In the following article we’re given the argument that liberals are mired in a flawed reality where words are curtains which veil reality. Just as we’ve heard that Obama is “all talk” this article seeks to prove that calls for unity and compassion are merely unattainable ideals. Essentially it’s like a parent telling their child not to follow their dreams because the chances of obtaining them are far too slim.
The Unity Weapon – The American Thinker
By David Bueche
Next time you hear a liberal politician speaking, check your watch and count the seconds until you hear a call for unity. The problem — we’re told — is that we are divided, and consequently, more interested in fighting than in solving problems.
I’ve taken interest in this article because as you might imagine it delves into the issues of immigration. When we really look at what’s written we’ll see the equivalent of stating red is green because it’s not blue, yellow, orange or purple. The ideas of basic human compassion are well understood. In a simplistic example we know that it’s not right to hit another person. However, we might say it’s justified because you had a gun pointed at you or were accosted in some other manner. But what I’d argue is that if both minds recognized the basic morality that hurting others is wrong there’d be no gun and no fist.
What you’ll see from those that argue points as this article does is that we have no hope of ever being unified because some people wish to wave guns in our faces and we’ll never change that. So is it wrong to think we can change this or do we accept evil as a basic unalterable truth.
One tool you’ll often find in arguments such as this is a use of slavery as an example to prove their point:
Another oft-heard complaint is that the opposition is inflexible and not open to compromise. The fallacy here is that every issue has a middle ground in which the Left and right can meet without surrendering their principles. In our own checkered past of slavery and Jim Crow is it not a blessing that the abolitionists and civil rights protesters were unwilling to seek that “middle ground”? Does anyone, in hindsight, look back fondly on the Missouri Compromise?
What I see here is the “unity” in deciding that slavery was unjust and deplorable. Therefore we ended it; however, we couldn’t end the fact that many still felt blacks were not human beings. Some still to this day believe that blacks are inferior as human beings. Does this mean we can’t have unity?
In this article Obama is quoted and his language analyzed:
“Barack Obama has played a leading role in crafting comprehensive immigration reform. Obama believes the immigration issue has been exploited by politicians to divide the nation rather than find real solutions.”
Note the use of language. People who do not agree with Mr. Obama’s immigration policies are “exploiting” the issue to “divide” the nation — as opposed to Barack Obama who is interested in finding “real solutions”. To disagree with him is to “exploit” and “divide,” which is nothing more than respectable code for hurling the r-word.
I believe it was quite apparent to rational people that the immigration issues was exploited during the debates – that’s exactly why we don’t have one of those that exploited it running for president.
This article also delves into the issue of global warming. This one is also quite strange to me. People will argue that the world has been through many changes and this is just another cycle, but they fail to recognize the fact that the world has never experienced an industrial revolution and the obvious pollutants that we send into the atmosphere. Through and through articles such as this simply serve to make those that enjoy irresponsibility in both the way we treat the environment and the way we treat others is acceptable. It’s like a person that litters believing it’s ok because it creates jobs. We know that throwing trash on the ground is wrong and even nasty, but it’s easy to make it ok by stating that somebody gets paid because we did it. Similarly many condone their own alcoholism because wine is good for the blood or whiskey is good for the whiskers. Maybe it is, but not when it impairs your ability to live a decent life.
To further devalue the idea of unity in regard to the environment this article brings up the idea that the Earth was once thought to be the center of the universe. Of course some things are harder to prove than others and we can reasonably understand why this was thought. One thing that should be apparent however was not as many were duped into believing that cigarettes were good for you, but I think it’s quite obvious that putting a flaming stick into our mouth and sucking in caustic smoke is not a good idea.
Moving on this article gives us example of acceptable unity. Reading this portion you’d think it came from the White House.
There are at least two areas where an expectation of some degree of political unity is appropriate: solidarity in times of war and standards for citizenship and national identity.
In both cases the Left’s previous demands for unity fall away to leave nothing but the rustling of grass and the sound of crickets. In these cases we are told that not only is it an unreasonable expectation, it is indeed their duty to speak out. Presto chango — a wedge issue becomes “the highest form of patriotism”.
By arguing that you must be ‘partiotic’ during times of war this article preaches that we should all simply walk over the cliff because our government believes we should kill people. These same people will tell you that you have to support the war or you don’t support the troops. I find that irresponsible and absurd. Wars are not all equal and they’re certainly not all justifiable.
Unity in a Time of War: It is not fair to ask citizens living in a free country to keep their opinions to themselves in the run up to a war. This is usually a period of great debate with legitimate differences of opinion, tactics, and ideology on all sides. Clearly this is no time to call for unity.
The same cannot be said of a country which is currently engaged in a conflict. Unless the war in question is thoroughly barbaric and wrong, (think Hitler in Poland or the Japanese in Nanking), the reasonable expectation is to present a united front. This does not mean that all citizens agree with every tactic, or even the majority decision to fight. It means that once you’ve committed to the course of action you do your best to pull together and win.
Why think Hitler when we have Bush and his terrible war?
Obviously there is always a role for reasonable criticism and self-examination, (i.e., Abu Ghraib, or rethinking tactics prior to the surge), but it should be done within the context of a country that is united in winning the conflict.
At least this article is somewhat reasonable; however, we don’t have to unite behind a terrible war. There is no mandate to senselessly follow our leader when our leader is engaged in a terrible act.
Unity of Identity as Americans: The motto on our coins — E Pluribus Unum — says it all. Roughly translated as “Out of Many – One,” it is a sentiment which has served us practically as well as poetically. For almost 200 years, it was unquestioned that immigrants would cede allegiance to their country of origin and adopt the language, customs and culture of America. No one expected them to forget where they’d come from, but clearly it was well understood that assimilation was the desired end point. Immigrants chose to come here and were allowed in with varying numbers. Americans generally welcomed them, providing they too loved and appreciated the country that had offered them shelter and opportunity in their time of need.
And now we’re back to immigrants and the idea of assimilation. This is another area in which sources such as this claim current immigrants fail. It’s important to make people believe this because it ads to the fear created by the “other” or the “invaders.”
Somewhere around 1965 Liberals began attacking this social contract. The rise of multiculturalism with its emphasis on the left side of the hyphen, (i.e., Mexican-American), and its relentless balkanization of the country into hostile competing camps has recast one of our great societal assets as an oppressive form of subjugation.
So basically when the civil rights act was put into place and during a struggle for blacks to be recognized and given a proper chance our country failed. We failed because the children and grandchildren of slaves wanted equal treatment. They wanted to identify with their heritage and thus, according to this article, are wrong for doing so.
I often wonder how anyone can believe such things, but we have this quote from the article:
Despite their uninterrupted calls for the rest of us to forgo our inherent racism, in the end it is the Left which is incapable of seeing the world through any other lens. Their 21st century tribalism is about as far as you can get from unity, and it’s a great loss for all of us, because this unity — unity as Americans — is much more than an empty campaign slogan. E Pluribus Unum is the promise of America, a country, which for all its flaws and shortcomings, is still more a shared ideal than any geographic location or common ancestry.
At this point we can recognize this article is “us” versus “them.” It’s the same binary black and white comment that Bush made when he said you’re either with us or with the terrorists.
I’m not sure what country this author is talking about, but during the time when “liberals” ruined everything blacks were segregated and thought of as dirty. I’m sure someone else could delve into this much deeper, but I believe that’s enough to prove this quote is absurd. I guess “E Pluribus Unum” means you drink from that fountain. Strangely the author uses slavery and Jim Crow as an example of how compromise in favor of “unity” is a bad idea, but when it comes to multiculturalism somehow we ruined the idea of being American when segregation rules were lifted and people began seeing themselves as immigrants rather than “Americans.” To this day, as has always been, people identify with the countries their families migrated, or were brought forcefully from. People will ask “where is your family from” and we know they’re asking “where did they emigrate from?”
The article finishes with:
Conversely, when we consider the cases where political and social unity is a reasonable expectation in our society, liberals will have none of it. Patriotic support in a time of war is routinely mocked and derided, with those choosing to do so referred to as ignorant or brainwashed. The same is true of calls for assimilation and shared culture which are characterized as nativist or xenophobic.
Another point we can read from this article is that varied thoughts are ok, but only until a decision is made. Therefore you can choose your side when we’re voting for president, but you have to support the person that wins. According to this logic you’re not only unpatriotic, but you’re against unity if you don’t support a person who you don’t agree with. It would be nice if the things we didn’t agree on didn’t involve the slaughter of tens of thousands of people. I can understand a little compromise for unity there, but not in backing an unjustifiable war.
Instead of littering to create jobs why not create wars to strengthen the economy of line the pockets of the wealthy arms makers and dealers? Or why not create a system where migrants are seen as subhumans that will work hard under terrible conditions only to find themselves later locked in privatized prisons all while articles like this one tell you it’s ok to hate because we just can’t change.
All the while those of us calling for unity do so under the flag of common morality and ethics. Those that fail to see the evil in denying rights to others will never strive for unity.