The New Anti-Americans

Just objecting to President Obama's plan for saving the economy and the world is not enough to be anti-American. Even publicly hoping, as Rush Limpballs does, that President Obama fails in everything he does is not enough to be anti-American.

No, to be one of the New Anti-Americans, you must combine strong dissent toward our new President with a long record of condemning as anti-American all those who dissented against War Criminal, Constitution-Shredder and Traitor George W. Bush.

For all of us who spent the last eight years enduring verbal and even physical attacks because we dared to express our anti-war, anti-torture, pro-Constitution, anti-bush patriotism, Blue Girl has a rant that will make your heart soar.

I remember being one of the people who opposed this war from the outset. I remember a squareheaded asshole with a buzz cut pushing his bumper up against mine and trying to push me into traffic a few days before the war started because I had bumper stickers on my truck that said "No War On Iraq" and "Get Afghanistan Right" - when he sped away I saw his..."This time, Anti-War is Anti-American."

I remember being told by the dispatcher at the police department that I might should take those bumper stickers off my truck because "this is a pretty patriotic town."

I remember the armchair patriots I worked with there being shocked that a military person was against a war, and how they viewed me with suspicion after learning that.

I remember having my patriotism questioned, even though I was the one with a record of service to point to.

And all of my opposing positions were prefaced with "I hope I'm wrong because if I'm right and this fails, America fails, and that is the last thing I want to see happen."

Yet I'm anti-American and these assholes are the patriots?

Bullshit. They are traitorous, treasonous cowards, and they do not deserve the rights afforded them by the people like my husband, and elmo, and Rook and, to a lesser extent, me and everyone else who stepped up and took that oath to the Constitution and did so enthusiastically because we knew what was said therein.

They don't deserve the civil liberties that men and women like bmaz and grolaw fight every day to defend in court. They don't deserve the the protections of the law that my friend RW works within every day to protect society in her role as a prosecutor.

Fuck Rush Limbaugh.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "The New Anti-Americans" >>

Be a Patriot: Challenge Obama

Kai Wright at The Root explains why Obama can't be the new Lincoln until dissenters force his hand.

We all know by now that Barack Obama fancies himself a modern Abe Lincoln. Few people begrudge the national pride Lincoln's memory evokes, so Obama can be forgiven for his repetition of the comparison—the grand Springfield, Ill. campaign launch; the team of rivals; the Lincoln inaugural Bible.

But as we prepare to swear in our 44th president, at least one memory of the Lincoln era has been entirely unwelcome: the vocal, progressive dissent that drove the Great Emancipator to earn his name.

Lincoln's political stance was as neutral on slavery as it was steadfast on restoring the national union. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave," he wrote in 1862, "I would do it." As other commentators have pointed out, that uncomfortable historical reality should remind us that the political pragmatism in which Obama is now draped has its limits; moderation is too easily confused with acceptance of deep injustices.

There is, however, an additional lesson to be learned from Lincoln's reluctance to end slavery: that meaningful dissent is essential for democratic change, no matter who is president.

From the Civil War's start, abolitionist rabble-rousers clamored for more lasting goals than mere preservation of the Union. Frederick Douglass incessantly cajoled Lincoln, whom he called "a brave man trying against great odds to do right." He demanded Lincoln to declare that emancipation was an explicit aim of war. He saw no conflict between the abolitionists' clear alliance with the president and their need to demand more of Lincoln.

Sadly, there's little appreciation for Douglass' brand of political tough love today.

Disappointed with Barack's inaugural invitation to freakazoid homophobe Rick Warren? Pissed that Obama's being nice to Congressional repugs? Furious the president-elect's "stimulus" plan has tax cuts instead of a minimum wage hike?

Then stop yelling at your significant other and kicking your dog; make your voice heard where it can join with other progressive voices to push Obama left.

At Change.gov you can send Obama your own ideas or vote for other people's ideas. Thousands of people vote every day to move issues and suggestions up on the priority list.

But whether Obama and political pundits want to hear from progressives is beside the point. History proves that those of us who want to see the purported mainstream broadened cannot afford to sit out the Obama revolution.

SNIP

It could be that Obama gets this, too. Perhaps he believes the clamor for progressive government must come from outside of the White House; maybe he's cloaking himself in centrist robes to create cover for bold reforms. After all, many of the stimulus-plan details he's floated so far are nothing short of precedent shattering. I certainly hope that's the case.

But Hillary Clinton had this much right during her primary bid: Hope's not enough to beat back decades of right-wing entrenchment. We're all going to need to think less about Lincoln and more about Douglass, who put it this way, when rejecting Lincoln's insistence that unity trumps justice, even as a practical matter: "We have pursued that middle path. It is compromise, and by it we have reached the Civil War with all its horrid consequences. The question is shall we start anew with the same old path?"

Speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic.

There's more: "Be a Patriot: Challenge Obama" >>