like other more "advanced", dare I say "progressive" nations, and that's all well and good. Coherent, solid and intellectually sound arguments can be made for that point. However, in order to bypass the crinkly old paper, you need to think like the progressive wunderkind and Obama cheerleader from the Washington Post, Ezra Klein:
"The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."
Ezra Klein is perfectly entitled to think that our Constitution means whatever he or Obama wants it to mean, because it is sooo old and the text is soooooo confusing. I mean that whole right to free speech thing, and that gun thing, it doesn’t really mean what it says. Why, each person can pick and choose what they want it to stand for. And that's pretty much the way progressives view the Constitution. It means whatever they want it to mean on any given day. And while that might be great for enacting things like universal health care, it isn't so good if one wants to safeguard those inherent unalienable rights that make our country unique and exceptional.
Therein, lies the huge partisan divide between conservatives and progressives. We no longer share the same vision of American Exceptionalism that the JFK generation did. The Creator and those rights with which He endowed us are not in vogue on the left. In fact, according to President Obama's Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Timothy Geithner, being an American citizen is not a right, but a privilege. One that must be paid for:
This whole notion that being a citizen is a privilege is just part and parcel of the progressive philosophy of an all powerful state. As long as the government has the ability to tax you into compliance at their whim, what activity can they not regulate, what product can they not force you to buy, what freedom do you have that they cannot take away? Unless something is done to change the direction of the court, the Constitution our Founding Father's designed is dead and the state will finally reign supreme over the individual and American Exceptionalism will be gone forever:
And that says it all as far as most conservatives are concerned. Freedom is our highest aspiration. Perhaps, you don't agree that this is so. That's fine. In fact, that's part of being free and, as the old saying goes, I'll fight and die to protect your right to disagree. However, whether you agree with the conservative philosophy of staying true to founding principles or whether you believe that issues of social and societal justice are so compelling that they demand a more powerful state, only a fool or an ideologue like my relative "Mike" shuts down the doors of dialogue and assumes that the other side is motivated only by hatred and evil rather than by a valid intellectual philosophy. It is one thing to disagree on policies or facts or ideology, it is another to cast moral aspersions on those you disagree with. Thinking like that is what leads to acrimony, violence and war. Remember that the next time you hear someone call a conservative mean or say that we are all a bunch of tea bagging extremists.