PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

Like many people, I often receive lists of banal cliché’s which caricature or distort a given political viewpoint or personality. These can sometimes be witty or vaguely insightful, but usually they’re meaningless and tell us more about the writer than the object of their scorn.

The incumbent President has weathered an unusually pronounced amount of venom from the sympathizers for socialism and terrorism. It's become quite common for strangers to just mouth off their skewed view as a truth carved in stone..."how could anyone support Bush?"

I recently received the following list which seeks to "prove" the usual, that Bush and Republicans in general are cruel, evil, mean- spirited, and Fascist. If they would only see the goodness of high taxes, big government, more regulation, and "dialog" with the terroritst "community."

The hyperbolic rage of the Left accomplishes the opposite of thier intentions in many cases. This election, and its broader philosophical overtones, have put me in the embarrassing situation of having to – often – defend George Bush, someone who I ordinarily wouldn’t be particularly sympathetic to. I actually voted for Clinton in his first run for president against George Bush’s father (not because I thought he was especially good). Since then I’ve always voted for the Libertarian Party candidate as a sort of protest vote (realizing, of course, that they wouldn’t be elected). This year, I’m going to vote for “W” – Seriously! I may later be embarrassed for having done so (though I doubt I'll look back thinking that Kerry would have been a better option). Bush certainly doesn’t embody many of my political values, but…

Am I “stupid, cruel, selfish, mean-spirited, lacking compassion…?” Actually, I think, none of the above.

"How could anyone vote for Bush?" The cocky arrogance of some in asking such a question is one reason. I’m sick of hearing people who just assume that others should agree with them or be assumed to be “stupid, cruel…”

As it turns out, Bush is just some guy. He’s conservative on many issues, and would make a 60’s Democrat proud on many others. The Iraq issue is something pervasively argued and will continue to be argued at least into the next century. If you merely believe Bush “just wanted to help his big oil buddies,” than maybe you might actually be “stupid” yourself, or at least are overlooking an incredible amount of information.

The main reason I’m going to vote for Bush is because of the nature of the arguments and tone I continually hear against Bush. It seems that every dictator, terrorist, totalitarian sympathizer, pampered Left-Wing authoritarian egotist, and elitist Euro-snob is thoroughly against Bush. That gets him some automatic points with me already.

Another good reason for defaulting to Bush is his opponent. John Kerry is now a newly reformed “hawk?” – pleeeease. Are you kidding?! Saying "John Kerry, for a stronger America" is like saying "Hamsters, for home security."

The biggest accusation against Kerry is not true. He doesn’t “flip-flop.” He merely sounds like he’s “flip-flopping” because he’s telling people whatever he needs to win the election. His genuine “convictions” I’m sure are sound as ever, and you can see them in a long record of votes in the Senate (those rare times he actually attended) and actions he had taken publicly in the past. He was a hero to the Vietnamese Communists before they moved into the South to perform the usual mass slaughter that is typical of Communist Parties in History. Then there's the minor issue of his leadership in the far Left group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that had seriously discussed the possibility of assassinating some US Senators -- but hey, youthful indescretion. (Dan Rather won't be doing any 60 minutes reports on this issue of course).

What follows is an e-mailed list I've responded to, of some typical cliche' Leftist whines regarding Bush, Republicans, and Conservatives in general. My responses are certainly not a definitive or professional attempt to address each point. In essence, most of what I’ve written is merely an off the cuff exercise in well deserved counter-sarcasm.

("their" writing is in bold type)



IT'S HARD TO BE A REPUBLICAN IN 2004

Somehow, you have to believe that:

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
No, just Hillary...

2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq.
No, the UN should get out of our faces. Tell them to push their authority after someone actually elects them and their assembly, preferably when it's no longer a mere soapbox for tyrants and police states.

3. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
Great urban myth. More jobs from overseas have been "out[in]sourced" to America than visa versa. By the way, whatever happend to your "concern for the world's poor?"

4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
A woman (or anyone else) can't be trusted to choose her own pension system? People can't be trusted to educate their children as they see fit? etc. etc. I still don't know what Microsoft or Starbucks has done to "affect" or hurt my life. I can think of plenty of harm caused by bureaucrats and the lover's of state who love them... Abortion appears to be the only thing a leftist is "pro-choice" on.

5. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Straw man (most of these fantasy proclaimations are). Republicans, like everyone else, have a variety of opinions regarding drug use, addiction, or whether or not it was okay for one guy, who happens to be a talk radio host, to have used them.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Another (Democrat) urban myth. The Republicans have consistently been the most supportive of the military in general since the 70's, while most Democrat followers have typically held anything associated with the military in disdain (while they "establish diologue" with our enemies). The Democrats have merely wised up on the PR front and now realize the value of feigning "support for our brave troops." It's good to know that the Communist North Vietnamese priased Kerry's organization for helping them win the war before slaughtering hundreds of thousands of "enemies of the people." Veteran's benefits were not slashed -- I wonder why most veterans are Bush supporters?

7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
At this point, I'm almost a Republican, and I'm going to vote for Bush. Where can I get a bag of weed and where can I find a chamber of several indulgent ladies for a night of leisure excess? Your statement is meaningless...

8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
They said that!? (actually no one has said that. Some Republicans just don't think the tax funded public schools are places to promote wanton indulgence for young people – a debatable but fairly reasonable stance).

9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Exactly two of our "allies" -- dominated by socialist political leadership -- refused to make good on UN resolutions
(from the organization they supposedly adore) and later deliberately tried to save the ass of a brutal tyrant who would clearly one day seek to kill millions of Americans and others by himself or in concert with other Social-Fascists. Also, why don’t we hear much about Hussein’s oil for food kickbacks to these “allies?”

10. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
No, government bureaucrats have our interest at heart which is why we should all be forced to submit to their will against our own free choices. Canada and England's bureaucrats care so much about their ward's interest that many of their citizens go to have surgery elsewhere because they're sick of waiting in lines for socialized medicine. It's not the role of a corporation to be Mother Teresa anymore than an charity volunteer should strive for higher profits. Health care has already been regulated into a mess. the classic statist progression of events. Exacerbate a problem, then say more regulation is needed to "solve the problem."

11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
Stealing from anyone and then making someone else use a limited product is monopoly socialism -- anywhere. Government never
"provides" anything without first coercing others to submit to the dictates of the state. Providing health care to Iraqi's is their business. One bureaucrat's ideals is not the "beliefs of republicans."

12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
(Fundamentalist Christians are a mere faction within the Republican party, just as communists are a mere faction in the Democratic party). Have you noticed that the more a Leftist is concerned about the influence of Christian fundementalists, the less concerned they are about Muslim fundementalists? Regarding fears of Christian influence in the schools, I've got an idea. Lets have the parents keep their money and send their kids to the school they'd prefer, then creationism or evolution won't even be an issue. I don't remember hearing Republicans saying there was no link between tobacco and cancer (a few people who were likely Republicans and Democrats may have argued that). But yes, the beliefs shown in stupid mass propaganda films like "the day after tomorrow" are junk science. Global warming and cooling in far more pronounced degrees has occured throughout the Earth's history. In the last 100 years, average temperatures have risen one degree -- not exactly something to kiss the feet of the buro-state over. And, the Kyoto treaty is indeed seriously flawed. Sober investigation is one thing, blind allegiance to international wealth redistribution schemes is another.

13. It is okay that the Bush family has done $millions of business with the Bin Laden family.
This just means that your only source of information is Michael Moore, and also means you're not very perceptive. Lots of American families (including many Democrats) have done business with the hundreds of people in Saudi Arabia who are relatives of Bin Laden (most of whom have disowned him). Oh yeah, I never understood why the Democratic party took those contributions from Communist China under Clinton. (I'm sure you know about that, don't you?)

14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
You mean Bush hasn't been looking in the right places for Bin Laden? Those daily plane trips to Pakistan must be rough on a President. I'm sure Kerry will look harder. Saddam was never a "good guy" to anyone (except a few Democrats and other socialists who have had more sympathy for him than our soldiers or his own citizens who he tortured). The realpolitik of confronting a former enemy, Iran, through proxy alliances is something too difficult for most Democrats to understand (whatever happend to "nuance?") Also, how come your boys in the media have kept so quiet about the oil for food kickbacks and bribes from Sadaam to UN officials and leaders in Germany, Russia, and France?

15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
No, a president lying before a grand jury in a civil case is impeachable -- yes, it is, really. A president taking a stand against a ruthless dictator is the stand of a man of integrity. Lying before congress and helping the North Vietnamese enslave the South (as your man, Kerry did) is despicable.

16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The constitution is very clear exactly as to what the powers of the federal government are (note particularly amendments 9 and 10), which is why Democrats always oppose the appointment of strict constructionists to the court. The constitution gives no powers to the federal government over gay marriage, the internet, or anything else beyond the defense of an individual to live and act as they choose -- something the Democrats fully oppose on a variety of issues.

17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade are none of our
business.
George Bush is probably one of the most "investigated" people on the planet. To suggest that he's been cut slack by the media, congress, or anyone else is ludicrious. We know his dental records from years ago but can't seem to find out if Kerry really was wounded enough to earn five medals over a four month period before being sent home to help the Communists win the war in Vietnam.

18. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.
It's the responsibility of the States and citizens in general to resist and oppose any action by federal officials to impose
"initiatives" of any kind. I'm no fan of Ashcroft, but I'd take my chances with a Republicn over a Democrat when it comes to keeping the Federal government out of my affairs. Actually, neither one is going to roll back the Federal encrochment but the Republicans are definitley the lessor of evils on this issue.

19. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
No, the lifestyle and life choices one has made at anytime are worthy of consideration when judging the quality of any individual seeking the nation's highest office. Regarding past indescretions or moral lapses by Bush or Clinton -- the record speaks for itself.
Fortunately, the voter is the one who decides such things and not self-righteous Leftists control freaks.

20. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
No, trade with anyone by anyone is the essence of free-market capitalism (something Democrats in general despise). By the same token the government itself should not be dealing with ruthless one-party dictatorships on the same level as dignified open and free societies. The pathetic Democratic stance simply looks at all (specifically Left-wing) dictators as "people we can talk to." Sounds nice but get a clue...and, Stop giving Kim Jong Il food and oil in the hopes he might honor agreements made. Whattaya stupid?!

21. Affirmative Action is wrong but that it is ok for your Daddy and his friends to get you into Yale, the Texas Air National Guard, Harvard Business School, part ownership of Harken Oil, part ownership of the Texas Rangers, the Governorship of Texas, and then have the Supreme Court appoint you President of the USA.
One can of course thoroughly analyse the 2000 election issue. Even Gore had sued and it turns out that the Supreme Court "appointment" accusation is just another great Democrat urban legend. In the end, Gore just didn't have the votes. But we must remember the people who believe sound bites of myth are typically the same ones who think Michael Moore is a good reference (a guy who defends and sympathizes with tyrants and terrorists and clearly despises eveything about America and Americans -- "the stupidest people on the planet" in his words). Michael Moore is the new face of the Democratic party and the stance they now take on a variety of issues is the reason they'll soon be fading from the scene since a new generation of young people appreciate the value of limited constitutional govenment and free-market capitalism.


I'm not a Republican, but I've definitely become rather sympathetic to them in their confrontation with the new Socialist-Democratic party. There are plenty of valid attacks that can be made against many individual Republicans and Republican positions but for overall defense of the country and respect for limited de-centralized govenment and non-interference in individual's lives, the Republicans beat the Democrats hands down. If you're a Democrat, you have nothing to be proud of. Move to France, it has a double digit unemployment rate, a vast population of socialist slackers and a massive bureau-state that "cares." You’ll definitely be more comfortable among your own kind.

The psychologist Carl Jung defined immaturity as thinking that everyone sees the world the same way as you do -- or should. In the usual rants and cliche' diatribes I hear from the Democrats and the Left in general, there's an assumption that there is only one possible take on things. To them, it is simply inconcievable that anyone could possibly come to different conclusions. If they do, they can only be mean-spirited, greedy, cruel, or who knows what else. In the real world, some people think Terroism should be directly confronted -- with military force. Some people believe self-government is superior and morally sounder than centalized state authority. Some people just want to be left alone and not be forced into the latest communal scheme to validate someone elses self image as a
"compassionate," caring, 60's flower child (or communist party reeducation camp commander).

Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, and Bush supporters are people who have come to conclusions some may not like -- I guess the Left will just have to deal with it.