Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Very Insightful Article

Expand Messages
  • gmd10ms
    America s political civil war Gerard Jackson BrookesNews.Com Monday 13 March 2006 The Bush presidency has revealed the enormous ideological rift that has been
    Message 1 of 1 , May 1, 2006
      America's political civil war

      Gerard Jackson
      Monday 13 March 2006

      The Bush presidency has revealed the enormous ideological rift that
      has been developing for more than forty years in America, and yet
      the vast majority of Americans are still not fully aware of it even
      though there has probably been nothing like it since the civil war.

      On one side of the political gulf there are the fanatical win-at-all-
      costs Democrats whose vital ideological core does not believe in the
      legitimacy of the Republican Party just as abolitionists didn't
      believe in the legitimacy of slavery and the Southern Democrats in
      the legitimacy of Lincoln's presidency.

      To these Democrats, the Gores, Hillarys, Reids, Jesse Jacksons,
      Streisands, etc., the Republicans are the equivalent of nineteenth
      century slave owners. The irony of which is completely lost on these
      fanatics considering that those slave owners were Democrats.

      These comments are not mere speculation. About six years ago Curtis
      Cans, head of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate,
      pointed out that political inspired hatred has been building up for
      some thirty years, blaming television for this phenomenon. But 1972
      was the year that the radicals captured the Democratic Party. From
      that moment the Democrats' ruthless urge to win began to be
      transformed into a policy of political extermination.

      These radicals brought with them the disease of the crusading spirit
      of intolerance. Firm in the righteousness of their cause (however
      incoherent at times), convinced that America was built on injustice,
      exploitation and oppression they have waged an unconditional war
      against the infidel, the barbarian conservative, the enemy of all
      that is good and just. That the Republican Party was formed on an
      anti-slavery platform is something these dangerous fanatics have
      tried to write out of history, just as they try to suppress anything
      that contradicts their Orwellian views.

      Much of the last century's politics remind me of the religious wars
      of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries where the battleground
      was doctrine and the object the saving of souls. Heretics, on both
      sides, who refused to recant frequently met a fiery end at the
      stake. Although it is true that Martin Luther did not, unlike the
      lovely Mr. Alec Baldwin, favour putting to death those who disagreed
      with him.

      But fanaticism has a price and that price is the abandonment of
      reason and tolerance. That is why some Dems feel free to accuse Bush
      of being evil and wanting to reintroduce slavery. We see the same
      thing in Hollywood where, for example, a huge Hollywood crowd gave
      Streisand a rousing reception when she called on it to vote for Gore
      because he will stack the Supreme Court with `judges' who will twist
      the Constitution to fit their ideological agenda. (So much for the
      separation of powers). According to this deep Hollywood thinker the
      2000 election was "a war against bigotry, against discrimination of
      any kind, racial, religious or sexual orientation." To her and the
      rest of "Hollywood's celluloid intellectuals," Republicans are the
      forces of Darkness while the Democrats are the forces of Light. This
      feeling is genuine, pervasive and dangerous and it is poisoning the
      whole of the body politic, eating away at civil political discourse.

      How did these Democrats arrive at such a risible and contemptible
      view of conservatives, or anyone else who disagrees with them?
      Having convinced themselves that they alone are concerned with
      social justice and oppression, and only they care about the poor and
      the underprivileged it is but a short step to assume that anyone who
      questions their vision or so-called remedies must be stupid or

      Just as religious fanatics from centuries past could not tolerate
      the existence of those who questioned their theology and could only
      ascribe to these critics a devilish malevolence, neither can "new
      Democrats" tolerate any who challenge their sacred political

      Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
      Monday 13 March 2006


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.