Talk radio gives refuge to scoundrels

July 5, 2007
By Billy Dennis

Conservative commentator Cal Thomas had this to say in today’s Peoria Journal Star:

Last week, U.S. senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said that religion is not the exclusive property of conservative Christians. He is right. Neither is patriotism a trademark of the Republican Party.

As with religion, some people on the right have used patriotism, which should be a unifying theme, to divide Americans. My liberal friends love America as much as I do. They might disagree on some, or all, of my political and religious beliefs, but that does not make them less in love with America, much less un-American.

Blogger B.J. Stone had this to say:

What a very fine, heartfelt column from Mr. Thomas, and his fourth and fifth paragraphs say it all. As a Democrat, I myself have felt the wrath of those who call me “anti-American” and a “hater of America”. Quite the contrary. I am one of those who often (regularly) disagrees with Cal Thomas. Not on this day. Happy 4th to everyone, even those who divide us.

Patriotism is a loaded word. There are no generally accepted standards for what behavior or viewpoints can be considered patriotic. The word requires its user to make certain value judgements. That makes some people uncomfortable. Somewhere along the line we decided that encouraging free speech meant it was somehow uncouth or even un-American to criticize other people’s point of view.

I disagree.
Complaining that the Bush administration is authorizing torture is not unpatriotic. Complaining that the Bush administration has prosecuted the war poorly is not unpatriotic. Complaining that the Bush administration claimed victory too early and did not plan for occupation is not unpatriotic. Complaining that members of the Bush administration lied about Saddam Hussein’s role in 9/11 is not unpatriotic. Complaining about the loss of civil liberties due to “homeland security” measures is not unpatriotic.

As Samuel Johnson said: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” There professional commentators who have built their careers on name-calling calling anyone who doesn’t follow their version of the party line. WMBD 1470 fills its airwaves with conservative commentators who, to differing degrees, use this tactic. Glenn Beck is the least offensive in this regard, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity are the worse. I hope that JMP Media is making a bundle off these clowns, all of whom I consider to be quite unpatriotic in that they wrap themselves around the flag as they advocate using the U.S. Constitution like toilet paper.

Still, there are some actions and points of view being espoused by some liberals that I do find quite unpatriotic. Voting to end funding for an ongoing war is one of those things. Yes, I get that they want troops out of Iraq. I want them out, too. But I cannot reconcile publicly stating support for the troops with votes to cut off funding for supplies and replacements. The best and most patriotic way to end this war is to let the soldiers win it. Time and again, the Bush administration has not let soldiers fight to bring radical, terrorist-supporting clerics to justice.

That makes it impossible to see anything positive in the candidacy of Obama, who I once considered a liberal I could support because he wanted to work with conservatives, not demonize them. Likewise, I am unable to show eny enthusiasm for libertarian-minded GOP candidate Ron Paul. He’s an Internet darling, but like Harry Browne before him, he blames America for causing the terrorists to hate us. Feh.

Cal Thomas,patriotism,Barack Obama,Sean Hannity,Glenn Beck,Michael Savage

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

5 Responses to “ Talk radio gives refuge to scoundrels ”

  1. mcsey on July 5, 2007 at 8:16 am

    You write a perfectly good post, and then engage in the behavior are decrying throughout the post in the last paragraph. Good show! Way to make a straw man out of Paul’s “actions have consequences” foreign policy approach. Applying at WMDB, are we?

  2. Eyebrows McGee on July 5, 2007 at 9:18 am

    “The best and most patriotic way to end this war is to let the soldiers win it.”

    Except that as a general rule, you can’t win other people’s civil wars. You can annex the warring country, or you can completely obliterate one side or the other, but you can’t generally “win” someone else’s civil war in ways that the US considers within the realm of the acceptable.

    So, assuming (arguendo) that the above generality is in fact the case in Iraq, what’s the patriotic thing to do if the war isn’t winnable?

  3. Bill Thill on July 5, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    “Win” is a loaded word, too.

    I’d be interested in hearing your detailed definition. I’ve yet to hear anyone who uses it describe what “winning” the civil war we’ve unleashed in Iraq looks like.

    Hope everyone had a great 4th!

  4. ben on July 5, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    Billy, you may not agree with Ron Paul’s analysis of cause & effect, but I’m still shocked to hear that you won’t be pushing for him to win the GOP nomination (as unlikely as that might be). He is probably the only Republocrat candidate who stands any chance of upholding the Constitution.

  5. Hypocricy anyone? | Peoria Pundits on July 5, 2007 at 9:49 pm

    [...] ben: Billy, you may not agree with Ron Paul’s analysis of cause &… [...]