Take back America? It was never really theirs.
By Marcus Traianus Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The past several days have brought some good news for America. However, by virtue of the fact it is good for our country it naturally represents bad news for Democrat Party and their Hate America crowd. This senseless dichotomy is not surprising to anyone that reads the liberal dominated MSM. Accordingly, recent affirmation of our president's policies contrasted against a failure of liberals to generate constructive ideas helps provide a powerful differentiation for the public. It overtly displays the frailty and disingenuous nature of themes such as the "Culture of Corruption" and BushLied. Combined with the continual revisionist stance of Democrats on Iraq and their own corruptive members, they are at best perceived as a party in disarray. These revelations are good news for our party if the ideas and philosophies bringing it to successful fruition and public consciousness are reinforced.
The post-Vietnam liberalist philosophy is perpetuated by both parochial aspirations and inter-generational inculcation. Foundationally, it is based on a fallacious premise that political events of the era were successfully driven by a populist anti-war movement. The amalgamation of this view with other non traditionalist themes such as "free love", liberal drug use and general rebellion against societal ethos had many cultural impacts. Arguably, the most prevalent were a devaluation of life, liberalization of laws and deconstruction of traditional families. This neo-liberalist philosophy was strongly advocated and institutionalized by utilizing newly found power in academia, media and governmental institutions. It was wrongly represented as the "will of the people" while the conservative majority was pushed to the shadows. That is until the advent of arguably our generation's greatest president, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan highlighted the failures of this neo-liberalist philosophy which came to a pinnacle under the failed leadership of Jimmy Carter. He taught us to believe in ourselves, take the long view, reunite around our families and trust in God. President Reagan also won the Cold War without firing a shot but trusted our military to act when needed. This honest, measured and balanced intellectual approach was the beginning of our nations self evaluative epiphany, one that continues today. It was also the beginning of the end for a wayward and intellectually bankrupt philosophy of the left.
A current day attempt to reinvigorate this empty neo-liberalist philosophy is the "Take back America" conference. This propaganda event has been full of the same empty rhetoric, apocryphal statements and political posturing that has become a Democrat Party signature. Combined with overall qualified liberal reaction to the death
of Zarqawi, a new Iraqi government and our president's trip to Iraq, one truly has to question their motivations. To accomplish this, ask yourself some simple questions. Isn't the meeting of democratically formulated American policy goals good for our country? When positive events are marginalized or portrayed in a disingenuous manner to meet a political agenda, who wins? It is an obvious answer the American public is figuring out; not our country.
that America was ever really anyone's if by that you mean a one party state (and let's hope to God it never becomes a one party state!) The closest we came to that would have been in the FDR period, and even then the GOP was still quite competetive. In a country the size of America I think it's pretty well impossible for a single ideology to dominate entirely, at least not legally and peacefully.
One of the main points is that America has never really adopted this ideology. It was, and continues to be pushed upon an increasingly vocal majority as a result of circumstance.
As Socrates added rather adroitly, it is a recycled collection of corrupt and disparate points used as a platform to perpetuate liberal relevance and existence. Frankly, I would actually call them excuses, since calling them arguments provides undue credit.
The implied ownership here is about intellectual honesty and cultural morality. Something they have never and will never have title to.
but how was Reagan responsible for ending the Cold War? Seems to me he followed a variation on the theme followed by Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ etc. Containment, occasional confrontation, and forcing the Soviets to sustain high military expenditures ended the Cold War and there was a long lasting bipartisan consenus on that strategy.
a rightwing ideology either. Americans may well not be the smartest folk in the world, but they have a healthy suspicion of all hawkers of panaceas and even at the height of great public emergencies they are careful never to give anyone too much power. For that reason, I think, we will never have an American Reign of Terror or an American Reich or an American Cultural Revolution.
The Reagan Doctrine was different then containment used by Truman, et al. This policy was a push back of Soviet encroachment through the support of allies and "proxy" armies. It was combined with other foreign policy aspects such as:
- Intial agressive nuclear posture
- General military buildup
- Displaying a willingness to push treaty limits by deploying SDI
- Communicating,commenting and characterizing publicly and regularly
- Forcing a reduction in Soviet western hard currency earnings (then forcing them to spend more to support allies)
While some were tried separately before, it is their distinctive plurality which produced success. Yes, I believe he won the Cold War.
about Reagan's confrontational posture with nuclear weapons, e.g., Pershing deployment; SDI, the critics (Left) called it Star Wars; the military buildup, spiraling deficits since he had to give them the social spending to get the military spending; or the belicose speech towards them, the name calling was endless. There's a whole bunch of revisionism about the Reagan Era now that even his opponents have to recognize his achievements, but the "usual suspects" hated him as much or more than they hate GWB and the '80s were anything but a happy, unified time.
sure know how to write -- I am so very, very glad I stumbled onto this place.
Leftoverism™
A new application for the patent office?
- Every scandal is Watergate, every misfiled or unchecked report a coverup
- Every civilian casualty is My Lai
- Every conservative jurist is "worse than Bork"
- Every attempt to maintain civility or decency is censorship.
Read Michael Barone's OpEd in the WSJ (page 14) today.
Further validation of the Lefoverism theory
You have put into detail what I call "leftoverism": that trait of the American Left of casting every event as a replay of some long-dead fight from the glory days of their movement.
Nice diary.