Entry: Liberals Love America, BUT... Friday, July 29, 2005



Liberals always insist that they love America, despite their constant complaints, but they can never seem to point out exactly what it is they love about it. Whereas most Americans can simply say, "I love my country," and leave it at that, Liberals always have to follow that statement with a "BUT..." But what?

Consider a relationship in which one person demands that the other change his or her taste in music, books, television shows, movies and style of dress. Imagine that person also being coerced to stop wasting time with cherished recreations, cease eating favorite foods, alter old habits and drop old friends. Is that indicative of a healthy relationship? It's a selfish, controlling kind of affection... "I love you not for who you are, but for what I can change you into." That's how Liberals seem to feel about America.

Ask Liberals why they love America. Really listen to their answers. Do they say they love America for her tolerance and diversity? Then why do they not tolerate those who have opinions that differ from their own? Do they profess to love America's economic opportunities? Why do they want to cripple businesses with oppressive regulations and punish those who succeed with higher taxes? Do they tell you they love America for her beautiful forests, plains, rivers and mountains? If so, why do they complain about the manner in which those lands became part of this country, and demand that it all be preserved as if behind glass? Do they claim to love America for the freedoms we enjoy? Why, then, do they despise the military and police that protect our freedom? Why do they protest our military for helping others secure freedom for themselves and their children?

Liberals claim to support our military... but it's an odd kind of "support" that primarily consists of comparing them to Nazis and Soviet thugs, and accusing them of torture and wanton slaughter. What kind of "support" calls for them to abandon their mission before it's completed, and run away from an enemy who chose this fight? How can you say to someone, "I support you, but despise everything you stand for and everything you do, and will take every possible opportunity to make my feelings obvious for all to see?" That's not love and support; that's utter contempt, lacking even the common decency to be honest about it.

There seems to be nothing about America of which Liberals whole-heartedly approve. When they encourage teachers to stop using red pens because red is "pretty frightening," and feel that testing students at their grade level is "inherently unfair," you know they can't think much of our educational system. Liberals take no pride in our history, our political system, our traditions or our ability to exercise our religious freedom. Don't they frequently accuse America of committing horrible atrocities and being a nation of religious extremists? Don't they condemn patriotic displays and complain about "rigged" elections whenever they lose one, without serious evidence or reason? They claim they're just looking at America "warts and all," but the warts are all they see. Imagine saying to a person in earnestness, "Sure I love you, but you're ugly, stupid and smell bad." Wouldn't any reasonable person characterise that as emotional cruelty, at best?

It's time for America to get out of this abusive relationship. We've put up with Liberals bad-mouthing our country for far too long without putting up a defense. The next time you hear a Liberal insisting that he or she loves America and supports the troops, "BUT..." gently interrupt and ask, "why?" If you get an answer at all, it should be enlightening.
   22 comments

AlexC
July 30, 2005   11:40 AM PDT
 
Hear Hear.
It's love like husband beating his wife.
But are you questioning their patriotism? ;)
Melanie
July 30, 2005   04:07 PM PDT
 
I was raised to love my Country. I never much thought about what that meant; I just did it. There were no conditions on that love. America is my Country, right or wrong! Nothing will change that, not even when I get so furious at my elected representatives for their wrong-headed thinking.

Then, I came across something by Mark Twain that rocked my socks. "My kind of loyalty was to one's country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death."

I believe that most people say, "Yeah but" in their minds and proceed to list a passel of things that have nothing to do with their love of Country. They allow things they themselves could correct but don't to dilute their love for her, rather than take responsibility to help her get back on track.

It's time to break a sweat if we want to help America be what she was. Complaining doesn't do it.
gtravis
July 31, 2005   09:37 AM PDT
 
The author's basic thesis appears to be "liberals are never happy with the way things are," which he then identifies as a fault of the individual liberal.

In doing so, of course, the author reveals his ignorance of what liberalism is. Liberalism more than anything else is a belief in the ultimate improvability of the human condition, a belief that no matter what the condition today, tomorrow can be even better if we work at it.

So to answer the author's statement "I love my country," and leave it at that, Liberals always have to follow that statement with a "BUT..." But what? a liberal would say "but here are the things that could, and should, be improved."

That's the essence of liberal ideology. That there's no such thing as "good enough" and no reason to accept that the status quo can't be improved upon.

Contrast that with conservatism which fundamentally holds that change isn't always good and that it's best to hold onto those traditions and institutions that best represent our values. Holding onto them means not changing them. Thus it's natural for a Conservative to hold out the US as the ultimate example of a nation, something to be exalted, not criticized.

And just as it's stupid for faulting liberals for holding a liberal mindset, it would be equally as stupid for a liberal to write an article critical of conservatives for acting, uhh, conservatively. Argue for why a philosophy of constant improvement is a manifestly flawed one, or that one of intrinsic pessimism with regard to the positive value of change is unworthy.

greg
JM
July 31, 2005   09:44 AM PDT
 
>That's the essence of liberal
>ideology. That there's no such
>thing as "good enough"

Well, underneath all that blather about how wrong it is to say so, looks like Greg agrees with me after all. Isn't that pretty much what I said in the article?
Paladin
July 31, 2005   11:01 PM PDT
 
todays liberal want to improve the country??? WOW that's news. Only thing they want to improve that i see is their lifstyle for better or worse for everyone else
NameDl
August 1, 2005   09:36 AM PDT
 
They're not to be called (their preference)liberals anymore. They' re to be called progressives! What they'll never tell you(or their own useful idiots) is -from what are they leaving and toward what are they progressing? I remind them that for a while Hitler/ Tojo made progress - cancer progresses. All progression isn't a good. Remind them every time and watch how quickly they create a new moniker to cover their deceptive intents.
Simulacre
August 1, 2005   01:32 PM PDT
 
That's the essence of liberal ideology. That there's no such thing as "good enough" and no reason to accept that the status quo can't be improved upon.

--------------
exactly what have policies have been improved? What new ideas have they put forward? What justification is there to support the monicker "party for improvement". Calling yourself progressive doesn't mean you are progressing in the right direction, positive action and constructive criticism would go a much longer ways than simply changing the name of the party.
Independent
August 1, 2005   10:01 PM PDT
 
"That's the essence of liberal ideology. That there's no such thing as "good enough" and no reason to accept that the status quo can't be improved upon."

You know, I agreed with liberal change during the "original" civil rights movement. I DO passionatly believe in equal OPPORTUNITY for all. That was good change, good imporvement on old institutions. Then the liberal ideology got derailed. They became enamored of change for the sake of change. They started fighting for equal outcome regardless of work ethic, morality or personal ability. I have no problem with working to change something that is truely broken. But the liberals of the last forty years have been bending, folding and generally mutilating America to the point of abuse and cruelty. In many ways the "conservatives" of today are the old-fashioned liberals. Only we are seeking to undo the damage of overzelous artisans that were driven by over inflated egos and a sense of their own righteousness.
FedUp
August 2, 2005   04:41 PM PDT
 
It's a bit difficult to make any progress when your dissent to anything is labeled upatriotic or godless. Or if your your ideas are stifled from ever making it to the floor. I'm curious as to what liberal agenda from the past 40 years has mutilated America that conservatives need to undo. Do I love America? Yes. Period. I'll go ahead and provide what you need me to refer to as "but"... But I hate this administration and what they are doing in the name of America. I don't think they do a good job of reprenting what America stands for. I love America AND I want it back.
JM
August 2, 2005   10:17 PM PDT
 
>I'm curious as to what liberal
>agenda from the past 40 years
>has mutilated America that
>conservatives need to undo.

All of it, of course. Abortion as a means of easy post-coital birth control, so-called "affirmitive" action which is nothing more than codified racism, gay "marriage," the marginalisation of religion in public, and every other part of the Liberal agenda that robs us of our autonomy and seeks to replace the family with the Nanny State.
DL
August 3, 2005   08:13 AM PDT
 
Don't forget to add the obsession with destroying our sovereignity via the Supreme court (foreign law) and the UN as our master. I also would remind Fedup that his liberal friends have emasculated our defense at every opportunity- from Carter/Irangate to the war on terrorism. Defense budgets are for raiding to buy votes through more destructive social programs.
Independent
August 3, 2005   09:46 AM PDT
 
And we must not forget what liberal thinking did to the schools. Does anyone remember when schools worked? Oh yhea, it was sometime back in the fifties. We used to ask our kids to earn self-respect, now the schools go out of their way to make sure nobody ever gets their feelings hurt. Apparently competition is bad for self-esteem. Self-discipline is a forgotten concept. They threw out everything that was tried and true and turned our schools into a tax-payer funded social experiment. Now that our schools are utter disasters, they just want to throw more money at them. I consider the schools a microcosm of what liberalism did to the greater society.
FedUp
August 3, 2005   12:19 PM PDT
 
Not willing to argue for affirmative action. However, nobody is making you have an abortion or marry a homosexual. And if you don't ask me to pray in school, I won't ask to teach science in your church. Irangate was arms for hostages - that would be Reagan's baby, not Carter. I also don't agree in the everbody wins and needs to be affirmed in school. The real issue of schools is that we're still teaching in the trade school mentality that worked for a 1950's economy, but doesn't help much now. The real lesson is that while some of us are Christians or Jews or Muslims or agnostics or whatever, all of us are Americans. I don't see how anybody that loves America can reconcile that with placing the Bible above the Constitution. I think we can see how well that's working in other countries. You've got the White House. You've got Congress. Last time I checked you had all but two members of the Supreme Court. From my seat, looks like you're kicking our ass at every turn. So since you love America so much, and you're in complete control of it, what the hell do you have to complain about?
Independent
August 3, 2005   01:25 PM PDT
 
Fedup, You are correct in one sense. The conservative movement is very strong and we have made great strides. However, it is difficult to overcome the liberal mentality that infected society in the last forty to fifty years. Hedonism and victimology psychosis are rampant in our society. We are forced to settle for moderates instead of true conservatives because of the liberal mantras of "racism" and "greed." However, I think a large number of people; ecspecially minorities, are starting to see the effects of "soft racism" and lowered societal expectations. When we can actually start tearing down the liberal institutions and building somehting new, then I will say we have taken back control of the country. But as it stands now, even in power, we are only able to get the machinary running again. It took liberals half a century to all but destroy America. It will take twice that long to begin to counteract the damage. So if you think you are frustrated now when only moderate conservatives are priming the pump, then stick around and see what happens as more right wing conservatives start to actually accomplish change. America is in this for the long haul. I will venture a guess that there will not be another democratic president in this century or ever. The democrat party's days are numbered. I would also bet that congress reaches that critical mass of sixty republicans in the next two election cycles. The only thing liberal democrats have to sell is hate and weakness. America is just not going to buy it any longer.
NameDL
August 4, 2005   09:36 AM PDT
 
Hey FEDUP - the Iran gate I recall was when Jimma Carter sold out the Shah and opened the floodgates to radical Islam - we are now paying for that mistake. I won't even mention the Panama C......
suek
August 7, 2005   08:36 PM PDT
 
>> Last time I checked you had all but two members of the Supreme Court. >>

Names please....that doesn't jive with my talley....
Jagged
August 8, 2005   12:48 AM PDT
 
Loving America shouldn't mean blind faith, which is what you insist on when you insist we eliminate the 'but'.

Loving something doesn't mean you excuse all its actions. I love my father, but when he hurts my feelings, I don't excuse the cruel words he says because he has no reason to say them. I love America--what it stands for, the country, and the people--but there is always room for improvement, because nothing is perfect, and I love America too much to watch it fall into ruin because no one wanted to improve it.
JM
August 8, 2005   03:47 AM PDT
 
Loving America means loving America, period. Are you saying that if you love someone, you think they are perfect angels who can do no wrong? And do you withhold your love when they do -- as humans inevitably will? That's not terribly mature, or psychologically healthy.

>I love America--what it stands for,
>the country, and the people--but

<sigh> Even when they KNOW that I'm looking for it, they can't prevent themselves from saying it.
nattydreads
August 8, 2005   03:49 PM PDT
 
We are forced to settle for moderates instead of true conservatives because of the liberal mantras of "racism" and "greed."
-Name DL-


Does this comment bother any other of you Conservatives? It bothers me. And although I uttered a profanity or twelve when I read it, I won't dishonor this blog or this conversation with such. Contrary to the writer 's intended... or not..., insult to me, society does not set my expectations. Therefore society has no ability to arbitrarily lower or raise said expectations. That has always been and will always be MY responsibility.

The reason I began my comment with the above question is because of the writer's OVERT linkage of "true" conservatism to racism and greed. Your inference, not mine. Reread your own words if necessary, but don't even attempt to accuse me of taking anything out of context.

So-called Moderates must be used, according to the writer , to articulate watered down Conservatism because Liberals would inevitably raise unholy hell. I'm no Liberal, but I'm raising hell, too. I'm left with no other conclusion but that the writer feels true Conservatives' solutions would have racial and/or financial disarrangement for other Americans whom he views contemptuously.

I'm at a loss as to why Conservatives are so quietly and blithely allowing our philosophy to be hi-jacked. Perhaps the Liberals are correctly summizing that the end result is all that matters. Just win, baby!

I honestly want to believe that the conservative principles of moderation, self sufficiency, and diligence is the cure for many of America's ills. However, one must always be cognizant of the fact that even snake oil, in the short run, can convince the body that it is healed. But in the long term, the side effects may be deadly.
NameDL
August 9, 2005   08:52 AM PDT
 
Nattydreads- that comment wasn't by DL - look it up.
gunnyg
August 11, 2005   07:04 AM PDT
 
The liberal's are only interested in destroying what America IS. The ACLU and the Left has consistently worked to destroy the "rugged American individualist" in every way. The left is ready and willing to surrender our sovereignty to the UN in exchange for some sort of security. Ben Franklin said it best. That one who exchanges their freedom for security deserves NEITHER!
http://www.genitalwa
September 9, 2008   06:39 AM PDT
 
A wart (Plane juvenile warts; Periungual warts; Subungual warts; Plantar warts; Verruca; Verrucae planae juveniles; Filiform warts; Verruca vulgaris) is commonly a small, rough tumor. http://www.genitalwartspictures.info/

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments