Is Dissent still Patriotic?

Over on CK's blog, he raised a very interesting question, to which I delivered a needlessly flippant answer. He posted an article entitled Is Dissent Still Patriotic? His question was:

For 8 years many on the left stood by their hate for Bush and his policies because dissent was patriotic. So now when I stand against Obama, I’m still patriotic… right?

Although the quote 'Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism' is often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, it was actually a phrase coined by left-leaning historian Howard Zinn, during an interview in which he explained his opposition to George W. Bush's 'War on Terror.'

CK's question is a legitimate one. Considering that the concept of 'dissent is patriotic' was coined by liberals, now that President Obama has been elected, does that render 'patriotic dissent' inapplicable? We liberals thought standing up to Bush and his regime was patriotic, but will we now cry 'foul' when the conservatives stand against Obama?

It's a good question - and the answer is 'no.' As long as the opposition is done for the right reasons.

What made our objections to Bush's policies 'patriotic' was that they were protests against unAmerican things Bush did while in office. His actions contradicted the fundamental foundations of American society - meaning that people weren't standing up against Bush, they were standing up against his assault on American values.

If conservatives want to take a stand against Obama, it's their right to do so. If they're protesting actions that conflict with American principles, it's entirely appropriate for them to label that dissent 'patriotic.'

There are already some issues it might be worth discussing further:

• Will the trillion dollar stimulus package help America's economy, or just succeed in shackling us to decades of GDP-shrinking interest payments?
• Now that America has finally elected it's first African-American president, how appropriate is it to use race and affirmative action in a land in which 'all men are created equal.'?
• Proposition 8 and other anti-gay legislation is clearly disgusting, unAmerican trash that violates everything this country is founded on - but how appropriate is it to fight these laws via state and federal courts - essentially 'legislating from the bench?'

At the moment, though, it does seem somewhat unpatriotic to attack Obama's presidency. He hasn't done anything yet to deserve it!

When he launches a costly foreign war, or starts locking up people in a shadowy limbo prison, or taps our phones in violation of the constitution, then we'll talk about 'patriotic dissent.'

But for the moment? President Obama's election is something of an American fairytale.

His story is the quintessential American one - a black kid from a modest background, raised by a single mother, works hard to succeed in life and eventually achieves the highest office in the land through nothing more than hard work, ability and grit.

Obama's election proves that in this wonderful country, anybody can achieve anything they put their mind to. Isn't supporting that ideal what American patriotism is all about?

Geeze - compare his story to that of President Bush Jnr - the spoilt son of an obscenely wealthy family, with a former-president for a Dad. He perpetuated the myth that, in America, the only way to reach the top was to be a rich, white boy from a well-connected family.

Right now, the right wing's just going to have to accept that Obama's in a special position. 'Standing up to him' comes across as petty, childish and just a tiny bit pissy- certainly not 'patriotic.'

The time for 'patriotic dissent' isn't here yet. But it'll come. Already Obama's revealed that he's not as bipartisan as he claimed and many of the Democratic agendas that moderates and Republicans dislike will start to gain ground. Then there'll be real reason for people to 'stand up against' President Obama in the interests of 'patriotic dissent.'

But not yet. Right now, opposing Obama on the grounds of 'patriotism' just undermines the very concept of what 'patriotic dissent' is all about.

Who Am I? The Answer!

I'll admit, I tried to lead you all down the garden fence with yesterday's competition - but I'm still surprised nobody got it.

The answer wasn't Barack Obama, despite the similarities with the quotes and policies I highlighted.

The answer to 'Who Am I?' is actually 31st President of the United States: Herbert Clark Hoover.

For a guy who's been dead for almost half a century, old 'Wonder Boy' Hoover has been getting a lot of column inches in the press recently: I'm not the only one who sees spooky similarities between his stratospheric rise to power and the career of modern wunderkind Barack Obama.

The criticisms Hoover's detractors made against him are also awkwardly similar to the attacks conservatives are currently making against Obama.

"There could not a be a finer candidate for President." So said Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, of the brilliant Hoover when he considered running for office in 1919. In the end, though, Hoover rejected joining the Democrat party, admitting he "couldn't run for a party whose only member in his boyhood home had been the town drunk."

Herbert Hoover became a registered Republican (although not above ditching the party for political expediency) but certainly didn't act like one, if you'd judge him by today's standards.

Hoover believed that government had a role in everything - and he had a role in just about every government department. The last president to have ever held a cabinet position before his election, the bossy, opinionated and forceful Hoover, pre-White House, defined his position as; "the Secretary of Commerce... and Under-Secretary of Everything Else."

He was a brilliant man with a forceful personality and when he finally ran for election, on the 1928 Republican ticket, his popularity was similar to Obama's in the 2008 election.

For example, if you think the media was biased towards Obama, think what rival Frank Lowden thought whenever he opened a newspaper: "They're full of of nothing but advertisements for Herbert Hoover."

Back in 1928, the south was as politically itinerant as always - but favored the Democrats (what had been the pro-slavery party) instead of today's Republicans. Hoover performed astonishing 'Obama-like' upsets by winning traditionally Democratic states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas and Tennessee.

When he entered the White House after his triumphant victory, he boasted: "We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land."

He said that just months before the Great Depression.

Hoover's Failure. Obama's Opportunity.

The reason so many people spot similarities between Herbert Hoover and Barack Obama is because they both found themselves facing the greatest economic crisis in their generation's history. It was Hoover's greatest failure. Conservatives today warn that Obama could follow in his footsteps.

Herbert Hoover's attempts to stop to U.S. economy circling the toilet-bowl included slapping tariffs on imported goods - which slewed exports to a halt and crippled the economy still further.

Then, as employment reached nearly 25% and the government found itself practically bankrupt, Hoover attempted to rescue the budget by overturning his treasury's popular tax cuts: That sent the top-level of taxation to an almost unprecedented peace-time rate of 73%.

Hoover matched these tax hikes with an explosion of spending, which Franklin D. Roosevelt described as "reckless and extravagant." The 1932 Emergency Relief and Construction Act attempted to ease unemployment by providing construction jobs, building public works across the country. In fact, all it did was contract the economy still further.

Modern-day Republicans might find it astonishing that one of their party is so famous for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the government payroll. Conservatives attack Obama with the same accusations levelled at Hoover, such as Roosevelt's would-be Vice President accusing Hoover of "leading the country down the path of socialism."

In fact, Franklin D. Roosevelt would surpass all of Hoover's government intervention when he lead America out of the Great Depression - and the foundations of The New Deal were laid firmly during Herbert Hoover's administration.

Roosevelt quietly proved that Hoover's greatest failing wasn't in spending too much government money in order to help the economy recover. It wasn't spending nearly enough.

Nevertheless, with 25% unemployment and nationwide poverty serving as the backdrop to the 1932 election, it was unsurprising that Hoover lost. When Franklin D. Roosevelt took the oath of office, Herbert Clark Hoover was generally considered; "the most hated man in America."

So here we are, 76 years later. In many ways, the script is the same, just with different actors taking the lead roles. George W. Bush is leaving office with dismal approval ratings and a legacy of Free Market Economics gone sour. As Barack Obama steps in to fill his shoes, it'll be up to him whether he's going to follow the route Herbert Hoover took, or emulate the legendary success of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It's moments like these that make me so glad to have studied and maintained an interest in history. Liberal or conservative, I think it's always important to remember the words of poet and philosopher George Santayana:

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

George W. Bush endorses John McCain for the presidency...

Is Bush.... is he sniggering?

Lies our pundits tell us...

Mark Levin - Thought talk is cheap? See his advertising rates!

Last night, as I drove home, I inexplicably tuned into SIRIUS Patriot - the right wing talk channel. I ended up listening to conservative New York chat-show host Mark Levin for as long as I could stand him.

His 'radio persona' is a vile, nasal little man with a short fuse and an enormous chip on his shoulder. It makes for compelling listening, due to the disgusting way he handles people who stupidly call into his show:

"It's says here you're a Liberal, Caller. Answer me this... Why do you hate America?"

It's also a bit like listening to fingernails down a blackboard, since Levin's a remarkably inept radio host.

He lines up 'cuts' from various speeches (last night it was Fred Thompson during the Republican debate in Iowa) and when he wants them played, he yells furiously as his producer: 'Cut four! Now!'

It's clear from his tone of voice that he expects the entire radio station to come crumbling down around his ears unless he yells instructions like a German U-Boat commander.

Listening to Mark Levin - whose show is inexplicably highest-rated for the time slot in New York, Chicago, Detroit and Dallas - prompted me to write about my views on the American political spectrum.

Tight Spectrum

When I was young, there was a real political spectrum to enjoy in Britain. On the left, there was the Labour Party - who believed in socialism. On the right, there were the Conservatives, who believed in capitalism. It was as simple as that.

Then Tony Blair came along and convinced the Labour Party to abandon socialism, so we ended up with two political parties trying to occupy the same space on the political spectrum. Even now, over a decade later, the Conservatives are still struggling to work out what their party is and what it stands for these days.

I considered myself a stuffy old Tory, on the right wing of British politics. So I was astounded to arrive in America and have it determined that I was actually a moderate (with a slightly liberal bias.)

While pundits like Mark Levin might accuse the Democratic Party of being 'Marxist' and 'Stalinist,' he's laughably unaware of what it's like to live in a country in which those views actually exist. It seems the entire American political spectrum exists on the right wing of what we're used to in England.

And - speaking as a stuffy old Tory again - that's no bad thing.

Lies our Pundits tell us

Despite the spectrum being tight, people get very passionate about politics in America. The country's divided into two halves, the Liberals and the Conservatives. And in my dispassionate study of these two sides (I'm a moderate, remember) I've decided that I don't really like either of them that much.

It seems a hard-core Liberal or Conservative is fueled by their belief that they are better than the other side. Liberals believe they are more intelligent than Conservatives. Conservatives believe that they are 'morally better' than the Liberals.

And then there are the pundits, like Mark Levin, who make careers out of attacking the other side and spoon feeding their own audience exactly what they want to hear.

Which is, in all essence, a pack of lies.

What astounds me about both the Liberals and the Conservatives are the lies the pundits tell - and how the lies have been repeated so many times, people have started to believe they're actually true.

In explaining this, it's worth pointing out that the term 'Conservative' is pretty synonymous with 'Republican' and Liberals support the Democrats.

Lies Conservatives Tell:

Conservatives represent the working man: This is one Mark Levin likes to spout time and again. Despite the fact that he's a nationally syndicated talk-show host and best-selling author, he still describes himself as a regular 'working man' to his listeners.

But the Conservatives and Republicans are not the party of the blue collar, working man. They may claim to be - and their core support comes from millions of 'red state' Americans who buy into the lies. But it is a lie.

Conservative governments have always supported the big business model, the tax-cuts for the super-rich and the reduction of social programming that leaves the job of 'keeping America truckin'' firmly on the shoulders of the middle and working class.

Take Ronald Reagan - he cut the top tax rate (for the super rich) from 70% to just 28% - but the tax rate on the average man's paycheck actually increased.

Conservatives are fiscally responsible: This is a whopper. Although the likes of political pundit Ann Coulter might claim: "Taxes are like abortion - both are grotesque procedures supported by Democrats" the truth is the absolute opposite.

The governments of famous Republicans, like Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr. and his son, George Dubya, have all been times of enormous economic upheaval. Reagan increased the American deficit from $700 billion to a whopping $3 trillion. It was Bill Clinton - a Democrat - who demanded: 'it's about the economy, stupid,' and put the American checkbook back into the black.

Right now, George Bush Jnr is trying to leave a legacy as a 'fiscally conservative' President by vetoing endless programs like the Child Health Care bills.

However, after running America into massive global debt, tipping the country into a recession and bleating for hundreds of billions of dollars in expensive foreign loans to support an unpopular conflict aboard, he is very far from a conservative spender of tax payer's money.

Look at the facts: George Bush Jnr. turned an $86 billion surplus left by Clinton into a $434 billion deficit.

Liberals Hate America: Mark Levin loves this one. Somebody calls up and claims to be a Liberal? Mark yells down the phone line: 'Why do you hate America?'

But Liberals don't hate America. That's just a lie. Sadly, it's been yelled so many times, it's no almost become a truth.

It's like a playground cry. It's just utterly retarded and pathetic. The next time Mark Levin accuses somebody of 'hating America' merely for disagreeing with his right-wing opinions, he deserves a firm slap around the chops.

Liberals Hate the Troops: This is the other half of the Conservative war cry. If Liberals call for an end to the war in Iraq, or question any Republican foreign policy, they're hit with 'you hate the troops!'

In fact, it's the absolute opposite. It's the Conservatives who hate the troops. Or, rather, they don't give two hoots about them. Oh, sure, they might buy 'Support the Troops' ribbons for the back of their cars, but at the end of the day, you've got to be pretty callous to put American troops into harm's way in the first place.

Rightly or wrongly, Conservatives support the war in Iraq and aggressive foreign policy. That policy gets American soldiers killed. Liberals don't support the war in Iraq and want to troops brought home. That saves troop's lives. So at the end of the day, it's pretty clear who’s really on the side of the soldiers.

Now to defend America against the threat of global terrorism, it’s necessary to send American soldiers abroad, into harm's way. But doing that out of anything other that real, vital necessity sends American soldiers to their deaths for no good reason.

And that's the work of people who really 'hate the troops.'

All the 'Support the Troops' bumper stickers in the world won't replace the life of one American soldier killed without a bloody good reason.

Conservatives are 'morally superior' to Liberals: Conservative America enjoys core support in the Christian heartland. Christianity and conservatism are so intertwined, it's often impossible to see the two as anything other than a single entity.

Essential Conservative beliefs, like being against abortion and the rights of gay people, stem from Christian doctrine. The idea of 'family values' and 'decency' and 'morality' are all shields hoisted high by the Conservatives.

Liberals believe in gay rights. Abortion. Sex before marriage. Pornography. All 'evil' and 'immoral' things.

But morality goes beyond Christianity. A system of 'right' and 'wrong' based purely on Christian doctrine is no better than the Sharia law of the Islamic Middle East. In the 21st century, humanity must decide what's right and wrong based on more than the teachings found in a two thousand year old book. After all, millions of Americans aren't Christians.

And, hypocritically, core Conservative beliefs - like supporting capital punishment - seem utterly at odds with what's considered morally 'right' in any case - whether by human terms or from what's found in the bible.

When you hear Conservative Pat Robertson demanding political assassinations in other countries, or Ann Coulter gleefully admit 'I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment' it's difficult not to start worrying that a slice of the political movement that claims 'morally superiority' is actually just morally bankrupt.

The Lie Liberals Tell:

But it's not just the Conservatives who lie. The Liberal agenda plugged by the pundits is also full of half-truths and political porkies. The biggest one is clearly:

Liberals support Free Speech: This isn't always the case. Time and time again, the Liberals have proven that they support free speech up to, but not including, anything deemed 'politically incorrect.'

There's a deep seated and almost fascist agenda for 'thought control' amongst polite Liberal society. Part of the reason it's always the Conservatives spouting the offensive stuff is that the Liberals have a clearly marked scale of what's acceptable and what's not.

And most of it's stuff that's not appropriate in polite company anyway. Attempts to ban use of the 'N-word' (that's the highly offensive racial slur 'nigger') seem kind of redundant since nobody uses that word anymore for the risk of becoming a social pariah.

What's slightly more worrying - and stands up in the face of free speech - is when certain ideas get stifled or censored under Liberal pressure - like city officials trying to stifle San Francisco talk show host Michael Savage when he attacked their scheme to get tax payers to sponsor green card applications for illegal immigrants.

Discussion about the conduct of Muslims, or criticism leveled against the millions of illegal immigrants - both very serious issues concerning American security - is quickly slapped down with the cry of 'racist!'

'Racist!' is the Liberal equivalent of 'You hate America!' It's a discussion ender - a firm indication that the opposing party isn't interested in acknowledging differing opinions.

Gun Control Prevents Gun Crime: It seems an entirely logical proposition - ban the private ownership of handguns and gun crime will fall. The Liberals have been bleating this as long as the Conservatives have been bleating: 'Guns don't kill people... People kill people."

But the sad, documented fact is that it's not true.

Now, I'm no fan of private gun ownership and certainly don't understand why anybody who believes in the Second Amendment needs to keep more than one rifle over the fireplace (which is surely what the founding fathers envisaged when they wrote it.)

However, the facts have shown that gun crime actually increases in places with stringent gun control. Like in New Jersey, in 1966, some of the most stringent handgun ownership laws were put in place and the murder rate shot up overnight by 46%.

In 1976, Washington D.C. adopted an incredibly strict handgun ban (pretty much banning them in the city.) Yet this led to a 136% rise in the murder rate, while nationally, the number of murders actually dropped by 2%.

There are two facts responsible for this truth.

Firstly, that 15% of all handguns in America are unlicensed and unregistered - banning handguns does not take these weapons out of circulation. Given that almost all gun crime is committed with illegally owned weapons, it's clear to see that banning private gun ownership does nothing to address the root cause of the gun crime problem.

Secondly, private gun ownership is a deterrent. Compared to the United Kingdom, the burglary rate in the United States is a drop in the ocean. People don't rob houses here the same way they do in countries with strict gun control. Why? Because residents own guns and the law is on their side if they shoot dead a trespasser on their property.

In a country with a 'wild west' mentality, private gun ownership actually protects people. Yet the Liberals do everything they can to distort the facts and bleat the same anti-gun mantra over and over again.

Illegal Immigrants are not a problem: This is a subject I feel very strongly about. Having worked and sacrificed for the chance to 'make my fortune' in America, I resent the millions of people who come here illegally.

I chose to come to America. I chose to abide by America's laws and live within the bounds of it's incredibly diverse culture. I chose to contribute to the workforce and the tax-pile. I chose to live as an American because I deeply respect the history and mentality of this great nation.

And illegal immigrants don't.

They don't abide by immigration laws - and therefore criminal and civil laws are equally meaningless to them. They can't get driving licenses, insurance or inspections - so they go without and leave the costs of injuries and accidents to the tax-paying American people.

In one county upstate, a whopping 25% of all criminals arrested turned out to be illegal immigrants. Across America, the entire nation is forced to become bilingual. Essential costs the average American has to shoulder - like healthcare, local taxes and schooling fees - creep ever upwards as undocumented workers use civil services without contributing to them.

Illegal immigration from 'south of the border' is the greatest threat to the cultural, financial and institutional stability of the United States of America. But just like an alcoholic's 'elephant in the living room,' no Liberal will dare address the issue.

Because calling it out is akin to racism. And racism - just like the Conservative cry of 'You Hate America' - is that blanket protest that stifles all free expression.

Liberals are more intelligent than Conservatives: Like it or not, there is bias in the Liberal media to pigeonhole Conservatives. They're either the big, greedy, corporate 'fat cats' or, more likely, they're the poor working-class folk who 'foolishly' vote for Conservative politicians.

And this bias is easy to see. Turn on a sitcom or political satire show and any footage of President Bush doing something dumb (of which there are countless clips) is usually followed by a Liberal rolling his eyes, considering which 'chumps' voted for the man.

A common Liberal cry is: 'We didn't vote for him!' which neatly opens up the fact that, in the 2004 election, 51% of the American population DID vote for George W. Bush.

Cue the map of the United States which shows the guilty party - the 'red' states.

Yes, Liberals consider themselves smarter than 'red staters.' And on the whole, just like Conservatives generally consider themselves the 'moral superiors' to Liberals, Liberals generally consider themselves the intellectual superiors to their Conservative cohorts - and not without some reason. 49% of self-confessed Liberals are college educated.

However, the average Conservative-voting 'red stater' isn't dumb. Not by any means. They're voters who care about having low taxes, a secure country, a job to go to and a politician who goes to church and seems to represent the same values as they do.

That's not dumb by any means. In fact, that's kind of smart.

Liberals can claim to be more intellectual that Conservatives - but it's just arrogant to pretend they're smarter.

In Conclusion

Remarkably, the people who decide elections and control the electoral process in the United States are neither the Liberals or the Conservatives.

It's actually the people like me - the 'undecided' moderates who support a side depending on circumstance, rather than ideology.

And the problem with the hard-line positions Liberals and Conservatives take is that they alienate more and more of the people they should be reaching out for.

If I visit a right-wing website and comment on the issue of gay rights, so something equally innocuous, I'm derided as a 'Libtard.' When I go to a Liberal site and point out the flaws in the gun-control issue, I'm labelled a 'neocon Repuke.'

Personally, I think 'bugger the both of them.'


Ann Coulter, that gorgeous but utterly hateful pundit, sums up the opinions of right and left best:

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

Whereas, in reality, the swing voters are really the only ones who are capable of making their minds up for themselves. The Liberals and Conservatives are so blinded by their dreary dogma that they'd support ideas they oppose just to prevent an 'opposition' member getting the edge.

The next presidential election will be won by the man (or woman) who wins over the most swing voters. The likes of Ann Coulter have already disenfranchised themselves by refusing to be more open minded to other people's opinions.

And based on the lies spouted by pundits from both sides of the political spectrum, I know one of the most important values I'll need to see in a potential president will be honesty.