Why do conservatives hate our freedom? (Part One)
I'm no historian but it seems to me that this country was founded on some pretty liberal notions. The better part of those liberal notions are embodied in the Bill of Rights. My personal favorites are freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to privacy. These things were defined as "rights" specifically so that no one, including the government, whether federal, state or local, can usurp, override, remove or impinge those rights. These are things to which we are all entitled by virtue of our residence within the borders of this nation, irrespective of race, creed, color, religion or national origin because they are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. I am unambiguous in this belief and it serves for me personally as a default perspective when I look at the mess that conservatives have made of this country over the last seven years.
As prescribed in the Constitution, the following is the oath of office to which George W. Bush and every president before him swore, with their right hand on a bible and the left raised in promise and commitment:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
At 35 words it is elegant in its simplicity and unwavering in its intent, "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." There is no reference to a political party, a religion, a social group, an economic system, a national border or anything else, just the Constitution.
I appreciate that being the President of the United States is probably the hardest job in all of creation. In order to get to the point that one is taking the Oath of Office, one must swim in perilous political waters and each day presents another opportunity to make a fatal error. Our political system has proven many times, and especially in recent years, that leadership qualities, good character and unwavering honesty are not the qualities that will have you striking that classic pose with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on a certain January day in Washington D.C. Still, I am mortified when I see an example of what has been perpetrated upon our great nation. The following took place in November 2005 in the Oval Office, was reported in the media and below, recounted in the Daily Kos:
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
In this brief episode of "W Gone Wild," we are treated to a frightening look at a sorry excuse of a leader and a man of so little character that he should be ashamed to occupy the same position as even the least of the greatest people who preceded him...although Nixon is a close exception.
Not surprisingly, throughout his tenure Bush has continued to attack the "goddamned piece of paper" often for political gain and frequently in the guise of action in the "war on terror." Recently Bush's attacks on our rights have come in the form of illegal wiretapping and the justification of such activities. Adding insult to this injury, Bush is working to grant "retroactive immunity" to the large communication companies who acted outside the law and were willing accomplices in these illegal acts. However unsurprised I am, I can't see this as being anything but dangerous and wrong.
During the "Republican Revolution" of the 1990s, while identifying themselves as, "the party of accountability," they impeached Bill Clinton with the battle cry, "we are a nation of laws, not men!" One might have believed that they did indeed stand on some higher moral ground. Alas, these high minded ideas became as hollow as jack-o-lanterns after the theft of the 2000 election and the installation of Bush and his mob of exceptionalist hypocrites and white collar criminals. Then the literary phrase that became most apt, a famous one from Lord Acton, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
So there's my take on it. Why do conservatives hate our freedom? Simply stated, they just love power, money and elitism more. Next time I'll get into what makes a conservative a conservative.
Comments
Dan, up until you referenced "Daily Kos" I was reading along with understanding and no issues.
The Daily Kos is nothing but angry ranting, it has no journalist credibility. To cite it as a reference is to poison your own prose. Why sabotage yourself?
I have no more belief in anything posted on Kos than in bigfoot.
Posted by: Anthony | January 26, 2008 02:36 PM
Hi Dan. Interesting post. I think it would have served you well as your introductory post for this blog. I should note that while I don't personally know you, I have read your many letters to the editor in the local papers over the years. And, as a conservative, I don't take offense at your writings in general, or the tenor of this post in particular. You do, however, present a caricature of conservatives that leads me to believe that you must not know many of us personally.
I say that because like many modern liberals, you seem to demonize conservatives as, at best, stupid, or at worst, evil. This is understandable considering you seem to operate from the principle that since conservatives are "opposed" to that which you are an "advocate", and since that which you advocate is good and true, then those who oppose your views must be bad and false. It's a little superficial, but again, I take no offense.
I do not pretend to speak for conservatives, but I would like to respond from my point of view. I actually consider myself more of a traditionalist that conservative. I think that the labels "liberal" and "conservative" don't resemble their original definitions any more. I think most modern conservatives are actually liberals who want to place what they think are "common sense" limits on liberalism. They don't, however, operate from a principled conservative philosophy.
Most modern liberals, on the other hand, have focused liberalism down to the fervant pursuit of equality above all other things. There can be no higher virtue to a liberal than "non-discrimination". And, despite Jefferson's proclamation that "all men are created equal" and entitled to certain political rights of which we are all familiar; the truth is that humans are not all equal. They possess differing abilities, affected by inteligence, culture, nurturing, etc. Therefore there can be no equality of outcome for all people, in spite of our best political efforts to the contrary.
Since most modern liberals can not accept or acknowledge this reality, they must in turn, characterize all examples of inequality of outcome as the result of a repressive political and social system that, by design, excludes and prevents some from acheiving as much as others. Therefore, liberalism must seek to destroy these political and social systems in order to acheive ultimate equality.
As a conservative, I unapologetically believe that our country is a tangible thing born of not only classic liberal priciples, but also fostered by a western cultural tradition and a free market economy. Unlike many liberals, I do not belive in an economic "zero-sum gain" philosophy in which all wealth is acquired at the expense of others. I also believe in the moral and cultural superiority of western civilization in general, and the United States in particular. I believe this tangible aspect of our country is worth protecting.
Dan, you wrote: "These are [rights] to which we are all entitled by virtue of our residence within the borders of this nation[.]
Refering to the Presidential Oath of Office, you wrote just a few sentences later: "There is no reference to a political party, a religion, a social group, an economic system, a national border or anything else, just the Constitution."
In one breath you acknowledge that our politcal rights, those possessing the very liberal priciples to which you adhere, are contained within and guaranteed by the borders of our nation. In the next breath you try to deny that those borders are tangible and necessary to defend. You can't have it both ways. You can not profess to advocate classic liberal principles without acknowledging the greatness of the civilization and nation that allowed these principles to flourish.
Posted by: rainman | January 27, 2008 02:24 PM
My first thought when I read this was "wow, do I sound that bad when I go on my anti-liberal rants?" I'm sure I do. So as someone guilty of equally one-sided rants that I regretted later I'll let you chalk this up to having been angry when you wrote it.
Obviously you don't believe conservatives hate freedom any more than you would believe liberals hate freedom. If you are using the criteria that only presidents who fully follow the constitution truly love freedom than you'll find we haven't had such a leader since the days of Washington, Jefferson and Adams.
You're also painting with a broad brush when you lump all conservatives into one category. To some, George W. Bush is no more a conservative than his father was, although he has been better on some issues.
Conservatives don't hate freedom. We support many freedoms that liberals do not. Freedom to own a firearm, freedom to drive your car where you want to, freedom to smoke in public. How about the freedom to spend your hard earned income without having the government take it all away from you? To conservatives, 100% taxation is slavery, while 0% taxation is absolute freedom. So, to us, liberals prefer a higher level of slavery than we do, as they support higher taxation. To us, it is liberals who seem to "hate" freedom.
The majority of laws passed by government involve some tradeoff between safety/security and freedom. Even smoking laws involve the balance of someone's right to smoke versus someone else's right to breathe clean air. I disagree with some of the more draconian smoking laws but I wouldn't say that they hate freedom.
Finally there is the subject matter of what has you angry: wiretapping of overseas phone calls. This provision of the patriot act has a lot of people angry, including some conservatives and libertarians. Not just liberals. However, you should try to discuss the merits and negative costs of phone tapping rather than just label supporters as haters of freedom. While I too am cautious about allowing the government to intrude in this manner, there are some societal benefits to listening in on the phone calls of those who wish to kill us. There are some people who do not believe in the wire-tapping of calls to suspected terrorists who would be just fine with the tapping of calls to drug dealers. My point is not to support the wire tapping, but to point out that it's an issue worthy of discussion which has been grossly politicized by partisan hack groups like the daily kos.
I don't know if my comments help you think about this a little or if they just inflame you more at conservatives, but I hope you'll see that we're not so easily typecast as the old white men in smoke-filled rooms who want to starve senior citizens.
Posted by: Dane Langston | January 28, 2008 02:55 PM
It has long been my take on it that conservatives love power, money and elitism. I think they are afraid they will be treated as unjustly as they have treated others, and seek status as a sense of identity. Interesting that real names are not even used to post comments. Hmm. Looking forward to your views as to what makes a conservative a conservative.
Ann Ashley
Posted by: Ann Ashley | January 29, 2008 05:14 PM