Friday, August 21, 2009


"Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence." - E.J. Dionne Jr. in The Washington Post 8/20/2009

You think so?

If, as Papa’s co-contributor Valentine Marofsky “Himself” has proclaimed – “It is better to be uninformed than misinformed.” - There can be no better example of this than that of Mr. Dionne Jr. If he really believes that "our freedoms rest on..." anything that bears any resemblance whatsoever to the rest of his sentence, or the assertions in his second statement, then Papa must ask – “Where has E.J. Dionne Jr. been all his life?”

First of all... when have we ever had a "moral consensus" on anything in America? Slavery? The Constitutional deprivation of rights from Americans who are female? The annihilation of the East Cost and then the Great Plains Indians? The mass imprisonment of innocent American citizens of Japanese heritage? The use of nuclear weapons? The rape of the world's resources? Not to mention more recent events. Has any or all of this sprung from a "moral consensus"?

Second... we do not live in a "democratic republic." Just isn't so. In fact, the two terms are antithetical. A democracy is no republic and neither is a republic, democratic. This sort of liberal, nonsense-intellectualism is as stupid as the right-wing nut cases who scream and shout, "I want my country back." Neither knows what they're talking about.

Third... "We work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument." Really? Has Mr. Dionne Jr. never heard of The Civil War? 600,000 dead (in what was then a tiny country) dwarfs our casualties in any foreign war or armed conflict this nation has ever participated in... And all we were doing 150 years ago was killing ourselves. Hardly what could be called reasoned argument by any rational definition and how silly is it to say that such widespread death and destruction was merely raucous?

Fourth... what exactly is our American history when it comes to "free elections and open debate...?" Is further elaboration necessary?

Without regard to the merits of the right-wing's, anti-Obama, anti-healthcare, anti-everything/government movement, their open love of and packing of firearms IS what the American tradition is really all about. There is little if any distinction to be made between early American vigilante law enforcement and the empowerment of the frontier "bad guys" as the official authority for law & order, and today's Blackwater contractors who make war around the globe in the name of and in the pay of this American government.

And as for guns and Presidents.... quick.... list all those Presidents who were shot at! Quite a list, wouldn't you say? That's what our history is — like it or not. Not much reason. Hardly any real debate. Few and far between when it comes to free elections. But... lots of guns and lots of violence.

The E. J. Dionne Jr.'s and the Obama-Loving-Upper West Side-Soy Eating-Liberals have it all wrong if they think that a reasoned, democratic approach to their opposition will win out in the end. They need to stop pretending.

Papa thinks that those who actually want to get something done are coming to believe that we might be better off if Rham Emanuel (or the ghost of LBJ) and not Barack Obama was in charge.

No comments: