Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Guy Benson :: Townhall.com Columnist
The New Patriotism
by Guy Benson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


“It is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bring us together.”  -Barack Obama, June 30, 2008

            Throughout the Bush years, particularly in the wake of Iraq's liberation, liberals from coast to coast grew increasingly paranoid about patriotism.  Virtually anything conservatives said about anything could be twisted and perceived as a dig—subtle or overt—at any given liberal’s love of country.  Here are some illustrative examples of this phenomenon, circa 2004:

Conservative A: "I support the troops."

Liberal A: "Dissent is patriotic, chicken hawk."

Conservative B: "God Bless America."

Liberal B: "How dare you suggest that I don't want God to bless America!  For your information, I hope that he or she blesses America, and every other country for that matter."

Conservative C: "I'm flying American Airlines today."

Liberal C: "Stop questioning my patriotism!"

            Suffice it to say, they seemed a tad insecure about the whole thing.  Left-leaning pundits and talking heads continually insisted that Republicans, particularly those within the administration, reflexively tarred anyone who dared to deviate from the party line as a traitor.  In most cases, these accusations were figments of the Left's collective imagination.  Still, to liberals, it was very real and totally outrageous, so America was introduced to a new Golden Rule of politics: Questioning someone else's patriotism is strictly verboten in all circumstances. 

            A Congressman from Pennsylvania maliciously slanders US Marines by falsely accusing them of murder?  Don't bring up the P-word.  A former haughty-looking presidential candidate encourages young people to educate themselves, lest they get "stuck" in the military?  He won three purple hearts.  Bite your tongue.  A certain Democratic leader in the Senate prematurely declares an active US military mission "lost" for partisan gain?  He loves the troops!  He has many friends who are troops! 

The lesson, time and again, was that ascribing patriotism (or the lack thereof) based on someone's statements, positions, or actions was out of bounds.  To use patriotism as a political badge of honor was an unforgivable—even un-American!—tactic of the warmongering, bloodthirsty Bush/Cheney death machine.  In fact, perhaps the purest form of true patriotism, we were told, was the act if dissenting from the creeping fascism promulgated by the neo-con cabal at the helm of Amerikkka's government.

To the astonishment of no one, these once-sacred rules are suddenly vanishing now that the Left has taken power.  In fact, three of the most powerful Democrats in America have already gone to the patriotism well to help reinforce support for specific policy preferences.

While still a candidate, Vice President Joe Biden faced questions from an ABC News about his ticket's plan to hike taxes for "the rich."  The term "rich," incidentally, was defined at the time as households making $250,000 or more—though that figure crept steadily downward as the campaign wore on.  These rich Americans, Biden explained, could afford to fork over more of their earnings to Uncle Sam.  In fact they should be proud to do so: "It's time to be patriotic," he explained, flashing his patented painted-on grin.  (No movement from his forehead, of course).  Got that, "rich" folks?  You will surrender more of the money you work hard for, and you will do so merrily.  Out of patriotism.  Why, to even complain would be unacceptable—don't you love your country?  Considering this new standard he constructed, one wonders what the Vice President thinks of, say, his administration's current Treasury Secretary.  Never mind.  One ought not get bogged down with such distractions.

This past week, the President of the United States abandoned his June 2008 position by eagerly expanding the politicization of patriotism.  In his efforts to woo public support for his entirely pork-free, catastrophe-preventing, crucially-crucial stimulus package, Obama hoped to enlist some Republicans patsies to help create the mirage of bipartisanship.  He succeeded, winning over three whole Republicans out of the 219 in Congress.  For those keeping score at home, that's a .014 batting average for the post-partisan healer.  According to the New York Times, after the northeastern trio knuckled under, the president called each of them to "applaud them for their patriotism."  What a thrill it must have been.  After all, it's not every day that one gets the opportunity to condemn future generations to mind-bending piles of debt, all in the name of promoting a non-stimulatory "stimulus" plan that rewards Lefty interest groups and furthers the sweeping policy goals of the party that—technically—represents your opposition.

When the final deal was struck a few days later, Harry Reid echoed the president's kudos, albeit with his renowned cloying charmlessness:  "I’m really at a lack of words how to express my admiration and respect for the love of our country, the patriotism, and the courage of three brave senators," Reid said, "Specter from Pennsylvania, Snowe and Collins from Maine.  I don't think I need to say more than that."  No, he needn't.  There's a new patriotism in town.  This time around, 98 percent of Congressional Republicans failed to reach the patriotic plateau.  Not to worry, though.  They'll have three years and 42 more weeks, at least, to redeem themselves and display their genuine love for America by supporting the president and whatever emergency/apocalypse-averting policies he may have in store. 

God Bless Omerica.     

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Guy Benson is the host of The Guy Benson Show on 560 WIND-AM in Chicago.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Well.........It could be worse....
Heaven's to Mergatroid Mr. Benson.....no need to sound alarmist......lol....after all, isn't this what the "people" voted for?......lol....

We must give the 'people" what they voted for right?...After all, this is change we can believe is it not? Those THREE repug senators who voted with the BIG O....so what.....it just means YOUR and My grandchildren will have to pay the tab and the piper......isn't democratic party rule great?

I did'nt hear these "spending" arguments when the RINO Jorge Bush and the RINO controlled Congress Critters were merrily spending away with the public kitty....but in all fairness EVEN to them......this raiding of the public trough by the Dimowits staggers the fiscal imagination!

But hey, let's be patriotic about all this....and wave our flags merrily as BOTH parties of political bandits raid our treasury at their leisure....USA! USA! USA!....

(what a sad state of affairs)

Oh....Here's another reason.......
to be patriotic...and in supporting change we can believe in....this was posted on another thread by a fellow townhaller......

"Warning


Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009

It has already started....

Ammunition Accountability Legislation

Remember how Obama said that he wasn't going to take your guns? Well, it seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your ammo!

The bill 20 that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana ) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers.

Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.

Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.)

They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more!

If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!

This legislation is currently pending in 18 states: Alabama , Arizona , California , Connecticut , Hawaii , Illinois , Indiana , Kentucky , Maryland , Mississippi , Missouri , New Jersey , New York , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , South Carolina , Tennessee , and Washington .

Send to your friends in these states AND fight to dissolve this BILL!!

To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to:

http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm "



Wise up, Independents and Conservatives
The Beavis & Butthead/MTV/American Idol society has given us the "Great dim Scam" of the 21st Century. They couldn't win dog-catcher if they announced their specific intentions and then once they're in office they use their minions at pmm(Propaganda Media Machine) and assorted useful idiot special interests to blame the GOP for everything and a few like McLame, Goober Graham or Fagel will agree and then the American people drop the ball again.

The majority wants illegals registered and sent to the back of the line, the majority wants cheap gas and drilling, nuclear and coal jobs, the majority wants an end to scissor piercing of babie's brains, the majority wants a court that doesn't take private property for some scam commerical interest, the majority wants us to defeat terrorists and don't believe its a Republican scam, the majority want gays to go get married with any legal contract/ceremony they see fit (just stop trying to make it a law), the majority knows that Americans will fight to have more guns than the criminals, terrorists and commie gun control freaks, the majority knows this country was founded by Christians and will always respect that.

We get one more chance in 2010. Don't blow it.

The New Patriot Act
Since paying taxes are patriotic (as our Vice-Dear-Leader assures us) and since leftists are more patriotic than conservatives (if you don't believe it, read any thread on TH -- LonTaftHalRobbieSophieDougMellor say so themselves), here's the new Patriot Act:

I. All leftists (minimally defined as including all Democrats, and members of NARAL, ACLU, Greenpeace, NOW, and NAMBLA) will have their entire earnings, personal property, and any other asset of any value at all taxed at 99%.

II. Resistance, evasion, "offshore banking," "mistakes," or anything other than payment of this levy in full on demand shall be a capital offense.

Comments?

CHARLES BRONSON
CHUCK!!WHERE ARE YOU?

The last refuge of scoundrels
The left's latest scam is that Republicans are in fact unpatriotic. After all, wasn't Rush caught red-handed stating he wanted Obama to fail? And if Obama fails, that is bad for the country! See? And what about Pete Sessions' Taliban insurgency comment? The Rethugicans care more about their ideology than their country, and the lefties have to clean up and heal the country.

They seek to recast their own positions as the country-loving ones, but in fact, they are motivated by hate. They want to destroy capitalism, every last businessman and endeavor, the military, American virtues, and any sense of pride in them; and they want to do so under the pretext of do-gooding.

Their pretenses won't stick. No one deep down believes that the left is not resentful of U.S. economic success and political hegemony, the military, American exceptionalism, and American virtues in general. It still bears reminding them of their various quotes and positions, from hoping the surge fails, to Michelle Obama's "never been proud until now" comment, to the Weathermen, to their attacks on the notion of American exceptionalism, to the everyday comments that can be observed or dug up at one's leisure from leftist web sites.

What offends me is the perverseness of their newfound "patriotism." It is so unreal, so blatant a lie, so in-your-face absurd, like an avante-garde piece performed by angsty teenagers. Disgusting, revolting, and despicable. I think what disturbs me about it is the amount of self-loathing that a person has to feel to try to fake a set of values he does not have, and all the implications that come from what those values are and from being faked.

There are no more Democrats
Only socialists. When will they 'come out of the closet'?

Pure hypocrisy

Republicans for many years have played the patriotism card against democrats, so to claim the reverse is dishonest and hypocritical.

As the most blatant recent example, those who didn't support Bush's illegal and disastrous wars were continuously harassed as "unpatriotic", "treasonous", and so on. It was almost as bad with Reagan and Nixon, going all the way back to McCarthy.

So to talk about democrats expanding the "politicization of patriotism" is disgustingly hypocritical.




Doc Liberty VA Feb 12, 2009 - 7:03 PM ES

Comments not necessary. Good plan.

Dr Douglas OR Feb 13, 2009 - 12:14 AM ES

Sorry, Doc. Patriotism isn't partisan at all. It's individual.

And don't let the socialists tell you they're trying to unite the country, because they know that division of a people is the key to their control of the people.

Having said that, socialists are not patriots. They don't give a whit about our country - they only care about control of our country.

Ooops. I forgot. You know all about that.


The New Patriotism
I am now an anarchist......to me, that proves the love of my country. Let's get this terrorist out of our oval office.

Simple Really
Poor ole' doc-dougloss, and the minions who believe the govt. is there to hep-dem. What if there were no more tax-paying citizens? How would govt. function? Just don't pay if you don't believe you're getting your money's worth. Why continue to purchase a defective product? Makes no sense. It's feeding a cancer, which consists of CORE-ROT and BLOAT, located in the part of the body politic known as D.C.

To Highlander Juan
When Karl Rove divided the United States into Red States and Blue States, he did so to achieve political control. Let me be specific: he fostered divisiveness in order to gain control. So, Rove is a Socialist? That's news to me.

When Sean Hannity broadcast his opinion that Americans opposing Bush's invasion of Iraq should be arrested for sedition, he was questioning the patriotism of those who disagreed with the President. He clearly DIVIDED the country into those who supported Bush (patriots) and those who opposed him (seditionists). So, Hannity is a Socialist?

When Obama requests 40% tax cuts in his recovery program in order to please Republicans, and when he appoints Republicans to work in his government, and when he says "To those of you who did not vote for me, I will be your President too", something George W Bush never came close to saying, he is trying to UNITE the nation that was fractured by Rove, Hannity, and Bush. When he quotes Lincoln's words, "A nation divided against itself cannot stand", he is trying to UNITE the country.

To Doc Liberty
Let's see if I've got this straight. To despise one's government is patriotic. To refuse to pay taxes to help run the country is patriotic. To support one's government is despicable and unpatriotic. People who believe in a strong government are anti-American. And Americans who are proud to pay their taxes should be run out of the country. Did I get that right?

Conservative Patriotism is a Problem
What Liberals objected to was not patriotism, but patriotism as defined by Conservatives.

Over the last 8 years conservatives define patriotism on their terms and used it effectively to squash political opponents and win elections.

Over the last 8 years, Conservative Patriotism morphed into Nationalism. An America first ideal regardless of the consequences of its actions. Where God, Country and military became one. They (O'Reilly, Hannity, TH Posters)labled liberals as the "Hate or blame America First Crowd". They could not tolerate dissent. To be an atheist, a liberal or to criticize American policy is to be anti-American or un-patriotic..


Their Nationalism was blind to facts, history, or cultrual reality. They so loved America and its principles that they belive the whole world should be like us.

"Who dosen't want freedom?" - GWB

We can make the world democratic by force. Neo-conservatives saw America as the first "good-empire".

Patriotism can be a good thing or very dangerous. In times of crisis it is used to unite us against an enemy. It allows us to define ourselfs as we believe were are, good and rightous. Our morals and ideals become paramount with God on our side. It is a form of self-worship. It can become dangerous if left unchecked. And when you check it, you become un-American.


lilly IL Feb 13, 2009 - 8:55 AM EST

I just don't understand you. Either you are not well read, or you don't understand the Saul Alinsky 'conquer America' program.

People supporting the law of the land cannot be called separatists.

People ignoring the law of the land (including current Obama team) for their own ideological purposes (i.e. change of government from free republic to socialist state) and who follow the communist program, are invariably separatists. They practice the program of divide and conquer

It is the socialists who separate the "rich" from the "poor" to promote class warfare. That's a separatists agenda.

But, you know, the world just doesn't care. The financial capitalists will just go somewhere there are fewer government controls and lower taxes. The multinationals will take their new plants to countries where the labor costs are low and where the government regulations and taxes are lowest.

Under this schema, America loses, because everything the usurper Obama does is contrary to American ideals, American law, and American interests.

So, maybe you just didn't understand the meaning of what I wrote above. I hope this clears things up for you.

Conservatives are good. Socialists are bad.

lilly IL Feb 13, 2009 - 8:55 AM EST

I just don't understand you. Either you are not well read, or you don't understand the Saul Alinsky 'conquer America' program.

People supporting the law of the land cannot be called separatists.

People ignoring the law of the land (including current Obama team) for their own ideological purposes (i.e. change of government from free republic to socialist state) and who follow the communist program, are invariably separatists. They practice the program of divide and conquer

It is the socialists who separate the "rich" from the "poor" to promote class warfare. That's a separatists agenda.

But, you know, the world just doesn't care. The financial capitalists will just go somewhere there are fewer government controls and lower taxes. The multinationals will take their new plants to countries where the labor costs are low and where the government regulations and taxes are lowest.

Under this schema, America loses, because everything the usurper Obama does is contrary to American ideals, American law, and American interests.

So, maybe you just didn't understand the meaning of what I wrote above. I hope this clears things up for you.

Conservatives are good. Socialists are bad.

I hear it everyday
I'm a college student so I hear everyday how much liberals hate America, and they hate patriotism. They hate both with a passion. They will not discuss it, it's too emotional for them. I have to go listen to some more this morning, first class is the worst.

Pinto Man
Thank you for making my point -see post#15.

How do they hate America and patriotism? Cite some examples.


Pinto Man MT Feb 13, 2009 - 9:48 AM EST
I suspect you are in Missoula. We have relatives in Big Fork.

Anyway, regarding the primary differences between conservatives and liberals is cultural.

Conservatives typically like America, like the way it runs, recognize that Americans make mistakes, but generally think of America as a good country. Conservatives typically believe in standing on their own two feet and just don't like government welfare concepts - they would rather have the churches take care of the needy on a voluntary basis.

Liberals, on the other hand, think America is bad, that we do bad things, and they want to change America to something else. Typically liberals are worldly oriented and say things like, 'why can't America be like the rest of the world.' Liberals like the idea of supporting people on welfare because they believe the government can do things better than the people can.

So, it seems to be a culturally driven ideological difference. Conservatives save and protect. Liberals (often viewed as old hippies from the sixties) are in it for change.

Liberals are easy targets for socialists who also believe in strong government control of individuals and businesses. This is why the two are so often considered the same.

Conservatives keep going back to their law, their history, and their tradition. They tend to be logical in their thinking and don't want change unless it is for the better for themselves and/or their children.

Liberals tend to be more emotional about ideological opinions than conservatives, who tend to be, well, reserved and conservative in their opinions. So, liberals will rant, play the blame game, and call their opponents names, while conservatives just shake their heads in wonder about how someone can be so retarded in their thinking processes.

This description is my opinion only, and I'm certain to get a lot of challenges to my comments. But this is briefly how I would explain the differences to my children.

patriotism
Stedes: Where to begin. The left has codified a speech and thought code called Political Correctness. Additionally, they use the double-speak way of spreading ideas much like what Orwell told us in 1984. Just look at the names of most of the leftist organizations; they all have Democratic or American in the title. That is too offset and hide their real agenda. No conservatives have not changed what patriotism is; it has always been believing in God, Country, Duty and Honor. Sorry it is the left who has changed what patriotism is. Recall what Obama said about wearing a flag pin. To use your logic it is patriotic to call our Marines terrorists like Kerry and Murtha said. If you want I can submit any number of left wing nutjobs who called America a terrorist state but were not criticized by the media because the media believes it also-take Rev.(?) Wright for example. And furthermore what is wrong with nationalism? Look at the examples of nations going to extremes to accomdate other cultures and how they are a mess today. No nationalism is a belief in the exceptionalism of our nation. We are better than the others.

Reply to Lilly
Lilly types, "Let's see if I've got this straight."

Indeed, let's!

"To despise one's government is patriotic."

I never said that or implied it.

"To refuse to pay taxes to help run the country is patriotic."

I said just the opposite. The more patriotic you are, the more taxes you pay. No one is more patriotic than you leftists, therefore no one should pay more taxes.

"To support one's government is despicable and unpatriotic."

I said just the opposite, if one accepts your premise that "supporting one's government" = patriotism. The more you support government, the more taxes you pay. No one is more patriotic than you leftists, therefore no one should pay more taxes.

"People who believe in a strong government are anti-American."

I said just the opposite, even if one accepts your premise that "believing in strong government" = patriotism. The more you believe in strong government, the more taxes you pay. No one believes in strong government more than you leftists, therefore no one should pay more taxes.

"And Americans who are proud to pay their taxes should be run out of the country. "

I said just the opposite, even if one accepts your premise that "pride in paying taxes" = patriotism. The more you take pride in paying taxes, the more taxes you pay. No one is prouder of paying taxes than you leftists, therefore no one should pay more taxes.

"Did I get that right?"

Well, you took the exact opposite of my meaning in four points, and inserted a meaning that existed only in your imagination in a fifth. For a leftist, that's not a bad batting average.

stedes NJ Feb 13, 2009 - 9:28 AM EST

You're another one who I just don't understand. Where did you go to school?

What has the comment "Who doesn't want freedom?" - GWB got to do with conservatism or patriotism?

Freedom is a state of being. There is no such thing as a happy slave. Once tasted, freedom is always pursued.

So, I ask you, who doesn't want freedom? Can you name someone?

None
"And furthermore what is wrong with nationalism?

Plenty..!

Yes, all nations have a form of nationalism. But that dosesn't make it right.

It is a primitive form of uniting people. You become enamored with your ideals and it excludes people who do not think like you. It squashes dissent.

It promotes group acceptance rather than intellectual analysis. It is emotional and therefore dangerous when you are rightous and have the worlds strongest military and God is on your side. You become blind to consequneces of your actions.

"it has always been believing in God, Country, Duty and Honor. Sorry it is the left who has changed what patriotism is"

When you say being patriotic means believing in God..Are you saying atheists are not patriots? Are un-American?

I have not challanged duty and honor for one's country. We were disagree is how those terms are applied in a patriotic sense.

I think challanging the status quo to grow and evolve makes us a better country. To a Conservative, keeping the status quo and tradition is paramount. Criticism is not tolerated. Blind loyality is.

Your right liberals are challanging the status quo of how patriotism is defined. And that is what folks on the right view as unpatriotic.


patriotism
Stedes: Good grief. The intolerant left does not like to be challenged. Okay, let's start. "I think challanging the status quo to grow and evolve makes us a better country." Oh and multiculturalism has been a boon to the nation? List just one good thing multiculturalism has done for the US? When did the dissolution of a nation become, one patriotic, and two good? Evolve to what? Look at Europe specifically UK, France, Netherlands, etc and tell me that multiculturalism has been good for their socieities? Their patriotism has been usurped by multiculturalism. What is wrong with uniting people? It helped us in WWI, WWII. Your fifth para is undecipherable so I cannot comment. OMG a typical comment from someone who chids us that do beleive in God. No atheists can be patriotic but those like Nedow who attempt to separate us because of their zealotry are harmful to the republic. So your form of patriotism is to evolve to a socialist nations??? What else could you mean by evolving? Accepting child pornography, euthanisia, abortoion??? THis is your patriotism? This is your evolving nation? Because we conservatives believe in the republic and well yes we believe in status quo of the Constitution that it is not an ever changing document.. Last para: guilty as charged. And I'll take my version of patriotism to any VFW, DAV, or military hospital any day and let them choose between you and your version and mine. Until your last para, you had a good argument. But your blind "patriotism" to leftist ideology emerged.

None
Your all over the place, putting words in mouth and making leaps and assumptions of what I am talking about. You are arguing against things that I am not even talking about.

Instead of putting words in mouth and make assumptions, just ask me what I mean. instead you use it as a soap box to attack.

I can't respond to an angry incoherent rant and hatred toward liberalism. Your not listening. Thats the problem conservative patriotism. Just wave the flag and attack liberals.

patriotism
Stedes: Boo hoo. You were challenged and you cannot continue the debate so you use the victim card. Typical. I was answering you on just about each point. I went where you were going. If you can't make good arguments then go to HP or Kos where you are with other simple minded dolts.

patriotism
Stedes: Boo hoo. You cannot continue the debate so you attempt to denigrate my remarks. I attempted to follow your argument. I attempted to go where you were going. Nice try. Go play with Kos or HP where you will not be intellectually challenged.

patriotism
let me see if i got this straight. all the house republicans vote against the stimulus. then when one of them is asked why he says they are taking lessons from the taliban on insurgency and how to undermine a democratically elected government. the same taliban who are killing our troops in afghanistan. so the republicans are being patriotic and supporting the troops by starting an alliance with the taliban? is this the gist of the right wing's argument?

sorry
Ooops! Sorry about the double post. Mea culpa. Computer glich???

Send back your rebate
send back your rebate check and refuse to use any stimulus money, if at all possible. show congress you don't want to burden your children with wasteful spending. they won't listen to us unless we speak out and hit them where it hurts!

Stedes
Nationalism is basically driven by ethnicity. For example, the Koreans are pro-Korean because they like their language and their culture. They might cooperate with another country for mutual gain, but they're going to remain most comfortable with their own nation. This is lessened somewhat when they come to this country or move to another one. They let go of the nationalism, but hang onto the ethnicity. They will still speak Korean and teach their children their culture. Their American children naturally let go of some of that ethnicity as they become American nationals.

I find it odd that most liberals get all over conservatives for suggesting that people ought to assimilate into our culture. There's this huge screaming that we're "destroying" cultures. Yet, there you write, nationalism is bad. Yet nationalism is a by-product of ethnicity. To say, I'm an American, but I should not support my own country more than I support Korea is to set it up so that if Korea ever goes to war against us, our people won't know which side to defend.

Don't you see a problem with that?

lilly
Karl Rove didn't divide this country into red and blue states, the people of America did that. Much of our political ideology has to do with our life circumstances. For example, if you look at a political affiliation map of Illinois, you'll find that the blue areas are mostly in and around the large cities while the "rural" part of the state is red. (You knew that, right?) Why would that be? Well, I'm going to hazard to guess that people living in and around the larger cities have been educated in those metropolitan schools by teachers educated in those metropolitan schools. They are employed largely in service industies or they're union workers. They live a much more dependent lifestyle. For ex., if their power goes down, they sit in the dark and freeze because they don't have auxillary heat sources. The people in those red areas were educated there by teachers who were educated there. They work construction, manufacturing and farming, or support industries for those industries. They are much more independent in their lifestyle. They have a stack of wood out back, so when the power goes down, they fire up the woodstove and live.

The blues/liberals see government as their babysitter and safety net. The reds/conservatives see government as a big pain the neck that impedes their ability to get their work done. Karl Rove didn't need to do that. He just pointed out that the divide already existed and that one party represented the reds better than the other party did.

Culture largely divided the country into red and blue "states".

Red/Blue Misnomers
There is really no such thing as truly blue states. Look at a political affiliation map in red and blue and you will quickly see that even California has large swaths of red zones. In most cases, blue areas are centered around cities, so in there's a large city in a state, you will find the vote swinging toward blue. In one of the most conservative states in the union, Alaska, Anchorage is a somewhat blue area. Political affiliation seems to be a function of culture, particularly urban culture, than we might normally suppose.

aurora
yeah thats a great theory. i live in a rural area but work in an urban area. one of the guys i worked with inherited a farm from his parents. he has never farmed or planted anything. yet every year he gets a 6 figure check from the government for doing absolutely nothing. man he used to get mad when we'd laugh and tell him it sounded like welfare. like finding money on the ground lol. and this guy was the laziest guy i ever met in my life. i hated being on his shift. basically useless. so your theory really doesn't hold water in illinois. at least from my perspective.

aurorawatcher
I've been saying for years this is a fight of country vs city lifestyle.

People like roy complain about farmers being paid not to farm - but never mention that the GAS tax of those who live rurally and MUST drive is poured into metro rail systems for the cities. We all get and we all give.

If both sides were smart they'd start to learn how the other half lives. I lived in the city for 20 years - country 20+ and both places dislike each other. But one can not survive without the other.

Note to roy - I agree no subsidies OR price regulation for agriculture, then you'll find out just what food really costs when farmers sell off their land, and there are more people than food.

One of my favorite saying is:

"Never criticize a farmer with your mouth full."


lilly
To despise one's government is patriotic. lilly

Jo: Who dispises government? I love a law abiding constitutional REPUBLIC.

To refuse to pay taxes to help run the country is patriotic. lilly

Jo: So the Boston tea party was the wrong thing to do?

To support one's government is despicable and unpatriotic. lilly

Jo: To BLINDLY support one's government? well then yes.

People who believe in a strong government are anti-American. lilly

Jo: Do you mean strong or controlling? If you mean strong as in we'll crush anyone who messes with us - then heck ya. BUT if you mean strong as in "I'm going to FORCE you to do as I say - strong". Then no.

And Americans who are proud to pay their taxes should be run out of the country. lilly

Jo: Americans who love taxation perhaps ought ought review the original context of the constitution. And the tenth amendment.

Lilly - what do you think our forefathers would say about this debacle? One thing they did say was this (Declaration of Independence):

... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the *consent of the governed*, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,...



jo
i don't know how paying a small gas tax is equivalent to a farmer receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of welfare. and aren't you guys always screaming about the free market. that it will take care of everything? farmers and corporate welfare doesn't sound very free market to me.

Roy
Most conservatives would not argue that subsidies are not free market. I personally believe farmers could survive without subsidies. Of course, then there's the pressure they receive from realtors to sell their land to encourage urban sprawl. ONce you've plowed under the farms and built condos, it's sort of hard to return to the land to productive farming. Although I still don't like it, I understand the rationale that you want to subsidize farmer-owners for land they don't farm so that they don't develop into housing (or whatever) so that it is available if we need it. Being the granddaughter of a Depression-era farmer, I can envision a wide range of eco-disasters that might require we turn away from currently farmed land to that currently fallow land. You want it there, even if it's not being used.

However, understanding it rationally does not mean I agree with it philosophically.

I think if you were to look at a comparison of fuel taxes to farm "welfare" you'd find out there's not a great disparity.

Oh, and who gave us farm "welfare"
Yes, that would be the Democrats, back when they were buying farmers votes, before many farmers realized that Dems hate their lifestyle and basic beliefs and think they're all idiots.

I know an active farmer from Tennessee who is also a practicing psychiatrist, which sort of puts the stupid farmer stereotype to the test. As a conservative (odd, for a psychitrist) he puts his money where his mouth is and claims he has refused subsidies for decades. I applaud him for that.

aurora
i do too

1933 Germany = 2009 America

What always troubled me about the Holocaust was how a free people could have elected Adolph Hitler chancellor when he made it very clear during the campaign what he planned to do. I think the answers to 1933 Germany come from 2009 America.

So many people just don’t care and are allured to charismatic personalities. As Barack Obama and the Democrats strive to make us the United Socialists of America, I wonder how many people see the parallels between the rise of Nazism in Germany and the rise of socialism in America.

Below are responses from family, friends, coworkers and neighbors who shrug me off when I talk to them about America becoming a socialist country. How easily their responses could have been the responses of average German citizens who voted for Adolph Hitler because they believed Hitler would bring dramatic change – and he did.

• "The news is so depressing. I only listen for the traffic and weather."

• "Can it be any worse than it has been for the last 8 years?"

• "Why get all worked up about politics when I'm just one person?"

• “I’m old. Most of his policies won’t even affect me.”

• “That was all campaign rhetoric. He won’t really make many big changes.”

• "Oh, come on! He just took office and you're already attacking his policies. Can't you give him a chance?"

It’s not too late to save America – YES WE CAN!

roy
i don't know how paying a small gas tax is equivalent to a farmer receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of welfare. --roy

----------------

First off up to 75 cents per gallon is not "small" and it adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, second, you'd see that I essentially agree with you.

I think it is time that people who complain about farmers -- to release said farmers out of price fixing regulatory government bondage, and let the chips fall where they may. Same for fuel sources, don't you think? Let the country keep their 50 - 75 cents a gallon.

If consumers had to pay MARKET value on necessities it may be GOOD for Americans who under value those who provide for them. Let supply/demand take control, after all you are NOT entitled to food (or fuel or health care or education ...), you have the right to the pursuit of it.

If you ever got what you wished for you'd be humbled.

aurorawatcher and roy
I agree. I AM a rancher who does not take subsidies. Yet with new BO legislation I could be subject to $50 tax per live stock animal for flatulence emmision, - this is absurd, and WILL put me out of business. -- as a side note, I wonder how they will tax the Alaskan volcano for it's gas?

Anyhow, The fight should be the people against the GOVERNMENT not people among people.

The governments spin is designed to keep us divided. I'm NOT saying we should have no government (as so many here like to claim) I'm saying we (the people together) ought to control the government -- no party lines standing in the way. United we stand is true today if we can get over the "my party / your party" city/rural adversity.

roy - be careful what you wish for, the subsidies are for the BIG BIG (primarily mid-west)farmers, not the average farmer, but if you insist then fine by me (I will still eat, will you?), long as it includes deregulating prices on product. I'd like to get what I think I should GET for my livestock for a change. (Especially after the ethanol program raised my feed prices.)

Imagine , corn pops, milk, beef, chicken, salad fixings etc... all falling in line with *production* or worse - lack of. It would be an EYE opener.

jo
thats fine. now if only we could get the corporations off welfare we'd be set.

roy

jo
thats fine. now if only we could get the corporations off welfare we'd be set. roy

===========================

On this we agree, no bailouts for anyone - including people who pay no tax and LIVE on welfare.

Side note: for those who say "Hey *I* pay tax from MY pay check"... ask yourself a simple question -- do you get it all PLUS SOME back in a tax refund? If so, you do NOT pay tax (with the exception of some state's income tax), but someone is paying you the extra you got back for child credits, or interest deductions etc...

Stop welfare bailouts... with me on this roy?

My kids came home the other day marveling at all the "fun" food at their friends home. Chips, sodas, candy... they are on welfare. The father works, the Mother collect welfare, they are not married because they play the system. They OWN acres of land, they have automobiles, etc... but because she spits out kids and they are not married they can get assistance.

I'm all for not helping anyone, and leaving it up to charities, and communities to solve problems, but it is a two way street roy, are you willing to say no to welfare handouts for the *alleged poor*?

jo
well clinton and the republicans supposedly fixed welfare. i don't think you can be on it for life anymore. but hey remember back in the day when you had a tax penalty for being married? how stupid was that? they want to promote marriage and stable 2 parent families but they punish you for gettimg married.

roy - IL
I agree with no tax penalty for married couples.

(See we agree!) It was stupid. BOTH parties have done some pretty stupid things in the past, no argument here. This is why i say we have to stop bickering over what party did what and start getting rid of the individuals who do us all wrong. (Starting with the current spending debacle.)

As for welfare - thousands play the system, the only way to get them off the dole, is to make them work for it. For example - Why not have able food stamp recipients work on local farms (or other labor jobs - replacing illegals). The farm (or other labor job) then sends their wages - to pay for the welfare program they are on. I'd wager if they had to pick tomatoes all day long on their day off to put food on the table, they'd suddenly find a way to feed themselves.

This plan wold greatly reduce welfare, but politicians would never pass it, because they'd lose the lazy welfare recipients votes.

I'm all for a hand up, just not a hand out. (And I DO care about thse who truly can not help themselves, they are not who I'm talking about in this discussion.)

We need someone who has the guts to say no in spite of losing votes, before it's too late. The scale is rapidly tipping to dependency on government. This will not stop at socialism, it will end in communism. As it has many times in history.


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.