Tuesday, September 28, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesPolitics vs. Patriotism: A Proposition

Politics vs. Patriotism: A Proposition

   

       A comment by Andy McCarthy over at NRO stirred this thought – Why is it that, Bush v. Gore notwithstanding, the Democrats always win the close ones?  What Andy said was that, in reference to the birther issue, he could understand why mainstream conservatives  were irritated at the  fringe elements pushing the Birth Certificate controversy –  it somehow made them look bad.   But he couldn’t understand why more anger wasn’t directed at Obama for the way he handled the issue.  Well, Andy, we say, our polite side tries to be fair in all issues, to uphold the rule of law and the codes of conduct and such things as benign intent and faith in our fellow man and, dare we say it? , the concept of Christian charity and forgiveness.  We do not automatically assume the worst in our opponents, for sometimes  ‘it’s just politics’ when they do it.    We’re all patriots in the end, right?

      Well, maybe.  We all remember Hillary Clinton’s famous tirade about her right to criticize the Bush administration, or any administration, blah, blah blah, claiming the patriotic high ground in so doing.  In our critiques of the left, we cast them as hypocrites for getting their knickers in a knot when we dog on their side and then turning around and foaming at the mouth when our pols dare to advance a conservative plank.  Prime examples of this came out in the last two years when our pundits and observers contrasted the signs carried and speeches made by Tea Partiers at their various rallies with those displayed and uttered by the leftists at theirs.  Hypocrisy, yes?

        Yes, and no.  What we often fail to acknowledge is that when they do it, they are being completely candid in their assertion that they are patriotic.  They may have some different conceptions or cognitions of what this whole America thing is about, but except for the radical anarchists, of which there are perhaps a few too many, still, the loyal opposition is somehow intricately able to separate politics from patriotism while engaging in both at the same time.  That is, they have come to the realization that they can play politics and not admit it, assert patriotism and, while serious or not, can get away with it.  They have become masters at using the Constitution of the United States of America as a partisan political tool while denying their opposition that same right. A century’s worth of legislative initiatives points to their success. And they do it because all is fair in love and war and politics.

       One of their favorite ploys when it comes to legislation and pushing their agendas is the “bipartisan” feint.  They ‘courageously’ find and identify a problem and propose ‘bipartisan’ solutions to said problems.  Not only does that sound good, but our side, noticing that the Constitution doesn’t say anything about political parties, just  ‘We the people” and ‘promoting the general welfare’,  is often politically emasculated by this Democrat tactic, even if somewhere in the recesses of our Constitutional memory there is this nagging concept of limited government and those powers reserved.  So too often our side goes along or is unable to articulate its opposition, so that the D’s get the credit for both identifying the problem, real or not, and proposing a solution, and bonus points if they persevere in a floor vote.  It’s a win-win-win for them.

     So the proposition is that our guys and gals start playing politics.   Heretofore, they granted the opposition the right to do it, but they chafed under any accusation of partisanship on their part and they most always lost the close ones.  Even when they have majorities, the flag doesn’t get advanced very far because they’re just too doggoned nice.  They are somehow going to have to be convinced, by we who send them to represent us, that playing politics is patriotic.  If they claim to be the party of Lincoln, then they need to look no further than Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war to know that whatever tricks their innocent little minds might come up with to outwit the Dems, when it comes to saving the Republic, it would be hard to top that little strategem for boldness.  Talk about being mean-spirited!

     The Democrat Party has made no secret of its intent to nationalize health care, going back at least a decade or two, and for the hard core left wing, well, that’s always been a goal.  That can be said to be a signature accomplishment, not just for Barack Obama, but for the Socialist Dems in general.  Overturning that legislation, gutting it, or whatever results from the actions of the ascendant Republicans in Congress and the lawsuits filed by the states, is going to be a major chore, while us frogs in the pot, as one of our colleagues recently reminded us, get used to what the opposition wrought.  As conservatives, we cannot conceive of a similar legislative accomplishment because we believe in limited government.  But we could and should conceive of an objective in the constitutional sphere of resurrecting those features of the document that formerly protected us from the intrusions and expansions we so detest.  We are here thinking of positive actions by all levels of  elected representation to assert primarily the Tenth Amendment, but also other applicable clauses, articles  and amendments.  Creative ways to do this will be needed.  Some are being tried out by the states as we speak. One such shining example is that of the State of Montana, which passed legislation stating that firearms made, sold, owned and used in Montana were the business of Montanans and not one iota or aspect of the Federal Government.  Bravo, Montana. Another statement made was that the southern border of Arizona happens to coincide with a part of the border of the whole United States, but it is still the border of Arizona, and Arizonans have every right to protect it, as well as to enforce US law.   But this is going to have to be a major theme, this reclaiming of the Constitution.  And it’s going to necessarily be political. 

     Inevitably there will be a hue and cry from the other side at whatever tactics our side adopts or statements of purpose are signed onto.  Aspersions will be cast.  Slanders and slurs will be hurled.  In the face of that, we can only point to what the founders endured when they put forth the ordaining and establishing papers.  But they persevered.  And we are not talking here about just, oh, passing a balanced budget amendment.  We mean massive amounts of legislation needs to be stricken from the US Code.  We mean wholesale Departments and Agencies and Commissions need to be abolished. We mean States are going to have to actively reassert their primacy in responding to the dictates of their citizens, and not the Federal Government. It will be constitutional to do so.  It will be patriotic to do so.  But it will require politics.  Partisan politics.  Wrestling in the mud politics.  And no apologies will be required.  It is okay to be political and patriotic at the same time.   At least that’s  how the opposition sets up the gameboard.  So we are waiting for the call of “Game on!”

bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

9 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

9 COMMENTS

  1. I agree Bob. And when ‘they’ start yelling about how we are ‘throwing granny under the bus’ or that we ‘don’t care about the children’ we have to be ready for that. ‘Be Prepared’ is not just a Boy Scout motto, we need to live it.

    Game On!

  2. One of their favorite ploys when it comes to legislation and pushing their agendas is the “bipartisan” feint.

    I abhor “bipartisanship” in its every form. With the NFL Draft going on lets compare it to a player on the Dem side missing a tackle and the Republican running 17 yards for a first down. After the play the Dems mob the Ref and demand bipartisanship, the Republican player would have been tackled at the line of scrimmage if number 17, “Guam Tippin’ Johnson” hadn’t slipped in a puddle of his own drool.

    “You’re right, my friend” says number 99, “Mr Comity McLame” please spot the ball where the tackle would have occurred if “Guam Tipper” could control his bodily functions.”

    3rd down and long with a 1 yard loss on the last play.

    On the bright side, doesn’t Lindsay look good in his cheerleader outfit?

  3. Oh, yeah, the part about “bipartisanship” and how our side tries to “play nice” is a problem and always has been. 90% of the time, when we play nice, we just get played, plain and simple. We make doormats out of ourselves in the process.

    But on a serious side of this, bobmontgomery, I don’t want our side to become like our opposition. It doesn’t phase them in the least to be deceitful and dishonest. And they won’t hesitate for a second to make use of the plight that some of our more unfortunate citizens are facing to advance their own cause. They’re unscrupulous and unprincipled, with the lowest of standards.

    I don’t want to be like them, do you? If we’re going to do that, we might as well go ahead and chunk any ideas of preserving our Constitution, rule of law, justice, and our country’s future right out the door now and be done with it.

    So where does that leave us? Exactly where you said…In a position where a lot of creativity and ingenuity, not to mention perseverance, is going to be needed, while holding onto the things we value and respect about this nation at the same time. And yeah, it can be done.

    Getting out of the pot isn’t easy, and undoing the effects of acclimation is a true challenge, but it can be done.

    • A proper reply would be really long, LH, but in essence, yes we don’t need to be deceitful, or unprincipled. We are not in this just to win elections and gain power for power’s sake. But our creativity an ingenuity may need to be a bit brutal. It may involve calling something a lie rather than just saying “I respectfully disagree”. And it may involve inconveniencing certain subsets of various demographics. And it may involve erecting, for example, stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments in places where certain people don’t want them to be and telling them – “We’ve had to look at and listen to what we consider abominations from you and your cohorts for decades. Deal with it.” How we do certain things may be bold, but they won’t be unconstitutional.

  4. You’re right bob, we’ve been instructed not to listen to Rush anymore so today I didn’t; Mark Steyn was substituting. He pointed out a basic principle after noting that he didn’t think Mr. Trump was either a Republican or a conservative; regarding the BC, he said at least Trump dealt with the media (and the administration) on Trump’s terms, not on theirs. I really think that should be our focus; dealing with the opposition on our terms, not theirs (“bipartisanship”). This may actually be a way of saying to play the game of politics, but minus the lying & pandering that characterizes the opposition. Cheers!

    • And you’re right, Mark. We DO need to do this on our terms– rather than the usual milquetoast Republican terms. We need Chris Christie-type talking points and attitudes when dealing with both the other side and the media, a no-nonsense and forceful statement of our points with a follow-up for the bed-wetters who whine about it.

      And then another follow-up after that to reinforce the point. We don’t need to lie, or deceive in any way, but we sure don’t need to roll over and shut up like the ones we keep electing. (Alexander, Lamar– call your office. Boehner, John and McConnell, Mitch– check your approval numbers. They are not top of the line.) While I don’t hold with radical anarchy, I’m sure up for some congenial anarchy that produces leaders who will hold their heads up and speak out without feeling the urge to apologize for having done so.

      So let’s go ahead and throw those verbal bombs called “the truth” and see where it gets us.

      • Remaining on point is also fundamental. I don’t have the link at hand, but for example I saw a video clip of some jerky reporter asking Mr. Boehner what he though of ending ‘tax breaks’ for Big Oil, and the Speaker responded along the lines of ‘we’ll look at this’.

        I’d have been happier if he’d restated that we have a SPENDING problem, and how we need to cut SPENDING, because we’re SPENDING too much. Like Rush says, don’t try to make nice with them, they’re never going to like you no matter what you say (unless you say ‘ I agree with the Dems’).

        • If our elected officials would recognize the LSM as enemies it would go a long way toward fixing this. Julius Caesar recognized Brutus as an enemy after the first stab of his knife. How many times do these idiots need to be stabbed before it dawns on them? McLame still thinks the shrews of The Spew are his friends!

  1. I agree Bob. And when ‘they’ start yelling about how we are ‘throwing granny under the bus’ or that we ‘don’t care about the children’ we have to be ready for that. ‘Be Prepared’ is not just a Boy Scout motto, we need to live it.

    Game On!

  2. One of their favorite ploys when it comes to legislation and pushing their agendas is the “bipartisan” feint.

    I abhor “bipartisanship” in its every form. With the NFL Draft going on lets compare it to a player on the Dem side missing a tackle and the Republican running 17 yards for a first down. After the play the Dems mob the Ref and demand bipartisanship, the Republican player would have been tackled at the line of scrimmage if number 17, “Guam Tippin’ Johnson” hadn’t slipped in a puddle of his own drool.

    “You’re right, my friend” says number 99, “Mr Comity McLame” please spot the ball where the tackle would have occurred if “Guam Tipper” could control his bodily functions.”

    3rd down and long with a 1 yard loss on the last play.

    On the bright side, doesn’t Lindsay look good in his cheerleader outfit?

  3. Oh, yeah, the part about “bipartisanship” and how our side tries to “play nice” is a problem and always has been. 90% of the time, when we play nice, we just get played, plain and simple. We make doormats out of ourselves in the process.

    But on a serious side of this, bobmontgomery, I don’t want our side to become like our opposition. It doesn’t phase them in the least to be deceitful and dishonest. And they won’t hesitate for a second to make use of the plight that some of our more unfortunate citizens are facing to advance their own cause. They’re unscrupulous and unprincipled, with the lowest of standards.

    I don’t want to be like them, do you? If we’re going to do that, we might as well go ahead and chunk any ideas of preserving our Constitution, rule of law, justice, and our country’s future right out the door now and be done with it.

    So where does that leave us? Exactly where you said…In a position where a lot of creativity and ingenuity, not to mention perseverance, is going to be needed, while holding onto the things we value and respect about this nation at the same time. And yeah, it can be done.

    Getting out of the pot isn’t easy, and undoing the effects of acclimation is a true challenge, but it can be done.

    • A proper reply would be really long, LH, but in essence, yes we don’t need to be deceitful, or unprincipled. We are not in this just to win elections and gain power for power’s sake. But our creativity an ingenuity may need to be a bit brutal. It may involve calling something a lie rather than just saying “I respectfully disagree”. And it may involve inconveniencing certain subsets of various demographics. And it may involve erecting, for example, stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments in places where certain people don’t want them to be and telling them – “We’ve had to look at and listen to what we consider abominations from you and your cohorts for decades. Deal with it.” How we do certain things may be bold, but they won’t be unconstitutional.

  4. You’re right bob, we’ve been instructed not to listen to Rush anymore so today I didn’t; Mark Steyn was substituting. He pointed out a basic principle after noting that he didn’t think Mr. Trump was either a Republican or a conservative; regarding the BC, he said at least Trump dealt with the media (and the administration) on Trump’s terms, not on theirs. I really think that should be our focus; dealing with the opposition on our terms, not theirs (“bipartisanship”). This may actually be a way of saying to play the game of politics, but minus the lying & pandering that characterizes the opposition. Cheers!

    • And you’re right, Mark. We DO need to do this on our terms– rather than the usual milquetoast Republican terms. We need Chris Christie-type talking points and attitudes when dealing with both the other side and the media, a no-nonsense and forceful statement of our points with a follow-up for the bed-wetters who whine about it.

      And then another follow-up after that to reinforce the point. We don’t need to lie, or deceive in any way, but we sure don’t need to roll over and shut up like the ones we keep electing. (Alexander, Lamar– call your office. Boehner, John and McConnell, Mitch– check your approval numbers. They are not top of the line.) While I don’t hold with radical anarchy, I’m sure up for some congenial anarchy that produces leaders who will hold their heads up and speak out without feeling the urge to apologize for having done so.

      So let’s go ahead and throw those verbal bombs called “the truth” and see where it gets us.

      • Remaining on point is also fundamental. I don’t have the link at hand, but for example I saw a video clip of some jerky reporter asking Mr. Boehner what he though of ending ‘tax breaks’ for Big Oil, and the Speaker responded along the lines of ‘we’ll look at this’.

        I’d have been happier if he’d restated that we have a SPENDING problem, and how we need to cut SPENDING, because we’re SPENDING too much. Like Rush says, don’t try to make nice with them, they’re never going to like you no matter what you say (unless you say ‘ I agree with the Dems’).

        • If our elected officials would recognize the LSM as enemies it would go a long way toward fixing this. Julius Caesar recognized Brutus as an enemy after the first stab of his knife. How many times do these idiots need to be stabbed before it dawns on them? McLame still thinks the shrews of The Spew are his friends!

Must Read