February 27, 2006

A Legacy of the Republicans (and Democrats for that matter)

As most internet news surfers know by now, Al Gore once again demonstrated why he is the court jester of the Democrat Party (as opposed to Howard Dean, who is the king-dunce of the Democrat Party). Forget Gore’s reiteration of his idiotic, uninformed position on global warming. I’m talking about Gore going over seas and speaking at the Jiddah Economic Forum.

One has to ask, ‘Is Al Gore so stupid and partisan as to go over seas into the heart of a people group that despise us, and offer them ammunition with which to attack us?” The answer, obviously, is, “Yes.” Al Gore’s actions are no different than the men who used to go into Indian territory and sell Indians liquor and guns. At least the men who sold the guns and liquor to the Indians were pure capitalists, not interested in the fallout from their moneymaking activities. Al Gore no doubt took money for his appearance, but he clearly had a political motive for his actions, which was to attempt to bring down the Republican Party. However, it’s not his motives that concern me, but his actions themselves. The end doesn’t justify the means.

That said, the typical response from Republicans and Republican sympathizers has been rather disappointing. Not for their lack of response, but because of what they advocate as a response. A typical example comes from Ben Shapiro, writing for WorldNet Daily on 16 February. Mr. Shapiro advocates prosecuting Gore for sedition. Now, sedition is inciting resistance to, or insurrection against a lawful authority. Al Gore was an idiot and a partisan jerk, but he didn’t advocate resistance or insurrection against the U.S. government. Well, at least not directly, all though he surely knew his comments would enflame Arabs. Regardless of how dumb Al Gore’s actions were, they weren’t seditious.

While Ben Shapiro can perhaps be forgiven for his over zealous views on how to deal with those who dissent from the Republican position, what is unforgivable is his justification for his views. Shapiro points out that ‘Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and allowed governmental officials to arrest Rep. Clement Vallandigham after Vallandigham called the Civil War "cruel" and "wicked," shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, and had members of the Maryland Legislature placed in prison to prevent Maryland's secession.’ Shapiro then justifies these blatant violations of the Constitution and the rights of the states and individuals with the phrase ‘The Union won the Civil War,’ as if that made it all okay. As with Al Gore, the end does not justify the means.

To further justify his view, which can only be described as ‘violent suppression of dissent,’ Shapiro gives other examples of times when presidents or Congress have acted unconstitutionally to suppress those that disagreed with the actions of the federal government. These actions include events in WWI, and WWII. Each time, Shapiro justifies the oppressive big-government actions by declaring ‘we’ won those wars. Shapiro then goes on to point out how freedoms and rights were not violated during Vietnam (he almost sounds disappointed about that), and that we lost that war. The comparisons are crude at best, and grossly flawed. Shapiro uses some of the worst examples of federal abuses of the Constitution to justify his desire to hammer Al Gore, and claims that somehow whether or not government violates your rights influences the outcome of war. The truth is the wars the U.S. won that Shapiro references were won in spite of government violations of the constitution, not because of those violations. As for Vietnam, that war was lost due to a failure of leadership concerning finishing off the enemy, and had nothing to do with squashing dissent at home.

Ben Shapiro, as a Republican, is carrying on a Republican tradition as old as the GOP itself, starting with the ‘god’ of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln. This tradition is to yell at the top of your lungs how patriotic you are, all the while ignoring the Constitution and the people’s God-given rights if they get in the way of your goals. In fact, Shapiro’s example of how Lincoln ran roughshod over the Constitution and people’s rights is not a vindication of his views, but a damning indictment of them. Isn’t Shapiro the young writer who wrote “Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth?” It appears to me that Mr. Shapiro didn’t escape the brainwashing, as he’s basically a big-government advocate, just from the neocon sector of politics, rather than the Democrat Party sector (not that there’s a whole lot of difference between the two).

Mind you, the Democrats aren’t innocent. Two of Shapiro’s examples of government domestic action during war time came under Wilson and FDR. In fact, this brings to mind the point in ‘Animal Farm,’ at the end, where the farm animals are looking in the window of the farmhouse, watching the pigs and humans talking, and they can’t tell the difference between the two groups. These days I can’t tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Of course, I have to give Ben Shapiro some slack. After all, he is hampered by his youth and the lack of perspective youth and inexperience bring to the table. Not to mention, his entire collegiate experience is grounded in two extremely liberal universities: UCLA and Harvard (talk about a handicap). But Ben Shapiro can take solace in the fact that he is at least upholding a long-standing tradition of his beloved Republican Party: oppression of dissent.

Jeff Adams

Published originally at EtherZone.com

Archives

Does the Death Penalty ‘Prevent’ Crime?

The 17th Amendment: A Backhanded Acknowledge-ment of State’s Rights

A Pox on Both Their Houses!

Do It Yourself

Obey the Government - But not Always

Why We Need the Southern Military Institute

Liberals Fleeing to Canada

Minutemen are Proof Citizens can take back Their Country

The New Liberal Twist on History

Private Pensions and the Government

The Advantages of Republicanism and Negatives of Consolidation

Return to Radicalism

States, Countries, and Nations

Our Courts

Democrats have ‘Innovative Agenda?