Conservative "Anarchists" In Government

9/25/2010

At the end of my previous post, I asked why someone who hates a country or is somehow ashamed of the flag of that country would want to run for office to become a leader that same country. It seems like either an inexplicable contradiction or some sort of treason. This is the question asked by conservatives of certain liberals. A similar question has been asked about conservatives who, after railing against government interference and claiming that government can do little right, end up serving over the same departments they openly detest. Anticipating that some of my readers may conflate these two issues, I thought I would address the latter in more detail.

The difference is that to be against a country is to be against its people, while to be against a department is simply to wish it was run better. Indeed, sometimes the only way for a department to be run better is to outsource its functions to other departments – or into the private sector.

For example, if someone is an open critic of the EPA, believing it to do more harm than good, why wouldn’t those who agree appoint that person to run it, whether to change it or shut it down completely? It makes sense. On the other hand, one who actually hates society itself and its people, probably shouldn’t be handed the reigns of government. Those who criticize the EPA have a vision of a better American society without it. Those who are ashamed by the very community they belong to can have no better vision for that same community – only for a different one.

It’s not really the same thing.

Sunny Badger

10/3/2010 02:47:23 am

Could you please name some of those "certain liberals" who hate this country? Likewise, could you name some of those conservatives who say those liberals hate this country?

That would allow for a discussion of specifics instead of unsubstantiated, broad generalities.

You don't have to "love the flag" or your government to run for office. If America is about one thing, it is about freedom of speech. The Constitution does not say anything of citizens having to be cheer leaders. In fact, the Constitution seems to support the anti-cheer leaders.

daniel noe link

10/7/2010 07:38:27 am

This was never meant to be a discussion of specifics. It was meant to be an explanation of different attitudes and mindsets I have heard. If it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. I don't mean to paint all that call themselves liberals or all that call themselves conservatives with a broad brush. Sorry if that's how it sounded.

10/7/2010 07:41:25 am

That being said, I still don't understand Obama's explanation for why he refused to wear the flag lapel for a while. How did "support the troops" become synonymous with "support the Iraq war," and why would he accept such a characterization?

10/8/2010 05:03:12 am

Don't know if you're a John Prine music fan, but back in the early 1970s he had an interesting song titled "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore."

Concerning Obama, he said during the campaign that Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan was the war we should have been dealing with all along. A flag pin a small dot in the big picture of America. I'm my might mind those focusing on Obama's lapel pin need to be reminded of the following Bible verse about looking at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and paying no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Frankly, I don't look closely enough at Obama to notice a flag pin. I think there are more import issues facing our country than lapel decorations. Jobs, health care, decent pay, future impacts of global warming, educating our children, energy independence, etc., etc. Lapel pins don't even register on my radar of concern.

As far as liberals v. conservatives, to me it's like a bunch of Protestants arguing over whose got the "chosen way." Methodists or Baptists or Lutherans...they are all working out of the same Book. Ditto for liberals and conservatives. They are all working out of the same Constitutional framework. There are variations on the interpretations and, from what I see, sides of the political spectrum stay from the Constitutional fundamentals...depending on who is doing the interpretation of the text.

Finally, I have no doubt that Obama "supports the troops." I've never had an indication that he doesn't. I bet even Reverent Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers support the troops.

It is interesting to see what people focus their individual angst and energy on. That is the beauty of America, we have the freedom nitpick and complain about the little dots making up our big picture.

10/8/2010 06:20:00 am

I didn't think the lapel pin was a big deal either until Obama gave his answer why he wasn't wearing it. I never would have thought to ask him why he didn't have it. It seems to be a dumb question, but the fact that he answered such a question the way he did was a bit disturbing.

Still, you're absolutely right about jobs, health care, global warming, etc... These are the important things.

10/9/2010 03:23:31 am

I think Obama has this political need to respond to eventually respond to all criticism. There are a number of things he should just ignore...like Glenn Beck.

The Ground Zero mosque seems to be another issue. Anything he says or does will be twisted in any contortion that makes him look bad. We should recognize this as nothing new. I was done to Bush for eight years and Clinton for eight years.

We shouldn't forget the the Republican and Democratic parties are like the unions, they are not about moving the country forward. They are about keeping power or regaining power.

Today's political debate is like a bunch of hookers calling call girls whores and visa versa. We the people end up with a leaky blowup doll in a cheap hotel that we are being double billed for.

Comments are closed.

Conservative "Anarchists" In Government

Author

Archives

Categories

Please check out my books!