The Unity Weapon – The American Thinker

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.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The Unity Weapon – The American Thinker

  1. A few thoughts on your critique…

    “this article seeks to prove that calls for unity and compassion are merely unattainable ideals.”

    DB – Unity and compassion are not the same thing and their logical linkage is confusing.

    “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.”

    DB – Classic example of moral relativism and utopian delusion. The two instances are not equivalent. The person who was attacked by the man with the gun was innocent and acted in self-defense. To not get this is to say that a cop trying to disarm him is equally culpable because he used force as well. This type of simplistic morality underlies much of pacifism and – if ever practiced – would allow the most ruthless members of society to quickly overpower and subjugate all the good and innocent people who are unwilling to use force to protect themselves.

    “So is it wrong to think we can change this or do we accept evil as a basic unalterable truth.”

    DB – Evil is an unalterable truth. We can try to control it, make it harder for people to perpetrate it, but in the end human nature is largely immutable. People will always have a capacity for evil and some of them will act on that. Society must be ordered with this in mind in order to effectively control and minimize this fact. There is no paradise on Earth – only better versions of the best of what you see right now.

    “What I see here is the “unity” in deciding that slavery was unjust and deplorable. Therefore we ended it…”

    DB – Fact check, unity did not end slavery. Generals Sherman and Grant did. Did you read some alternative history where the Confederacy had a moment of enlightenment and came together with the Union to apologize and agree?

    “I believe it was quite apparent to rational people that the immigration issues was exploited during the debates”

    DB – Please have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that the debate is over “illegal” immigration, not immigration. Further – your language proves my point. You state that “rational” people clearly see this “exploitation” What defines “rational”? Someone who agrees with you? Is there no legiitimate debate to be had on the subject? No room for differences of opinion and approach?

    “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.”

    DB – I’m assuming the “pollutant” you mention is CO2? Non – CO2 air quality in the industrialized world has been steadily improving for the last 50 years and shows no sign of stopping. The same can be expected of China, India, etc., as their standard of living rises in the first half of this century.
    I’m aware that we had an industrial revolution. It unleashed the greatest expansion in prosperity that the world has ever seen and continues – despite fervent efforts of the radical wing of the environmental movement to stop it – to do so today. Al Gore’s claim is that there is a greater risk of hurting more people by continuing this spread of prosperity than by significantly slowing it to reduce the future level of CO2. This is a complicated question which deserves a great deal of debate. The debate – most certainly – is not over.

    “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.”

    DB – I don’t think I advocated walking of any cliffs. I roundly defend the idea of dissent in the decision phase of a potential conflict. As you remember – there was a great deal. All I’m saying is that, once commited to the fight, we should pull together and win in the quickest, most humane way possible. At this point – how does losing in Iraq benefit anyone?

    “Why think Hitler when we have Bush and his terrible war?”

    DB – Another great example of moral relativism and hysterical left-wing hyperbole.

    “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. ”

    DB – Thanks for the break at the beginning of your comment. As to “our leader’s terrible act” This war was voted on and approved by both houses of congress after extensive debate. You may not approve, but it is not Bush’s war, for better of worse it is America’s war.
    As to the “terrible” nature of what we’ve done – I refer you to the 1 milllion people who died in S. Hussein’s war with Iran, his systematic persecuation of the Kurds, the Shia, the Marsh Arabs. The rape rooms frequented by his sociopath progeny. A “terrible act” is in the eye of the beholder, and from where many sit – say Kurdistan for example – this war was a blessed liberation.

    “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. ”

    DB – A sweeping state such as “current immigrants fail” is so broad as to be meanignless. Obvioulsy many assimilate handily and are proud of their status as new members in our society. Good for them – no problem. The point is not the fate of any particular immigrant cohort. The point is the attack, by misguided liberals on the concept of assimilation as a positive and desirable goal. Question – Do you see assimilation into the dominant American culture as generally positive? Yes or no?

    “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.”

    DB – Hard to follow your logic. I never mentioned African Americans or the Civil Rights struggle. I used 1965 as a generic starting point for the rise of modern liberalism so any association was not intended. On this point however, I will note that Martin Luther Kings goal was integration – not multi-culturalism. He ardently rejected this strain of though, which is much more suitable to Malcom X. I prefer Mr King’s vision of America to Malcom’s,

    “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.”

    DB – Hard to see how you got there from the quote you deconstructed. Someone who opposes a balkanized, tribal society – as I do – can hardly be characterized as being into “us” vs, “them”. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
    PS – Nice use of association – me to Bush and the unrelated subject of terrorism.

    “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.”

    DB – FYI. More Republicans voted for the Civil Rights legislation you lay claim to than Democrats. The jim Crow South was firmly in the hands of the DixieCrat, segragationist, Democrat governors who fought this change tooth and nail. Not to dismiss the great Dems who advanced a lot of these laws, but please ackowledge that this piece of history is not as “binary’ as you’d have it presented here.

    “…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.”

    DB – I don’t see multiculturalism as very closely linked to the Civil Rights laws or dismantling of segregation. As I said – this was not the view of the most prominent leader of the movement – MLK. As to Americans seeing themselves as “immigrants” vs. Americans – I don’t think this is a good thing. As I said in the article – it’s not about fogetting where you come from – it’s about being an American citizen, (as opposed to someone from somewhere who feels they just live here without feeling any real allegiance to the country). I don’t see how you think the later is an improvement…

    DB – As to your conclusion, the leaps in logic, (or lack thereof), and exagerrated hysterical accusations and conclusions are too numerous to refute. I’ll leave it to other objective readers to come to their own conclusions.

    One parting thought – Peole who don’t agree with you aren’t necessarily evil. Good people – and I’m sure your heart is in the right place even as i question the validity of your arguements – often reach different conclusions.

  2. Never thought the author would show up here.

    Without going through everything you’ve written just yet I will say that in regard to unity I read this as a unity as described by politicians such as Obama which is a call to act together in a positive manner. What’s positive for me may not be positive for you, but if we act in common morality then the idea of a positive unity is more clear.

    What I take exception with most about your article is the fact that you seem to discourage any attempt at uniting for a common good. In regard to the war you’re right I take responsibility for my country’s actions. In that way I know it’s my war in as much as it’s Bush’s war; however, I do not have to condone it. We do not have to buckle to our government’s every desire and whim because it made it through stages of voting. Unless I’m mistaken the American people did not get to vote on this war; though, may would have agree because of the post 9/11 hysteria.

    When you mention the people Saddam killed I have to point out that we put him into power in the first place so punishing the Iraqi people twice doesn’t seem like a very nice thing to do. If I’m wrong on this let me know otherwise it seems that we shouldn’t have gotten involved in the first place.

  3. On your first point regarding unity I didn’t attempt to join the two, or unite them as one principle. My idea is to unite for compassion. Of course compassion is as relative as unity in this case, but the basic idea of helping one another should be universal.

    In regard to my moral relativism which goes hand in hand with the idea of evil the idea is to encourage an end to evil. For those of us that believe in the Bible we know that evil has been there since the beginning of time. I understand that evil will always be around; however, that doesn’t mean that we have to push away attempts to remove it for actions to wall it away. It’s like the old proverb ‘give a man a fish…’; if we want to remove evil we have to teach compassion and unity.

    In regard to slavery I didn’t mean to say that everyone took an anti-slavery pill and lived happily ever after. I believe I did a poor job phrasing that as you were arguing that every situation does not have a middle ground which I agree with. The unity I mentioned was not created by the war, but by the understanding the slavery was wrong. Although I did state that everyone didn’t buy in to that idea. Back only a few like John Brown were active in trying to end slavery, but today you’d be hard pressed to find a person who would think it was ok. Even though against “illegal” immigration will claim that the migrants are modern day slaves because they understand everyone believes it’s wrong.

    The debate is about immigration simply because groups like FAIR and Numbers USA are very much at the forefront. Both of these groups advocate ending or severely restricting immigration. Though they use the “illegal” immigration debate as their entryway you can read in their charters that they believe population growth will destroy this country.

    To believe that China, which was recently featured in the NY Times as one of the most polluted countries, has not been effected by industrialization is odd and I’m not sure how you’ve come to this conclusion. In regards to prosperity that’s obviously true. Similarly waring groups and Kings have also come to know great wealth through massacre. Though we aren’t massacring or pillaging people we are doing this to the atmosphere and environment and now seek to disprove these simple truths.

    As far as Iraq goes I can’t say how it helps anyone. I just equate it to having someone on the ground and pocking at their face to make them angry. Of course they can’t really do anything about it, but you begin to realize that you’re going to have to let them up sometime. That’s what I see happening in Iraq right now. There’s no way to win. Saddam should have never been put there.

    I’m sure the millions of refugees and families living in terror believe this is a “blessed liberation.”

    I’ll have to finish this later, but I will thank you for addressing me politely and I certainly understand that everyone isn’t evil. Though I’m simply addressing your points it doesn’t mean I have any ill feeling toward you as is true for anyone that I don’t agree with. Though I don’t agree with your article it is certainly food for thought.

  4. In regard to my moral relativism which goes hand in hand with the idea of evil the idea is to encourage an end to evil. For those of us that believe in the Bible we know that evil has been there since the beginning of time. I understand that evil will always be around; however, that doesn’t mean that we have to push away attempts to remove it for actions to wall it away. It’s like the old proverb ‘give a man a fish…’; if we want to remove evil we have to teach compassion and unity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s