|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
Contributors
Chris Field- Contributor
Chris
Field is Editor of Human
Events Online [go
to Field index]
TWO
CENTS
 Sometimes
They Make It Easy
Luckily liberals just
don't get it...
[Chris Field] 11/22/04
As I was putting together this weekly update Friday afternoon, I was prepared
to discuss how the Left just doesn't "get it." They continue do
and say things that put them further and further out of touch with "ordinary" America.
Examples from this week alone: the ACLU reared its head against the Boy Scouts
again; liberal political cartoonist Pat Oliphant created a racially insensitive
(at best) cartoon mocking Condoleezza Rice; and the New York Post reported
that John Kerry is toying with the idea of suing John O'Neill, author of Unfit
for Command.
At
least one of my points was going to be that the Left's utter
lack of self-awareness is making the Right's
job a lot easier. When
liberals act to divide America, "normal" people
notice . . . and don't appreciate it. (Of course, conservatives are the ones
who will continue to be accused of splitting America with our fear-mongering
and support of the rich at the cost of the poor and working class.)
Then,
as if on cue, I received an email from "Very Blue in Maryland," regarding
my piece titled "The
'Tolerant' Left Lectures the Rubes of America."
Below is a large chunk of that letter.
...
Let me say at the outside that I give you much credit for
reading much more of the writings of your opponents than
I read of my opponents, my
opponents
being your side, the Southern rightwing fundamentalists -- does that
give away my views? (No, I'm not an atheist but an ambivalent
Catholic.) I basically
avoid your side's writings and talk radio/Cable rantings simply because
I don't
feel like being apoplectically angry all the time. What good is it
to punch the keyboard or talk back to the television set?
What's the benefit?
Anyway, I perused your article "The 'Tolerant' Left Lectures the Rubes
of America," and I was wondering why you didn't specifically cite what
it is in those op-eds you quoted that you disagree with. You just asserted
a major point -- namely, that the Left is intolerant of Southern fundamentalists
(if that's true, it's because our sense is you guys, if you had your way, would
soon have us in gas chambers or "Christian re-education camps").
But you didn't explain why any of those sentiments expressed by Dowd, Herbert,
Krugman, or Willis is wrong, at least in your view.
At least in the case of Mike Thompson's piece "Declaration of Expulsion:
A Modest Proposal: It's Time to Reconfigure the United States," he
states some facts to back up his position. [Mike Thompson's satirical piece
can be
found here: http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=5652] Naturally,
most of those facts are upside down, as is the whole world of the Right,
but I think he is onto something important.
I think breaking the United States up into its Blue and Red components,
although it might be tricky to do and much would have to be worked
out by way of the
sort of relationship the two sides would have and what would we do
with all the opposite color people (no pun intended) in each nation,
is a good
idea.
If the U.S. today is where it was, in a manner of speaking, in the
20 years before the Civil War, it might be a good idea to avoid all
of that now.
Let the decadent, evil Blue States have New York City, Washington,
DC (I assume you'd want a new capital, but we could work on that,
too), Seattle,
Chicago,
San Francisco, Portland, Boston, the L.A. area, Minneapolis, and
even Philadelphia (!). Let us have the Jersey shore and the New England
interior and the
Cascades and the Sierra Nevadas. Let us have most of the big universities
and research
centers. Let us have much of what is considered "high culture." Most
importantly, let us have an economy easily several times that of the Red
States, and that would likely, at least temporarily, become even bigger
relative to
it as all the military spending in places like the Norfolk area and all
that NASA contractor money in places like Houston and Huntsville, would
disappear.
You guys can have the rest -- the enormous, flat, square states,
the South (PLEASE TAKE THE SOUTH! REALLY!), and every Wal-Mart, Denny's,
Schoney's,
and Winn-Dixie occupying every strip mall and highway truck stop.
(I once lived
in a trailer in Texas when I was rather young, and my mother "born-again" for
a while, so I have some personal experience in the South and its religious
culture.) As for Blue State agricultural needs, I assume the Red States
would want some trade if only to replace the tremendous loss of Blue State
tax money
that supports the majority of Red States (with a few exceptions, such as
Texas).
Whether or not the fundamentalist's atavistic God of Hellfire and
Brimstone and violent death and destruction would strike down the
Blue States in
whatever form we regrouped (preferably with Canada -- then we'd have
a contiguous
nation and wouldn't even need Nebraska wheat) is beside the point.
I think we would
both be doing each other a big, big favor if indeed the "culture war" is
on its way to becoming a second Civil War (or "War Between the States," as
the South insists on calling it).
Regards,
Very Blue in Maryland
...
See
what I mean? They make the Right's job that much easier.
We don't have to convince anyone that the Left wants
to divide the country,
they do it
for us -- from the big name politicians, celebrities,
and Leftist groups to everyday
liberals like "Very Blue." tOR
copyright
2004 Human Events
§
|
|
|
