WaPo columnist laments lack of GOP compromise that led to freeing the slaves, or something

posted at 11:36 am on May 10, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I may have read less coherent rants on American exceptionalism than today’s column by Richard Cohen, but I’m not sure I can say when.  In attempting to argue that American exceptionalism has somehow become a religious doctrine, Cohen then argues — as near as I can tell — that its “dogma” has killed the art of compromise.  Furthermore, Cohen can pinpoint exactly when this started, and to no one’s great shock, it’s when the Republican Party first formed.  And then Cohen tells of the dire consequences that followed from the founding of the High Church of Republicanism:

The huge role of religion in American politics is nothing new but always a matter for concern nonetheless. In the years preceding the Civil War, both sides of the slavery issue claimed the endorsement of God. The 1856 Republican convention concluded with a song that ended like this: “We’ve truth on our side/ We’ve God for our guide.” Within five years, Americans were slaughtering one another on the battlefield.

Therein lies the danger of American exceptionalism. It discourages compromise, for what God has made exceptional, man must not alter. And yet clearly America must change fundamentally or continue to decline. It could begin by junking a phase that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves.

Er … what?  Is Cohen seriously arguing that Republicans should have compromised on the issue of slavery?  That the Civil War was the fault of Republicans for opposing continuing enslavement of human beings?  Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner is as nonplussed as I am:

Does Cohen really want to maintain that the Republicans of the 1850s should have been more willing to compromise on slavery? Is this what liberalism has come to?

It’s the end to where intellectual dishonesty leads.  Cohen starts off with a false premise that mainstream views of American exceptionalism involves religion in any significant sense at all, or that it involves a self-image of perfection.   Cohen seems to have confused American exceptionalism with Manifest Destiny, and added his own heaping helping of paranoia to it.

American exceptionalism springs from the removal of Old World aristocracy and firm class barriers to success.  It involves the forces that made upward mobility in America much easier than in other nations.  It’s primarily an economic, not religious, distinction, based on private property rights and free markets.  The lack of a ruling class made it easier for those of modest means to create their own markets and find wealth and success in the US.  Until recently, it also involved government with a light touch, rather than a recreation of Old World aristocracy that arbitrarily picked winners and losers by exerting their influence on property and markets.

Some may see religious nuances in the idea of American exceptionalism, but it rests on actually divorcing God from the ruling class.  Aristocracies existed for millenia on the basis of divine right — divine right to property, and divine right to rule.  The mechanism of American exceptionalism opposes this notion rather than adopts it.  It argues that free people have individual, natural rights to determine their own government and control their own property.  The concept of natural rights has its roots in religion, but American exceptionalism is the rejection of rule by divine right, not its embrace.  And the pro-slavery religious argument was its opposite.

Opposition to slavery was one of the most ideal of the manifestations of these principles, and the worthy didn’t believe they could be compromised with a system that resembled Old World serfdom.  Until now, few questioned those motivations, let alone the principles of abolition.  That Cohen could write this drivel — and that the Washington Post would not ask Cohen to rethink it — perhaps indicates just how far we have drifted from the economic and public-policy principles that made us exceptional in the first place.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

j_galt on May 10, 2011 at 4:18 PM

SoonerMarine on May 10, 2011 at 5:18 PM

I had a better response than this posted. HotAir seems to have swallowed it up. Probably in the spam filter, though there’s nary a foul word in the lot. So I will try again. This is a lesser text than I had wished.

I just want to make sure you both understand that your position is that the federal government has no rights to strike at a force (and it is a military force) that intends to usurp federal authority and use violence against the agents and citizens of the United States to enforce their own will against that of the other (at present, for the sake of argument) – say 250 million people in the other 49 states (49, 50, 51, 57 who cares, right? It’s only one state. Let them all have their own way.)

Only the perfectly boring and unsubstantial Life is devoid of conflict. Even the Life of Jesus Christ was supremely filled with conflict and violence. The Lord tried to show us the error of our ways and allow us to use persuasion, integrity, compassion, and love for our Fellow Man as the basis to resolve that conflict. He has yet to be successful, though I know we all have great hopes we will one day be worthy of the suffering he endured for us. Great Suffering (slavery) is worthy of Great Sacrifice (War against oppression and tyranny, and even slavery).

War has solved more seemingly intractable conflicts between peoples than any other force on this Earth. War shortens the conflicts because no one can stand the bloodshed and suffering it brings for long without total exhaustion and an ultimate resolution of Victory or Defeat. All wars which began of intractable conflicts lasted far shorter than the previous oppressive periods in which killing went on at lower levels under tyranny.

Those who would “give Peace a chance” are more than happy to allow the gruesome suffering and inexhaustible oppression to linger for “a few more years” when the decades of tyranny, death, and murder in Libya, Syria, Saddam’s Iraq, the Ayatollah’s Iran, the Taliban’s Afghanistan, Communist China and North Korea allow their citizens to suffer in poverty and oppression to avoid a swifter and surer, albeit more violent end, in favor of the death and famine that “Peace” brings to their peoples. Poverty and famine bring Death as surely as slavery does, and for much longer periods than any possible violent conflict can sustain.

If we had not acted against Saddam Hussein over 50,000 of his own people would have been slaughtered annually. If we had not opposed, and finally caused to collapse, the tyranny of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union then the murders of 50,000 to 500,000 more people yearly in the gulags would have resulted. If we had not stood up to and defeated Hitler’s and Tojo’s combined warfare, the world would have seen 5 million fewer souls alive each year. Is there no level of slaughter and injustice which supports warfare then, in your opinion?

While slavery was certainly evil, it is by no means certain the death and cruelty under slavery is on a par with World War II. A relatively small number of slave masters were cruel and would kill a slave without remorse. And while millions certainly died in slavery over decades since the founding of the Colonies, it is by no means clear that slavery was the ultimate cause of their deaths. They lived a life of poverty and hard labor, like many poor souls before them who eked out a living from the ground before them and since them. Hard and less civilized life killed many just like them, who were not slaves, but were imprisoned in gulags or concentration camps. While hardly a majority of the slave owners were “kindly and benevolent” masters, they nevertheless refrained from outright torture and cruelty to their slaves. That would be like throwing money away for sport, or killing property for no measure of improvement.

While it is true that they were nevertheless absolutely wrong in assuming a human being was property, their evil was certainly on a level lesser than those who beat and abused their slaves for no reason, or those who relished in the torture of Shiites under Saddam, killed millions through forced labor camps in the 20th century, or gassed whole races simply for having a bad reputation and being a scapegoat for the world’s ills. Yet, slavery was an evil that had to be extinguished.

Without the American Civil War, how many Negroes in America would be Free to live their own lives today? How many African-Americans would be 100% guaranteed, without question, and without appeal, to be treated as Men and not property by their neighbors or their superiors, whomever you choose to label with that term (including bosses, pastors, politicians, and rich folks, just to name a few). Their Freedom and the Freedom of all minorities in this country was assured and enshrined in the blood of the millions shed during that war. No one can say for certain whether that Freedom would have come next year, next decade, or next millenium.

As for the reference to military/war worship, perhaps I have more admiration for Men who lay down their lives for their Fellow Man than most. I am a student of history. I see where things could have been done differently, but they weren’t. The future is never certain, and cannot be predicted, certainly not by Lincoln, Lee, Grant, Beauregard, or anyone in that bloody war. Call me a Warmonger if you wish, a Warrior if preferred. I welcome that label. I also concede that you may generate your own opinions regarding whether Lincoln was right or was wrong in his actions, but warn you that like all human interaction, our enemies get a vote.

The South fired the first shot. Would you really expect the President of the United States to act otherwise in defense of the Union? My point is not that Lincoln was blameless. My point is not that we cannot make judgments for others of what they should have done differently. My words speak for themselves: We have no right to determine for ourselves that defense of the Union by blood and by federal force was the wrong way to solve this problem. We did not live in 1860 and we were not in charge of diddly squat in that environment.

My point is that no one, especially us living today, can judge whether different actions in that environment (which we cannot possibly understand completely because we did not live through it) would have turned out to lead to a completely peaceful resolution. The reactions of millions of Northerners and Southerners cannot be laid at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. No one Man can ride that whirlwind any more than our current or past President can snap his fingers, make a speech, bribe some politicians, and expect to change the minds of 1 Billion Muslims who think it is fine to allow homicide bombings as long as infidels are the targets.

I respect your disagreements. I neither yield nor falter in my belief that the American Civil War made America what it is today, and that it is a far nobler place on this Earth because of that war. That alone makes that war worthy of honr and admiration.

Our country is blind and reckless sometimes. But results matter. The forces for Good in this world reside unhesitatingly and inexorably in the American people and our belief in the equality of all Men and the application of a just and fair treatment for all. And those values were tempered in the lives and deaths of Men clad in Blue and Grey who fought for what they believed was their land.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 10, 2011 at 7:05 PM

SoonerMarine on May 10, 2011 at 5:18 PM

j_galt on May 10, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Guys, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Sorry. HotAir’s spam filter, or something, has swallowed up two long posts to your comments. I can’t seem to get it to post at all for me anymore. So until Allah or Ed can figure it out, I’ll just let it rest. You’ll never know what my thoughts were…

….it was a decent reply though…

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 10, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Liberals speak with forked tongue. For example:

Lie: “Exceptionalism is bad because it caused violence.”

Translation of Lie: “Principle is bad because it caused struggle to defeat slavery and slave-masters.”

drunyan8315 on May 10, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 10, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Well, I guess I’ll just go paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 2: You assume that which we are arguing. The Federal government under Lincoln, did not, in fact, have the authority to usurp the authority of the State of South Carolina, which existed well before the federal government.

Paragraph 3: Jesus Christ taught us many things – two being that we would have trials and tribulations in this world and that the poor will always be with us. Paragraph 2 is most telling of your world view. It seems you see the USA as a force of the Lord Jesus Christ to spread goodness across this globe via war.

Jesus Christ came for one purpose, to save the lost. When He returns, He will fight the battle that must be fought, and He will reign.

Paragraph 4: War does not solve conflicts. War ends conflicts and the most powerful group wins.

Paragraph 5 & 6: When people are ready for freedom, they will seek it, and fight for it. We can’t fight the battle for them. You say you read history, but you seem ignorant of the history of the Middle East and the conditions of the Asian peoples since the beginning of time.

Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 & 10: Yes, slavery is wrong. However, again, the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. Lincoln said as much. His advisers said as much. Journalists of the day said as much. Pointing to what you see as a moral victory to justify a war that was started for other reasons is disingenuous. Slavery would have ended just as it did in other countries. What you seem oblivious to, is that while slavery of black people ended via the Civil War, slavery of all colors of people continue today in the form of debts, laws and regulations that prevent people from living life how they want to live.

Paragraph 11: I have much respect and love for men who lay down their lives to fight a fight that must be fought. Greater love has no man than he who lay down his life for his friends. That is honorable. Defending yourself is justified. Attacking others isn’t

However, I have no respect for war. It may be necessary, but killing other men isn’t glorious. It isn’t something to strive for. Have you killed a man, or men? I haven’t, and I’d rather not have to, ever. Do you ever hear men who talk about how glorious it was to kill a man? Have you ever heard them talk about how good it made them feel to end a life, a human life, a life made in the image of God?

You see, you talk as though you believe in Jesus Christ, yet you seem to forget that even our vilest enemies were made in the image of God and they too are men for whom Christ Jesus died. What glory is there in ending the life of a man who doesn’t know God and doesn’t know Jesus as his Savior?

Paragraph 12: Yes, the South fired the first shot. What’s your point? If a man is invading my home, and I fire the first shot, am I in the wrong? Could that invader then call all his buddies and come take over my house and steal all my stuff because I fired the first shot?

Paragraph 13: We’ll agree to disagree.

Paragraph 14: Yes, many people in this country are blind and reckless. But, the Blue and the Gray couldn’t both be right, and thus, the couldn’t both be good.

One side was right and one side was wrong.

j_galt on May 10, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Let me add something:

I get a bit irritated when people use Jesus or the Bible to support things which neither Jesus nor the Bible supports. This applies to the Left and the Right. Both camps like to play the Jesus card when it suits them, and too many people are fooled.

Jesus Christ gave his disciples one great command: to go into the nations and make more disciples who follow Christ and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. And this command is subsequent to the two commands, Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus did not tell his disciples to create governments, arm a military, start wars and kill people to spread goodness and liberty.

Jesus did not tell people to form governments and steal people’s money via force and give that stolen money to poor people or the less fortunate.

Jesus told his disciples to preach the Good News and to help those in need without government involvement.

j_galt on May 10, 2011 at 10:19 PM

j_galt on May 10, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Para. 2 I believe some Supreme Court decisions and the spirit of the Constitution disagree with the supposition that South Carolina’s right to secede was rooted in their superior authority as a pre existing entity to leave the Union and defy some of the sovereign powers given to the federal government. Yours is a legal argument, and I’ll admit you may be smarter than me. Mine is more an emotional argument, and is based on my belief that our federal government, at times, deserves to be superior in some areas, especially defense. We will continue to disagree, even though you may have the preponderance of legal arguments at your fingertips to support your position. Just because it is legal does not make it Right.

Para 3. Nowhere do I say or believe that Jesus Christ has blessed the USA above other nations. I do not believe that. I believe that because we are a predominantly Christian nation, we are predisposed to believe in His Word and to follow His teachings. A Crusade is far from my meaning in any paragraph. But suit yourself. Believe of me whatever you want.

Para 4. Agreed.

Para 5&6. I know well the histories of the Asian peoples. I know their condition of existence and lack of care for human life. I certainly have plenty of knowledge, if not first hand experience, with Middle Eastern culture and its view of those who do not believe Islam is the most important word in the world. We were speaking of the United States and slavery, sir. Just where did I opine that Muslims were inclined to seek, fight for, or deserve Freedom at the muzzle of our guns?

para 7,8,9,10. Calling the obligations to follow the laws of the country, however unfair they may seem to one who truly wants absolute Freedom from government, slavery is a bit of an extreme definition to me. Is it truly slavery to pay your bills on time? Is it truly slavery to pay the IRS to support the US Army’s maintenance and upkeep? Is it truly slavery to insist upon stopping at red lights and proceeding on green lights? Your complaints are matters of degree, sir. I have no illusions of the inertia, inefficiency and injustice of the US government and its institutions. Their failures are not even in the same class as the failures of every other country I have been to, and the list there is long and distinguished. You may complain that things are not as you wish because they are not perfect. I complain they are not as I wish but they are a damn sight better than anywhere else. THAT is what I defend and am proud of. And my state government and federal government are leaps and bounds beyond the governments of Britain, Canada, Russia, China, South Africa, Darfur, Iran, Iraq, and Japan, amongst many others. I have no illusions just how bad things could be because I have seen them firsthand elsewhere.

Para 11. You completely misread me. I am not glorifying war. I am merely factual and statistical about it. I lived warfighting for 20 yrs. It was my job. My crews were very good at it. And we never wanted to, nor had to, use the skills we learned in anger. If we had, I am quite sure you would be dead at the hands of a Soviet retaliatory, or first strike. I am merely pointing out that war has solved more questions that it has raised. Defeat absolutely defines the conditions of the loser, and Victory the conditions of the Winner. And you have completely missed the tragedy involved in the American conflict most related to killing one’s Fellow Man. The Civil War pitted brother against brother, father against son. No American war ever has done that to the same degree before, or since. Nothing can be more tragic than a father killing his own son simply because they chose the opposite sides of the same conflict. THAT is my point. Your focus is on world wars. Mine is on American wars, which I believed to be the subject in question.

para 12. While you may be correct that it wasn’t right for the North to insist on loyalty to the Union, I remain grateful the South was defeated and is still part of the Union today. That is the result of my argument for the finality of warfare in answering the question of states’ rights, slavery, and the worthiness of federal law over state law. Our country would be far less the source of Good in the world today if the South had won. The House divided against itself would be far less in the two halves than the whole that exists today. You may argue otherwise. However your crystal ball is no clearer than mine on the subject.

Para 14. For someone who believes “that even our vilest enemies were made in the image of God and they too are men for whom Christ Jesus died”, you have a serious disdain for the loss of Union and Confederate heroes who joined the war only to defend what they saw as their lands’ interests, and their families’ survival. I see the tragedy of Brother on Brother in an unnecessary, but foregone and bitter war. You see Right and Wrong, and denigrate the Wrong side as unworthy of consideration for their motives, or respect for their sacrifice in a losing (or winning, I can’t tell whom you truly think should have won because they were right) cause. My position is that history is what it is, painful, tragic, and dismal in the deaths of so many brave Men. Yours seems to be the Union did not have the right to insist on the existence of the Union for the protection of the entire country. So I must suppose you feel the country is illegitimate and unworthy of further sacrifice.

The bottom line is that Warriors fight for their families, for the Men beside them, and for the values of their country. I choose to believe the United States is a force for Good in the world. Maybe not always right. But always better than the alternative (of which there is ample evidence means beheadings, suicide bombings, tyranny and oppression in the Third World, and complete indifference and even Cowardice in the face of some breastbeating tinpot dictator who has a sabre to rattle, but not the will to face the United States, from Europeans and so called “civilized” societies). If your position is otherwise, then state so. Otherwise, methinks you protest against your country too much simply because you are not completely free to spend as you like, live as you like, love as you like, and worship as you like, but you are over 80% Free in all those areas. Then explain how any of these Freedoms you would seem to feel you lack are so restricted as to be tyrannical… even in the age of Lincoln.

Again, I don’t necessarily disagree vehemently with your positions. I am a Southerner, and do believe Southern Men were right to oppose the demands of a far away government which seemed unfair to them, even if slavery was not their primary concern. You just argue like you despise your own country’s government and wish the South were out from under the Union. I do have a problem with that thought.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Again my answer goes off into the ether. I gotta learn to say things in fewer words. But then I would be reduced to just the seven dirty words……

We’ll see if Ed gets it out of the spam filter.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 10, 2011 at 11:14 PM

The South fired the first shot.

One of the United States’ Finest Hours…….ever.

Subsunk on May 10, 2011 at 3:25 PM

The South was provoked. And it was not a fine hour at all.

John the Libertarian on May 11, 2011 at 2:27 AM

Yeah, provoked by the fact that their racist slavery would no longer be tolerated:

http://www.stratalum.org/apostles.html

You can read the obscene filth of the -official representatives- of the seceding states right here:

http://civilwarcauses.org/commish.htm

They spell out quite clearly what the REAL reason for the Civil War was.

ebrown2 on May 11, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Again, I don’t necessarily disagree vehemently with your positions. I am a Southerner, and do believe Southern Men were right to oppose the demands of a far away government which seemed unfair to them, even if slavery was not their primary concern. You just argue like you despise your own country’s government and wish the South were out from under the Union. I do have a problem with that thought.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Sure, there are certain people in government that I do not like. What I dislike the most is the system of government itself. I despise that we need government at all. Government is simply a daily reminder of the fallen nature of man. If men were angles and all that. Government is like medicine. You take medicine when you have to, but you never want more and more and more and more medicine. (Well, unless you become a drug addict, which is a good comparison, because many people have become government addicts.)

Also, government is control; government is rules and regulations that propose to tell people how to live, how to be safe, what to eat, what not to drink, how fast to drive, how far from the road you can build a fence, what light bulbs you can buy, how much energy you should use, how hot your bath water should be, etc. During all the philosophical debate over government, we should always remember that government laws, rules and regulations actually impact the way we live, every day. And that affect is growing.

As a Christian, I believe what Jesus said. Jesus never forced anyone to change, to follow Him. He simply said, I stand at the door and knock, if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in. Too many fellow believers have fallen into worship of government, and government handouts and government control.

Finally, yes, I believe that we should return our country to a proper form of federalism, where the People, the State governments and the Federal governments had an equal seat at the table of governance. The Federal government was never intended to be an all powerful supra-state, but that is what we have today.

In the beginning, we had a group of united States, separate states who decided to unite together for certain purposes. There were known as the United States of America.

Today, people think the USA is a name of one huge single nation. They are correct to think so, but that’s not what the Founders intended.

and wish the South were out from under the Union. I do have a problem with that thought.

You see, this is an odd statement. Who were the Founders trying to get out from under? The Crown, right? Do you have a problem with that? I doubt it.

What I decided to simply move to another country, to get out from under this government? Do you have a problem with that?

You want people to submit to the government and you demand loyalty to the USA, or else you have a problem with that. I simply want people to be free, and to be able and choose to stay or choose to go.

Final question, what if, at some point in the near future, the US Federal Government decides to stop people from leaving this country? Will you support that? Would you prefer I be thrown in jail or shot rather than letting me leave?

j_galt on May 11, 2011 at 9:18 AM

You want people to submit to the government and you demand loyalty to the USA, or else you have a problem with that. I simply want people to be free, and to be able and choose to stay or choose to go.

Final question, what if, at some point in the near future, the US Federal Government decides to stop people from leaving this country? Will you support that? Would you prefer I be thrown in jail or shot rather than letting me leave?

j_galt on May 11, 2011 at 9:18 AM

I do NOT want people to submit to the federal government without question. I want them to take charge of the accountability for it, and question it with all their might. I want them to make change happen at the ballot box and to ridicule every politician who makes laws that make no fiscal sense.

However, I do not want them being unreasonable in their expectations. Remember I have worked both sides of this government. The citizenry needs to insist on civilian oversight, and accountability of government bureaucrats, and the politicians who try to hide behind the money and favors they expend. Our government needs to do some things well and the rest not at all.

But you must also recognize that the people who serve their country are regular ordinary folks who grew up next door. They need our consideration as well. If the government is constantly denigrated by society, then who will serve? Only those who see a way to make a crooked buck. And THAT is how we got the government we have now!

Our military serves for a pittance compared to civilian salaries, and yes I have seen the raises they got and the jobs they are asked to do. They are adequately financially compensated now, but severely underappreciated in value. That has an effect on all who serve, civilian and military. And the average kid who wants to serve their country in law enforcement and military service, or just do a job the government is supposed to do as a service does not need to be constantly told by their neighbors what a dumbass they are because the system doesn’t work as well as some would like it to. If you don’t like it, the answer is not to start a war, or to leave the country because it isn’t your perception of your duty to oppose stupid government laws.

So I disagree that you are grossly put upon by a modicum of laws and regualtions. I agree there is far too much presently on the books. However, I also agree some are necessary. We ain’t there yet.

Regarding your final question. If the US government overstepped its bounds (as I do believe it is doing in many cases now, but not seriously enough to warrant bloodshed) in the way you envisioned in your final question (i.e. would I see you go to prison or pick up a rifle and start shooting those trying to imprison you unjustly for wanting to leave the country), would I support tyranny in the US government? The answer is “Pass me the ammunition. I’ll see you in Fist City…… but we ain’t there yet.

I am not a robot, nor a pushover. When the US federal government goes Fascist (as I believe it is heading right now), I will be one of the first to die to protect your right to leave when you wish, speak as you wish, pray as you wish, and live as you wish. I ain’t got no hand for trouble. But I’ll die before I’ll run….

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 11, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Maybe FDR should’ve compromised with Hitler and Kennedy with Kruschev. Cohen is an idiot, always has been.

DailyDanet on May 11, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Our government needs to do some things well and the rest not at all.

Exactly.

But you must also recognize that the people who serve their country are regular ordinary folks who grew up next door. They need our consideration as well. If the government is constantly denigrated by society, then who will serve? Only those who see a way to make a crooked buck. And THAT is how we got the government we have now!

My only issue with this approach is that it is the very approach that has led to the overstuffed government that we have today. Being nice and friendly about oppression will continue to lead to a fascist regime. At some point, we must say something. And whatever we say must have an impact on the minds of people who work in government.

When the US federal government goes Fascist (as I believe it is heading right now), I will be one of the first to die to protect your right to leave when you wish, speak as you wish, pray as you wish, and live as you wish. I ain’t got no hand for trouble. But I’ll die before I’ll run….

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 11, 2011 at 2:53 PM

I agree. I don’t plan on running anywhere. I’ll have ammunition to pass to you. If you talk with someone long enough, you can almost always find something to agree on.

j_galt on May 11, 2011 at 4:10 PM

…Being nice and friendly about oppression will continue to lead to a fascist regime. At some point, we must say something. And whatever we say must have an impact on the minds of people who work in government….

j_galt on May 11, 2011 at 4:10 PM

I believe the TEA parties are evidence of the first two sentences. I believe there is yet to be evidence of the third sentence, especially in Republicans, the people who should be most easily accessed by this point of view.

But like the Submarine Force always says, “The Stupid shall be Punished.”

Subsunk on May 11, 2011 at 6:28 PM

That Cohen could write this drivel — and that the Washington Post would not ask Cohen to rethink it — perhaps indicates just how far we have drifted from the economic and public-policy principles that made us exceptional in the first place.

I beg to differ with your “perhaps.” I would say that these people (Cohen and the WaPo editors, along with the rest of the leftist MSM) are simply ignorant of truth and our nation’s ACTUAL history. What they “know” is false; their liberal education has force-fed them liberal-leftist pap. They simply don’t see what’s wrong with the article, because they don’t know jack about our nation’s TRUE history!

Given that Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States is considered US history (as opposed to the Marxist propaganda that it actually is) is a clue as to what these liberal “elites” know about American history.

In other words – nothing.

DINORight on May 11, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2