Free Markets, Free People

“Why, Oh Why, Do Conservatives Hate America So?”

The title is a quote from Eugene Robinson’s latest effort in which he indulges himself in another leftist “history began January, 20th, 2009″ moment.  His ire and the reason for his rhetorical question comes on the heels of the announcement that Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize and the derision by which that was met on the right.

Robinson then spends the rest of his article taking pot shots at those who find the award to be a travesty.  But in the entire 700 to 800 word spread, he never once even attempts to justify the award.  The best he can do is this:

Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush’s cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach. He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama’s credit — and to our country’s.

Of course, as any student of foreign affairs will tell you, that all remains to be seen. But again, one has to pretend that there was no multilateralism in existence prior to Obama to make this sort of a claim. And, of course, that’s simply not the case. So if Robinson’s reason for the prize is to be taken seriously, then the detractors are correct – it’s a travesty.

In the short term at least, it has become what most thinking people realized when it was awarded to Jimmy Carter -  the “You’re Not George Bush” award. In reality, the Nobel Peace prize has degenerated into a political award given to those who best reflect the politics of the decidedly leftist award committee.  It has little to do with peace.  It has nothing to do with objectivity.   It has everything to do with partisan leftist politics.

There are certainly many more worthy candidates who’ve worked very hard to bring peace to troubled areas. But they simply don’t provide the committee with the political visibility it craves. And they certainly don’t provide the committee the platform from which to make some sort of statement about what it finds acceptable in US politics and, frankly, what it doesn’t.

Anyone who brings as weak an argument to the table as has Eugene Robinson must in the back of his mind realize how undeserving Obama is of this award. To say he’s really accomplished nothing of substance in his first 9 months as president is an understatement. But it is also a fact.

One of the reasons the Medal of Honor is so difficult to earn is because the standards of courage, sacrifice and bravery required are set at an almost unachievable level. And those standards are never compromised for politics or any other reason. That’s why when you see a man wearing the MOH, you know without having to wonder that he met those standards. And when he meets another MOH recipient, there’s no doubt in his mind that recipient also met the very same high standards of courage under fire that he did.

That’s why the MOH is revered so highly.

The Nobel Peace Prize has, as critics are now claiming, has become a travesty driven by partisan politics. It isn’t “highly revered” anymore.  The fact that Robinson wants to keep up the charade that this “honor” is something worth having (much less deserved) because it is politically useful for his side to do so speaks volumes about his integrity. He claims the right thing to say is “congratulations”. But I have little doubt that had the committee awarded George Bush the peace prize for ousting Saddam, defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq, and returning the country to the people, Robinson would have been among the first on the “travesty” bandwagon.  The last thing he’d have said is “congratulations”.  He’d also have been among the first to wonder why he was being accused of “hating America so”.

Those who remember the period before January, 20th 2009, remember when the Eugene Robinson’s of the world thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now, with history beginning on that date for those like Robinson, dissent is just plain old hate.

Funny how that works, isn’t it?

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

16 Responses to “Why, Oh Why, Do Conservatives Hate America So?”

  • Hate, it’s the new ‘racism’.

    Every time I turn around now I hear some progressive/liberal lamenting the ‘hate’ in conservatives.

    I guess they’re figuring out they’re wearing out the racism card and need another card to play.

    Racism, Hate. No proof needed, just say the magic words children.

    • Prove that Hate wasn’t your motivation for something?

      Its impossible.

      That’s why they accuse you of it. Its an indefensible accusation regardless of its validity.

      In addition to wearing it out, the charge of Racism atleast has some physical criteria. Although broad and vague there are limits to them.

      • In addition to wearing it out, the charge of Racism atleast has some physical criteria. Although broad and vague there are limits to them.

        Given the number of times that I have seen a person accused of racism against his his own racial group by a member of that same group, I have come to doubt that.

        “Racism” became the new “facism,” and “hate” is becoming the new “racism.” Just words with no meaning other than “I think you are a bad person because you don’t agree with me.”

  • One of the best candidates for the prize today (assuming it was a serious peace prize and not a political statement) would be the guy who liberated Iraq from Saddam.

    Going back in time a bit, the guy who defeated the USSR in the Cold War, good old Ronnie Ray Gun, probably deserved it more than anyone else. In history. Ever.

    With respect to the Medal of Honor, between WW1 and WW2 we invaded some small island and issued some 50 odd MoH, for a fight that left only a handfull dead. At least that’s what I once read in one of the military history books I read. My understanding is that many of the men who won the MoH on the island went on to perform great acts of courage in WW2, since they had something to prove. The MoH has not always been awarded based upon the highest standards. And I also understand that during the Civil War it was awarded more like the Silver Star is today.

  • The fact that the Nobel committee is publicly defending their decision speaks volumes about how questionable it really is.

    As for the quote, “Why, Oh Why, Do Conservatives Hate America So?” I suggest a massive case of projection coupled with some good ol’ fashioned vengefulness over the fact that liberals were accused (rightly, IMO) over the past several years of hating our country. Libs are childish and immature: they therefore love tu quoque even if they have to imagine it.

  • “And I also understand that during the Civil War it was awarded more like the Silver Star is today.”

    Perhaps, but one could argue that it is under awarded today. Every MOH awarded since the Somalia has been posthumous.

  • I’ll have to give George W. Bush some credit here — after 2005 he started a major shift in US foreign policy away from the radically unilateralist approach (i.e., we lead and set the rules, others can join us if they want) of the first administration to one that had a far more realist bent. Obama is continuing changes started by Bush, and in fact I’d argue there has been some foreign policy consistency in the sense that changes remain slow and steady. Bush never could escape his reputation and his first term’s rhetoric; Obama has new rhetoric and a different reputation.

    The same was true of Carter and Reagan, by the way. Carter started the defense build up, and his projections were higher than what Reagan actually spent. Carter also proclaimed in the Carter Doctrine the will to fight a “war for oil” if the Soviets were to threaten the Persian Gulf. Reagan actually stopped the defense build up in real terms after 1985, helping Gorbachev remain in power by allowing Gorbachev to show the Soviet military that he had “tamed” Reagan. When the Soviets decided in 1987 that SDI was not a threat, Reagan and Gorbachev could reach real agreements. Reagan went from a Cold Warrior to pursuing a detente that went beyond Nixon or Carter’s.

    • What you just wrote has a lot of truth in it, but it is told from your rather blinkered world view. Carter did indeed propose a defense build up after his own idiotic foreign policy was see, even by him, to be a failure. He was similar to Obama in the desire to punish our friends and reward our enemies.

      Bush had some harsh rhetoric just after 9/11, but you are wrong to say there was a big change from his first to second terms. He put together a multinational contingent to deal in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and also led world relief efforts after several natural disasters and in dealing with the aides problems in Africa.

      As time goes on you will have to face the fact that history will deal with him much more kindly than the vast army of lefty radicals who were filled with BDS. I am not saying they will deem him a successful president, but will certainly see both good and bad things that were accomplished. And if democracy is sustained in Iraq, he will be judges well for that too.

      • Actually, Kyle, you’re the one twisting things to fit your ideology. You need to see Carter as bad, and you want to resist the notion that Bush had a failed foreign policy in his first term. Rather than admit that both Carter and Bush had problems caused by both their decisions and the international environment, and both made changes (Bush more extensive because he had more time), you feel a need to try to minimize the problems Bush had (and the changes he made) and paint Carter with a completely negative brush. That is because you cannot step away from your political bias and view this objectively. I work every day to try to get people to learn how to avoid the trap you’ve fallen into — ideology-driven understandings of reality.

        The reality: neither Carter nor Bush were as bad as those who hate them (and many on the right go after Carter in a way much like the “BDS” folk go after Bush), and both made serious adjustments. Obama is more like Nixon. He inherited a war that he knew was draining resources and hurting American interests, but felt he couldn’t simply stop it, he had to find “peace with honor.” Nixon also had a major recession near the start of his Presidency. Nixon moreover shifted from the Kennedy “Grand Design” which was much like neo-conservatism (continued by Johnson) to detente, designed to recognize that the Soviets had gained parity and American strength had been over-estimated.

        The key is to get out of the “one party good, the other party bad” mentality, which is more like Animal Farm than reality.

        • The reality: neither Carter nor Bush were as bad as those who hate them

          Hmmm…according to Carter’s own mouth, Bush was the “worst” in history. Are you saying Carter has an “Animal Farm” mentality?

  • “In reality, the Nobel Peace prize has degenerated into a political award given to those who best reflect the politics of the decidedly leftist award committee.”

    Insightful observation. I think the pattern of choosing Nobel winners has become painfully obvious. It’s no secret that any given receipt can be assigned one, more or all of the following attributes: a fraud, a murderer, a eugenist, a traitor, a global government cheerleader. The committee made no secret of the fact that Obama was given the award for his stead fast commitment to eroding away American sovereignty to international law making bodies such as the UN.

    The more antagonistic and belligerently Obama treats our nations Constitution the more the global elites cheer emphatically. It’s worrisome that the plot of a game I found maybe a week ago seems to be coming to a rapid fruition, “2011: Obama’s Coup Fails”, you can find it through a google search. The elites seems t be beside themselves in anticipation, confident Obama’s star power will be enough to lead the American people peaceful as lambs to slaughter.

  • If the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize had been any of the truly deserving people on the list, would we have even heard about it?

  • Why don’t they just cut to the chase and read THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS and the loss of our Libertarian Roots, which covers the history of the Democratic Party. America’s first major political Party changed from a libertarian party of Jefferson to Cleveland to a Rousseau to Marx-leaning liberal, left-wing party. The Democratic Party’s original ideals encouraged free markets, individual freedom, state’s rights and personal sovereignty. What happened? When and how did their policies begin to change? Why did a strongly patriotic party morph into one that blends communism, mercantilism and socialism? Whether you are Democrat or Republican, this narration is a study of history, fact, and the leadership that altered the Democratic Party. It shows that present day Democratic values do not reflect the true principles on which American society rests. http://www.claysamerica.com.

  • Change is coming to America….history does repeat itself & I think history is now asking us to step forward as was the case with the original Americans against govt. tyranny (King George III). Democracies always move towards tyranny.

    I just read a new, underground book (A Time To Stand by Oliver)& it’s been so accurate about a modern day version of what Americans had to ensure just prior to the American Revolution. See what’s in store for us over the nxt 3 years. It’s a great read!!
    http://www.booksbyoliver.com

  • The American approach to and preeminence in world politics, i.e., American foreign policy, has been a driving force behind the global economy (in conjunction with the American economy). That has been especially true since the end of WWII, when the U.S. was producing about half of the world’s goods and services. The U.S. contained and then watched either the dissolution (Soviets) or transformation (Maoist China) of the great Communist slave states and then stepped lightly into the role of status quo superpower and guarantor of strategic peace at the end of the Cold War.

    This is a largely safe world, which allows it to be a prosperous world, because of the United States.

    That is the essence of American foreign policy.

    Europe, which has been largely detached from its own security because of the security guaranty from the U.S., has developed a resentment of the U.S. that is nothing less than a delusion. Books can and have been written about just that.

    The Nobel Peace prize to Obama is an approval of what the Europeans who gave it to him view as his validation of their delusional view of the U.S.

    This is a situation that can only deteriorate, in my opinion. To a great extent it is built on the foundation of lies told by the Left, in America and abroad, about the mission in Iraq, which was a small, long, winnable war, not a fiasco, a disaster, or the greatest threat to world peace. It was precisely the opposite.