Accusations of un-patriotic, un-Americanism

[Galvatron]

Why is it that such accusations seem so consistently to be hurled from the conservatives? I'm a libertarian myself so I can admit to not liking either of the "big two" ends of the political spectrum in the US, but I have to wonder why it's almost always the conservatives who drape themselves in American symbolisim (the flag, the bald eagle, etc.) and label their opposition as "un-American."

I actually have a good friend who does this fairly often. He's a die-hard, Bush-defending Republican and he requires very little provocation to start calling me a "Kerry-loving, America-hating pinko commie" whenever I criticize the current administration (despite the fact that I don't even attempt to defend Kerry's record).

So where does this attitude stem from? Why do they feel they have this monopoly on patriotism and that any dissent is akin to treason? And why is it that the left-wingers seemingly don't do this?

I welcome answers from all.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

That tactic is commonly referred to as 'Ad Hominem'. It's a convenient marker of whether your opponent is running out of debate tactics and points to use, and therefore your cue to call it such and riposte with a particularly powerful and unrebuttable point. This will generally knock him flat on his ass and out of the fight, or if he's a Darkstar clone, he will proceed to make an ass of himself to the point a six-month-old infant with no debating experience whatsoever will have no trouble at all determining him to be the loser and ergo you the winner by an Overkill Knockout.

[Iceberg]

The short form is that conservatives are very, very afraid.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

The short form is that conservatives are very, very afraid.

Fearful opponents are far easier to defeat than fearless ones. GFTT.

[SirNitram]

It probably roots in the McCarthy witchhunts. After all, if you were even vaguely Socialist, you were UNAMERICAN! Conservatives, being masters of sly insinuations and accusation, have built it up to being Liberal even by the American standard is a terrible thing. It basically all comes down to mudslinging; heaven knows you couldn't get far on a platform of Social Conservatism as it ultimately is: Hi, we hate change and will bar all forms of it, good or bad, that we can.

[Galvatron]

I understand it's an ad hominem attack, but I still don't understand why conservatives are apparently the only ones who use this particular ad hominem.

Is it because they're already predisposed towards reverence because of their religious leanings that they're so quick to appeal to "God and country" in lieu of rational debate?

[SirNitram]

I understand it's an ad hominem attack, but I still don't understand why conservatives are apparently the only ones who use this particular ad hominem.

Is it because they're already predisposed towards reverence because of their religious leanings that they're so quick to appeal to "God and country" in lieu of rational debate?

Why appeal to it? Easy: It works. You yourself see it. There are some very, very smart Republicans out there who can bamboozle very, very well.

[Galvatron]

Why appeal to it? Easy: It works. You yourself see it. There are some very, very smart Republicans out there who can bamboozle very, very well.

If it works, why don't the Democrats do it as well? It's almost as if Old Glory has come to symbolize "reactionary conservative" whenever I see it on a bumper sticker or a web site.

I wish it weren't so. When I was a kid I used to the say the Pledge of Allegiance (even the "under god" part) and actually mean it. But now it seems like doing so requires conforming to the conservative ideal of what it means to be a good American.

Makes me sad.

[Lord Revan]

It's also funny that our consertives here in Finland don't call their political rivals as un-finnish (apart from some extremists)

[18-Till-I-Die]

Yes, i too am puzzled. It does seem like the conservitives have taken the concept as their own, excluding all others from using it. You really almost never see liberals use a similar tactic. It's odd.

[2000AD]

COuldn't you point out that because of freedom of speech and expression are part of being an American (IIRC), their attempts to define an American as a person of set criteria are actually un-american?

[Galvatron]

COuldn't you point out that because of freedom of speech and expression are part of being an American (IIRC), their attempts to define an American as a person of set criteria are actually un-american?

Rationally, yes. But they seem to prefer the "shut up and support your president" rhetoric without realizing how authoritarian it makes them sound.

[Morilore]

McCarthy (or, more accurately, McCarthyism) taught them how to get away with bullshit. It became associated with that party. People don't tolerate it unless its championed by someone with charisma, or it's popular, or it's backed by precedent. McCarthyism accomplished all three.

[Wicked Pilot]

So where does this attitude stem from? Why do they feel they have this monopoly on patriotism and that any dissent is akin to treason?

America was perfect back in the good ol days, so any attempts by the lefties or activist judges to change things must be un-American by their very nature.

And why is it that the left-wingers seemingly don't do this?

As someone who could be considered a liberal, I really don't care if someone really, honestly hates America. Doesn't matter to me if they're a left wing commie protesting at Berkley or a right wing fundie wanking in Wyoming, as long as they pay their taxes and obey the laws they can hate all they want. I sure as hell won't lose any sleep over it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

he requires very little provocation to start calling me a "Kerry-loving, America-hating pinko commie"

What I really find funny s that compared to you, Bush is more of a communist

[Ryoga]

Actually, to be perfectly honest, this sort of thing has happened in American politics before.

McCarthy witch-hunt? Nope, think earlier.

Try the Alien & Sedition Acts, 1801.

Like the Patriot act, they were a desperate and ill-thought response to terrorism (French, in this case), and like the modern-day American political landscape, they ushered in a mini-era where the quickest way to silence the opposition was to question their loyalty and/or patriotism.

As to what all that means? Basically, it'll blow over soon, and hopefully Kerry will be the Jefferson to Bush's Adams. I hope.

[Galvatron]

What I really find funny s that compared to you, Bush is more of a communist

Well, that just shows how simple-minded his argument is. The fact that I'm not a Republican like him automatically makes me "one o' them liberal Democrats."

[Alex Moon]

I have to wonder why it's almost always the conservatives who drape themselves in American symbolisim (the flag, the bald eagle, etc.) and label their opposition as "un-American."

To be honest, I rarely hear that from my conservative friends. Usually those kind of attacks are against people who have actually said things that can be interperated as attacking the USA.

I actually have a good friend who does this fairly often. He's a die-hard, Bush-defending Republican and he requires very little provocation to start calling me a "Kerry-loving, America-hating pinko commie" whenever I criticize the current administration (despite the fact that I don't even attempt to defend Kerry's record).

It sounds like your friend is an idiot, if he actually says that kind of stuff.

A lot of it is because Democrats have allowed themselves to become vulnerable to these attacks. Many of the most promenent members of the left came of age during the 60's and the Vietnam war. That era defined them in a number of ways including a distrust of the US Government and of American power. Even a basic search finds plenty of promenent far left activists and politicians making outrageous statements dispariging the US or praising it's enemies (Susan Sontag anyone?). While these people are a minority, they too often aren't criticised by more reasonable people on the left, much in the same way that the religious right is given a pass by conservatives.

Second of all, they are helped by the fact that there is an undercurrent of disdain towards the majority of Americans by these very same intellectuals. To be honest, I've noticed that the far left tends to brand anyone with a differing viewpoint as either evil or stupid. When most of your exposure to the left comes in the form of arrogance and being insulted as stupid bumpkins by outsiders, you tend to get hostile. And since their idea of America comes directly from their lifestyle and values, when someone is attacking this lifestyle then it can often be interepreted as an attack on America.

Basically a lot of this on both sides comes from the general polarization of politics in the US. Your opponant can't be someone who wants the best for the country but has a different idea of how to achieve that. Now he has to be the tool of evil corporations or a stupid lacky to neocon cabals or a pinko leftist who wants to surrender the US to the control of the UN.

[Jalinth]

I have to wonder why it's almost always the conservatives who drape themselves in American symbolisim (the flag, the bald eagle, etc.) and label their opposition as "un-American."

To be honest, I rarely hear that from my conservative friends. Usually those kind of attacks are against people who have actually said things that can be interperated as attacking the USA.

I actually have a good friend who does this fairly often. He's a die-hard, Bush-defending Republican and he requires very little provocation to start calling me a "Kerry-loving, America-hating pinko commie" whenever I criticize the current administration (despite the fact that I don't even attempt to defend Kerry's record).

It sounds like your friend is an idiot, if he actually says that kind of stuff.

A lot of it is because Democrats have allowed themselves to become vulnerable to these attacks. Many of the most promenent members of the left came of age during the 60's and the Vietnam war. That era defined them in a number of ways including a distrust of the US Government and of American power. Even a basic search finds plenty of promenent far left activists and politicians making outrageous statements dispariging the US or praising it's enemies (Susan Sontag anyone?). While these people are a minority, they too often aren't criticised by more reasonable people on the left, much in the same way that the religious right is given a pass by conservatives.

Second of all, they are helped by the fact that there is an undercurrent of disdain towards the majority of Americans by these very same intellectuals. To be honest, I've noticed that the far left tends to brand anyone with a differing viewpoint as either evil or stupid. When most of your exposure to the left comes in the form of arrogance and being insulted as stupid bumpkins by outsiders, you tend to get hostile. And since their idea of America comes directly from their lifestyle and values, when someone is attacking this lifestyle then it can often be interepreted as an attack on America.

Basically a lot of this on both sides comes from the general polarization of politics in the US. Your opponant can't be someone who wants the best for the country but has a different idea of how to achieve that. Now he has to be the tool of evil corporations or a stupid lacky to neocon cabals or a pinko leftist who wants to surrender the US to the control of the UN.

The recent Canadian election was almost the opposite. The conservatives (call them Republican Lite) were labelled as "unCanadian" - take the GOP tactics and inverse - or the "Menace from the West".

Seems to be the tactic of choice in many nations if you think your party might lose. The exact tactics change to fit the national taste - shows us that all politicians must go to the same secret International School of Mudsmearing to learn their Masters in Electioneering.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think it started when the conservatives of the 19th century started to push nationalism so that the liberals and socialists couldn't use it. They had the mentality that if THEY used it first, people would support them and not the opposing parties.

[Knife]

Yes, i too am puzzled. It does seem like the conservitives have taken the concept as their own, excluding all others from using it. You really almost never see liberals use a similar tactic. It's odd.

Oh they use the tactic, just not that particular subject. You just don't hear Repubs calling people racists too often and you don't hear Dems calling people unAmerican too often.

Its all pandering to their particular 'base' but in essence its the same thing.

[Durandal]

It's also funny that our consertives here in Finland don't call their political rivals as un-finnish (apart from some extremists)

I guess that the conservatives must have some un-Finished business with the liberals.

</rimshot>

[Elfdart]

To understand the "anti-American/ un-American" song-and-dance, you have to look back at ethnic upheaval and politics in the early 1800s. Until the 1840s, the overwhelming majority of white people in the US were Protestants from the British Isles. This changed rapidly in the 1840s when large numbers of Catholic Irish and Germans (and some Czechs) poured into the country.

The Irish, being desperate to flee the Potato Famine, at first were grateful for any job -no matter how miserable and how low the pay- but turned uppity. They soon fought back either through force (unions, gangs) or the ballot box by bloc voting.

The Germans and Czechs came after the 1848 revolution and a number of them were radicals. Unlike the Irish, who were mainly peasants, many of the Germans were highly educated and were successful businessmen back in Europe. Being educated also meant that they were bringing radical ideas with them, like the notion that people should actually be paid for their labor . They rather quickly became successful in the US and this caused further resentment.

These two immigrant groups, combined with those few surly Indians who hadn't yet been ethnically cleansed, and black slaves who periodically ran away or revolted; were all construed as threats to the Anglo-Saxon/ Scots-Irish Protestant order. So demagogues began to incite paranoia and bigotry against those who weren't REAL Americans.

If you had a funny-sounding name, were Catholic, had dark skin, wanted to form a union, wanted to be paid for your work, wanted to vote for the candidate of your choice, or anything else, you were "un-American".

REAL Americans were Protestants with ancestors from the British Isles and knew that the only books worth reading were written in English -just like the Bible! REAL Americans knew that book-loving krauts were a menace. It's hard enough to prevent slaves from reading English and getting ideas in their heads about "freedom" and "justice" without the goddamned Germans stirring things up! REAL Americans knew that unions and higher learning were just fiendish plots by the Pope (the bogeyman of godless, satanic communism hadn't taken off yet) to oppress WASPs and make them the slaves while vengeful blacks, Indians and Mexicans lord it over them and fuck white women -and take back their land!

When later immigrant groups entered the US, this sort of thing was projected onto them, while Irish and Germans were allowed to be members of the "in" group. "Sure, the Irish are dirty Catholics, but unlike the Yids, Polacks, and Guineas, they at least speak English." It used to be that German immigrants were considered troublemakers with their foreign ideas. Decades later, this was projected onto Jews, who like Germans before, were blamed for both big business and radical politics. Hatred of Jews added an exclamation point to "un-American" during the Red Scares, since as every right-thinking American knows, Jews spread COMMUNISM when they're not drinking the blood of Christian babies.

So the whole "un-American/ anti-American" shtick is just a holdover from the bigotry against immigrants and other minorities of years gone by, just as a lot of the states' rights bullshit you hear is just the remains of agitprop by supporters of Jim Crow. This also explains a lot of anti-intellectualism in the US. Thinking and using big words is so... Euro.

To the extent that the Democratic Party has traditionally been friendlier to immigrants (there's nothing a city boss loves more than the prospect of tens of thousands of people who will vote for him as a bloc in exchange for a few crumbs), they haven't called people "un-American" as much as Republicans have.

If Finland received several waves of immigrants that left Finns as the largest minority, rather than the majority in that country, you might just hear nativist Finns calling the immigrants and their customs and politics "un-Finnish".

[Galvatron]

Damn Elfdart, that was pretty good stuff!

[Talon Karrde]

Yes, i too am puzzled. It does seem like the conservitives have taken the concept as their own, excluding all others from using it. You really almost never see liberals use a similar tactic. It's odd.

It stems from the fact that liberals are generally against our efforts in Iraq, plus Republicans see them as taking terrorism to lightly.