Two Sides in Politics (Part 1)

by Right Wing Fighter

Broadly speaking, I think there are two sides in politics: the side that favors the national interest, and those malcontents who oppose it.

There is quite a trail across US history that supports this.

First, the constitution was bitterly opposed by many people that opposed any kind of nationalism. Once it was ratified, it was opposed by those same people. They got elected to federal office and tried to strangle the national government by the doctrine of enumerated powers. [1]

Second, before and during the Civil War, many people, including quite a number of people in the North, wanted to see the Union dissolved. The Civil War was not only fueled by slavery. Another prime motive for it was the desire of the anti-nationalists to end the Union.

Third, during the Vietnam War, there were many people that opposed any action of the US government, believed any lie told to them by anti-war agitators, and generally viewed their government as being murderous. The fact that so many people, though certainly not a majority, were willing to believe that American soldiers had committed genocide and that the government was guilty of murder in many lands, is indicative of a strong element of malcontents.

Four, the second Iraq War. There were protesters, agitators, academics, and not a few politicians and voters who were willing to believe anything if it was to the discredit of the nation. That they would believe the lies about alleged American abuses of prisoners; that they would blow real abuses out of proportion and treat them as the commonplace actions of our own soldiers; that they would willfully ignore the brutality and savagery of the Jihadist enemy we were fighting: all of these elements show that there is a strong element in America that will believe any lie, any idiotic, outrageous slander, if it is to the shame of the nation.

All nations at all times have had malcontents. At any point in history you can find people in a given nation that are willing to sell it out, oppose it, or even just snarl at it. But I think it is a somewhat new idea to say that malcontents are a semi-organized force, and that their motive is dissolution of the nation. This is true of most European countries as well. With the refugee quasi-invasion that is now taking place, there are more than a few people that regard the displacement of Europe’s native population as a good thing. So to in America, where people justify Latin American illegal immigration as the just deserts of a country, they allege, that displaced the Indians and stole their lands. Never mind that the Indians never, in most cases, so much as cultivated the land. Never mind that the Indians simply rode across it chasing herds of animals. Never mind, in short, that much of North America was a waste that the Indians never actually worked upon, but simply rode across. Where the Indians simply hunted, they could no more be considered the owners of North America than a British rhino hunter in Africa could be considered the owner of all that he walked and rode across. But never mind the facts. The allegation is enough for the malcontents to batter at American national legitimacy.

And so, I propound that there are, broadly speaking, two groups in a nation. One favors unity, the national interest, the common good for the common man. The other group favors disunion, chaos, dissolution, and generally whatever is to the discredit of the nation. Why it should split into two such quasi neat groups is curious, but in fact it is slightly more complicated. I’ll explain in the next post.

 

[1]: The doctrine of enumerated powers was cooked up to strangle the Constitution by making it unworkable. The idea was to strictly oppose anything that was not expressly allowed by the Constitution. For instance, the President could negotiate a treaty, the Senate could ratify it, but the Constitution said nothing about the House having to approve the funds to make the treaty work. Thus the House could kill any treaty, take the Senate and President politically hostage, and, after a period of such tactics, render the Constitution impotent and contemptible.

Advertisements