Do Liberals Love America Too?

You heard Michelle. She will never love America unless Obama becomes president. So do the MSM.

By the way, the use of liberals make Americans so confused.

Call them Communists. These communists will never love America. They want to surrender America to the demands of its enemies.

They are all like Delahunt. If you are not communist, Delahunt would rather see you dead in the hands of Al Quaida.

Back in 2004 I explored this very strange dichotomy of the parties and I came to this conclusion (Theories and Dreams):

Here is the key - they don't think they are anti-American because their idea of America is their Utopian dream - not the reality of where America is (and the American people are)! In other words - they are in favor of what they want America to be - but they are definitely against everything America is currently. This is where they have been since the 60's!
This is how they can, with a straight face, demand apologies from anyone who would dare to question their patriotism. It is also why this is such a sensitive issue for them - see deep down they understand that this is really an un-American position.

Because of their hatred for the REAL America they would trust a murdering dictator over a Republican President.
(...)
I think it can be traced to this a dramatic perversion of this quote from the closest thing to a God the left has:

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
Robert F. Kennedy
DKK

This was a great article, and I pretty much agree with every point. But when those on the Left feel obligated to release to the public and the world the tactics that are being used to track our enemies, or vote for policies that blatantly weaken the country, or put obstacles in the way of progress, or endanger our troops, or manipulate and control the news in an effort to depress the morale of the country simply to gain political power, all because they disagree with the Right, then that is not patriotism. That is treason. A patriot doesn't put personal favor, power, or economic gain above what's best for the country. A patriot doesn't shred the Constitution simply because the guaranteed rights of the people are getting in the way. If a declaration of war had been made prior to the invasion of Iraq, many on the Left would now be in prison for what they've done. Political Correctness forbids calling the many actions of the Left what it is, but anyone of sound thinking knows what I'm talking about. Many on the Left, from those who have leaked war secrets to those who have used their personal power to circumvent laws or overrule election results, are, simply put, traitors to their country. Traitors. What other word fits or applies, when the Left has actively, determinedly, unashamedly, undermined those who are risking their lives in the front lines? Traitors. It's the only word that fits.

Beinart's thesis is another attempt to redefine patriotism to allow liberals to apply the label 'patriotic' to their political ideology.

Patriotism is defined by Merriam-Webster as "love for or devotion to one's country". Note - it does not say devotion to the "ideals" of the country. It implies love of one's country as it is in the present - not in some utopian future.

Also, devotion to the "ideals" of the USA is not necessarily devotion to the country itself. Most citizens of Britain, France and Germany would proclaim their devotion to 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' but would they be called patriotic Americans?

The ideals the liberals are devoted to are, by nature, utopian. And they are part of an attempt to subordinate American sovereignty to an internationalist collective. This is not a devotion to make America live up to its founding ideals, but rather a diminishment of America as a country. I would hardly call this 'patriotic'.

Another weak conservative granting the traitorous left their wish to not have their patriotism questioned. Hard leftists are certainly NOT patriotic! You cannot be patriotic if you despise almost everything about the country. Is it any wonder we're losing to the Marxist collectivists when our side offers up these gutless wonders who won't even question their patriotism?

I will continue with you in the battle.

Funny. Liberals long-term goal is World Federal Government and all the rhetorics on anti-war, anti-poverty, freedom of religion, freedom from religion (different from other one but exists), welfare government, anti-poverty rhetorics, reducing America's military capability, America not going to war, America's reparation for environment, and so on are pointing to that direction.

Ask Michael Douglas about it.

Problem with us conservatives and republicans, we do not study hard and link all the facts.

Obama's flip flops have a very devious strategy: he wants make himself centric, and somewhat redder.

He will just wear his true color later on. See while he flip flops, he clandestinely address the collateral damages by a secretive meetings.

Sorry, but America is blindsided.

There is nothing perplexing about this question to me. I do not consider those on the left to be patriotic. Were they patriotic, they'd demonstrate a lot more respect for this nation's founding principles and spend a whole lot less time interfering with their fellow citizens right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The left wants to dictate how you live your life - that's un-American at its core.

I guess it depends on which Left we're talking about.

The run-of-the-mill Liberal who is against the war and dissents-sure, I'll concede that they are more than likely to be nominally patriotic.

But can one really grant such status to radical progrssive types who more and more are becoming the face of the American Left? Judging by their words and slogans, I would say no; the standardbearers and foot soldiers of that movement are most definitely not patriotic.

And I would begin to question the bona-fides of those aforementioned run-of-the-mill Libs. How long do they get off the hook for enabling the progressive moonbats to acquire power?

Let us call them what they are:A malignant fifth column.

The Liberals idea of patriotism is conditional. This is what separates them from conservatives. To a Liberal, it is OK to try to destroy a president in the middle of a war in the name of retaking power. to a liberal it is OK to destroy all forms of traditional life in order to remake it in their own perverted vision. To a liberal, American is a flawed country that needs to be "perfected" To a conservative, American is a great place despite its faults and imperfections and evne with those imperfections, is still the greatest country in history. This country has fed more, given more aid, save more lives than any other country in the world in history. Yes, we have done some bad things. but when you want to consider what the English did to the Aborigines, we do not look quite so bad. Yes, America was a slave country, but so was every other country in the world. Who started the slave trade. African tribes who captured their enemies, sold them to Arabs and white slave traders, namely the dutch and the british, who then stock their colonies. If you must punish America for having slave,s then you better punish The Dutch, the British, the Zulus, the Arabs, the persians, the Italians (Rome had slaves, too) and nearly every other civilied nation between now and 5000 years past. it is for this reason that I DO question liberal patriotism because to them we are no good, we are too rich, too wealthy, too stupid, too fat, too everything and need to be remade to fit THEIR image. That is not Patriotism. A Patriot loves his country right or wrong and works to make it better. A Patriot doesn't threated to move to Canada if George Bush is elected. A Patriot would not try to pass laws to deliberately harm A war effort and its soldiers fighting it. If you have to give a speech about patriotism you are NO patriot. This is a binary question, yes or no. There is no phoney nuance, no "shades of grey". Either you have it, or you don't. It IS sometimes that simple. Anyonetelling you different is either trying to BS YOU or trying to BS THEMSELVES.

The OED defines "pride" as "a feeling of elation or satisfaction at achievements or qualities or possessions etc. that do one credit". It would appear that however Messrs. Beinart and Moran play the word "patriotism", both apparently agree that liberals have no pride in America or being American. And that is the fundamental difference between the two, and the difference is growing.

Nice article Rick, but you are TOO fair to the Anti-Ameircan/Pro-Jihadi Left in this country, such as Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the MSM, the Hollywood crowd,etc.

They most certainly do NOT "love" America, in any sense, and they are certainly NOT "patriotic" in any sense.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama, as a Marxist-Muslim practicing "Taqiyah" can lie and obfruscate all he wants, and whine all he wants about people questioning his "patriotism", but if you study this man's background, he was raised by a Communist-sympathetic Grandfather, an Anti-American mother who studied the Communist manifesto in High school, who was nurtured by a vehement Anti-American/Anti-White racist communist in Frank Marshall as a young man, thanks to his family, and he has been under the sway of Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi/Anti-Semetic/Anti-White kooks and nuts and freaks since he was in college and beyond: Palestinian "Professsors"; his wife, Crooked Middle Eastern "Businessmen"; Wright, Pflager, Ayers, Dohrn, just to name a few.

This "man" doesn't know the meaning of "patriotism" or "love of country".

I'm the first person who will admit, because I've been saying it for years: the United States was founded on Great Ideals, that is what has, and does, make us great. That we have oft-times fallen short of those "ideals", is a FACT, and evidence of our "humaness".

But we also recognize it, and seek to make it better, that is our "greatness".

But as an individual who has lived most of his life in countries around the world, first with the service of my mother and father to this country, and then with my own service to this country, I can say, demonstrably, that the fact that we even have "ideals", and that we try to live up to them, already sets us apart from 99% of the other countries in the world!

That is what Barack "HUSSEIN" Obama, and his traitorous Lefist cult-of-peronality Nutbags do not understand, nor will they ever understand.

At their basic level, the've been raised to Hate America, they hate it to their core, they despise it, and their sole rational in life is to destroy it, that is the goal of the Left in this country.

They are intent on cultural and societal suicide, because frankly, they are a bunch of idiots.

No Rick, Barack HUSSEIN Obama does not "love" this country, and all his slavish Lefist nutbag followers understand when he practices "Taqiyah", and claims to do so; that is just "wink wink, nudge nudge" say whatever you have to say to fool the idiot Bible thumpers in the middle of the country to vote for me; but when I get in office, it's payback time,and I will destroy this country.

That is Barack HUSSEIN Obama's true intent, his true agenda, and his true beliefs; and if anyone doubts it, then study his history, his background, his upbringing, and open your eyes as to the true nature of the Left in this country.

I believe patriotism is both love of the landmass and inhabitants of the nation as well as love of said nation's fundamental ideals. There are always gaps between ideals and reality, both individually and nationally. (I will NOT eat that second piece of rhubarb pie. Right)The point is how one tries to get from reality to ideal. The Supreme Court was not the place to "legalize" abortion. If it was going to happen, it should have occurred in state legislatures. In education, it is fine to highlight injustice which occurred in the past, but it also requires teaching the glory that occurred in the past. How many pages of the local shool's history text discuss George Washington vs Martin Luther King? As far as the MSM goes, do I have to give examples of the blatant bias there? Not just the "information" proffered on the Iraq War, but many aspects of life? And then let us look at the various Liberal members of Congress. How have they portrayed their "Patriotism"? One name. Murtha. I submit to you that a Member Of Congress calling soldiers on active combat duty murderers without even hearing both sides nor allowing the JAG to conclude its procedures is the definition of unpatriotic.
No, the Liberals in the last two decades, and more, are not patriotic.
Al

This may be the most , watered down, boring and overly technical explanation of something that describes a passion or emotion I've seen. Seems to be alot of this stuff now, theories on this, speculation about that. Read Obama's first book, 'Dreams of my father' And throughout it you'll get the idea. He's no more Patriotic than any other spoiled brat that's been given the world and found it wanting.
The entire article focuses on racism or sexism as an adequate excuse for demanding a systemic change in American life, make it more modern or European or tolerant of space cadets. Well, it's not.

I certainly agree that there is much patriotism that can be found on both the left and the right. And I agree that the words of both Beinert and Obama quoted above reflect such a view. But I also know that there are many on the left who do not share this view. A Jeremiah Wright or a Bill Ayers believe that America is about white supremacy and capitalist exploitation.

More fundamentally, many in the academic left do not believe in the ideals of the American revolution. There is a powerful movement in the west and on college campuses in particular whose main thrust is to suppress free speech.

Under the guise of "stopping the hate", they seek to punish as hate crimes, people who criticize affirmative action, oppose illegal immigration, oppose gay marriage, or take an assimilationist view of ethnic, racial or gender identity. On the other hand, they applaud those who characterize Israel and its Jewish supporters as Nazis, demonize men as rapists and enablers of violence against women, and call opponents of preferential treatment policies racists. They participate in using methods ranging from speech codes to storming a stage and drowning out speakers to suppress the views of those who disagree with them.

I was very politically active during the sixties. I went to Montgomery Alabama twice in March 1965 to protest segregation and the denial of voting rights. I went to most of the major anti-war demonstrations in the late sixties and passed out hundreds of thousands of leaflets opposing the war in Vietnam. My experience was that most people who shared in these activities were motivated by patriotism of the kind described by Peter Beinert. What I see today, particularly among academics, is very different. They share neither the love of country that motivated the majority of sixties activists, nor the belief that all men are created equal. They believe in a binary world of men vs. women, whites vs. blacks, gays vs. straights, rich vs. poor and the point of politics is to take sides on behalf of the victims. The role of laws and regulations is to favor the victims of these binary relationships. The role of political activity is to empower the victims by continual accusations of past and present bigotry on the part of whites, males and straights as a was of shaming them into agreeing to an ever growing agenda of preferential treatment.

Barack Obama is not really part of this but he chose to sit in a church for twenty years that supports such views and he sat on a board with Bill Ayers who has practiced these politics for more than forty years.

The final obstacle to his attaining the presidency is the wariness of Americans, many white and male, of modest means, who have paid the taxes to support government efforts to help minorities. When they voted for Hillary Clinton in West Virginia and Kentucky, they were characterized as racists by much of media.

Having gotten the nomination by pandering to the part of the American left that is not patriotic and looks down on white working class as "clinging to God and guns" and symbols of patriotism, he now has to appeal for their vote without alienating his Democratic Party base.

While I welcome Obama's words, I remain sceptical about how sincere they are. And what is more, am dubious that they will soften the views of his core constituents who view conservatives as gun-toting, bible thumping bigots.

Happy 4th Rick Moran. I found Evan Sayet's talk at the Heritage Foundation; how the modern Liberal thinks, (posted on Youtube) excellent. Thanks Rick for reminding me there's something worth watching today besides baseball (go Cubs). The American Revolution series is fantastic.

If I loved my wife for what she could be instead of for who she is, it's not likely that we'd still be married. If you love your country for what it could be, it will never live up to your ideals. You'll end up a nagger. I can't remember the author of an article I read years ago, but he surmised that the utopians' penchant for mass murdering their fellow countrymen was largely due to those countrymen not living up to the utopians' dreams.

Once upon a time, I was what many would call a liberal, and like a great number of liberals today, I despised the United States of America. I was not a patriot in any sense. My idea of the ideal was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I detested the concept of private property and capitalism. I would spout Communist propaganda: The capitalists own the world. They own the land, the means of production, the money. They can tell your parents to get off the earth.

I believed the poor had every right to murder the rich and take their possessions.

I believed the government, and only the government, should dictate the allocation of resources to prevent the rich from spending their largesse on new yachts or fancy cars.

At eighteen, I registered Socialist Workers Party and intended to vote for McGovern (until he denied ever advocating decriminalization of marijauna). I absolutely loathed Richard Nixon, the State of Israel, and all Jews because they were supposedly the mythical god's chosen people (and often acted like it).

I also hated Jews because most of the ones I knew were RICH! Professionals, business owners, capitalist market players.

I even toyed with the idea of leaving the U.S. and moving to the USSR like fellow Communist Lee Harvey Oswald did.

To say I was a patriot, or had a scintilla of patriotism and love for this country is laughable. And I do not believe most liberals are patriotic. Quite the opposite.

At age twenty, my life was transformed after hearing the Gospel.

Although I became a-political until Ronald Reagan, my views on America changed overnight.

I came to see this nation as most immigrants did, as a land of opportunity. One didn't need to be a Party member to succeed. One didn't need a title granted by the Queen to earn a decent living. All that is required is the determination to become educated or the willingness to invest one's time and resources to nurture a going concern.

America is THE greatest nation ever to bless the earth. It's no wonder Mexicans and others do whatever is necessary, including sneakinig across the border, to get a piece of the American Dream.

I have been on both sides of this question. As a "liberal" (call them what they are, quasi-communists) I was miserably unhappy, obsessed with the unfairness of life here, continually angry at anyone who had more than I did.

Today, I am thankful I have decent employment and a portion of the Dream. I'm not wealthy, but I'm happy.

Today, I fete the rich. For without them and their investments, capital would be difficult to come by.

Despite the warts, despite the past racial injustices, I am proud to call myself an American.

Thanks, Rick, for one of the best balanced perspectives of patriotism that I have had the pleasure of reading.

I have traditionally described the liberal/conservative difference as one of glass half empty vs. glass half full. Both sides want a better America, but one side chooses to concentrate on the defects that need correcting, while the other concentrates on all the things we have done right and asks why we can't help others to achieve the same things.

Again, congrats on a marvelous piece of writing.

Thank you, Mr. Moran, for excellent writing about a piece of excellent writing, both trying to do the heavy lifting work we must always try to do: find what good we can in our opponents and try to work with it.

But saying "the current American Left is patriotic too, but they define patriotism as working harder to live up to our ideals" doesn't seem to apply. Perhaps it could have applied to a Truman or Joe Lieberman or Scoop Jackson Democrat. It's not that leftists love our ideals of individual freedom and just want us to live up to them; it's that they despise the core principles of our founders. They wish we'd had a French Revolution instead of an American revolution, with emphasis on the collective instead of the individual.

Suppose a man said to his wife: "I love you, darling. But you need to change your entire body, lose weight, get augmentation. And your entire personality needs fixing. And you need to change your hair color. And your accent. And your education and job and entire career trajectory. And by the way, these changes aren't just to make you a better person, because you won't even be a good person until you make all these changes. Oh, and by the way, I am morally and intellectually superior to you, so I'll treat you with contempt until you make all the changes I demand. When I go to cocktail parties with Europeans I'll roll my eyes and groan over what a dumb oaf you really are, and how you're not worthy of me, and how I'm leaving you if Bush gets elected. But, I love you in a really moral way, unlike those dumb fanatic red-state chumps who just blindly love their wives despite their profound flaws. Some guys do the cheap stunt of wearing a picture-pin of their wives on their lapel. But I'm better than that: I won't wear a picture of you, I'll demonstrate my love for you by refusing to wear your pin until I make you perfect."

Does the American left really love Lady Liberty? Or are they really fantasizing about Katrina Kollectiv?

There are at root only two political philosophies: either the government exists to serve the individual, or the individual exists to serve the government. Look at every policy choice the Obama Democrats have made for the last two decades: they always choose the policy that gives more power to the government and takes power from the individual, even if it harms the family or harms individual rights, or even if it is anti-liberal. (e.g. Democrats shot down proposals to INCREASE spending on education and Social Security because they would have allowed individual freedom of choice).

They do not love this country because they are at war with its core founding principle, as well as all the cultural institutions that are its expression and protection. They may say or even think they love this country, they may even get a lump in the throat at the Stars and Stripes. But really they love the religiously self-aggrandizing fantasy of a socialist utopia that they'll draw on the blank sheet of paper, once they get done erasing everything and anything that made this country what it was and what it could have been.

Mr. Cohen's eloquent post said everything I wanted to say, but couldn't find the words to express. He hit the proverbial nail on the head. The Radical Left will continue to compartmenalize and divide us, and their goal will be obtained when conservatives who have a different view of this country are oppressed into silence. Then where will all this wonderful "equality" be? Thomas Jefferson said All Men Are Created Equal. Period. Not Some Men Are More Superior Than Others. How Orwellian.

And to Bubba: You only missed one group of slave masters, the grandaddy of them all. The Egyptians. They held the Jewish people in bondage for hundreds of years. Egypt can thank the Jewish Nation today for their most popular tourist attraction, and one of the Wonders of the World: The Great Pyramids.

"...I can say, demonstrably, that the fact that we even have "ideals", and that we try to live up to them, already sets us apart from 99% of the other countries in the world!"
-------
Having spent 20+ years in the military, mostly in Asia and the Middle East, a bit in Europe, 3 years here, 3 years there, I can say, without a moment of hesitation, that Dale in Atlanta is right on! There is NO other country like the United States. In addition to our "ideals", as a whole we are the most optimistic nation in the world. There is no hurdle too high, no problem too big, that cannot be surmounted by Americans when we set our collective mind to it. It amazes me that so many other countries seem to hate us; but when there is a problem, who do they look to for a solution? You guessed it! America!!

Food for thought on the 4th of July. Enjoy the weekend. Zach
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/obama-the-sirens-promise/

As Ronald Reagan said, for Republicans, every day is the Fourth of July. For Democrats, every day is April 15th.

It may be time for conservatives, who I view as the true patriotic Americans to realize that there are literally two nations within our borders, America and Amerika. We should have realized that the nation was on the verge of flipping over the edge when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. That the Amerikans took over Congress two years ago was a sure indication that America was perhaps gone forever. Marxists, the modern Democrats, hate all that is good and decent about America, they hate God and Biblical principles that have guided us well for centuries. They reject the concept of good and evil, everything has equal value; they embrace multi-culturalism and despise religion which espouses absolute values because of this. They reject the specialness of American culture and want to destroy it so that we can join the World Community. Obama of late has made his lurch to the center in order to fool the gullible, dumbed down products of the education gulag. He may be successful because McCain, our standard bearer, is such a dunce and not one of us. Like Bill Clinton in 1992, much of his rhetoric sounds so good, but rest assured that if and when elected he will be what he is, a man that hates America and will work feverishly to continue to implement the Amerikan agenda.

Mr. Moran, you appear to take the position of a guileful sycophant, laboriously sanitizing the Liberal agenda and their adherents in order to make us all one happy "patriotic" family. But in doing so, you serve their cause to the detriment of your own. For there is no place for conservatives or libertarians in the Liberal World, Mr. Moran, or haven't you been paying attention. We are at war with an evil ideology, sir. As you rightly know, this philosophy has been known by many names. It has been around since the beginning of time. Today it is readily indentified as Liberalism..., aka Marxism, Nationalism, Socialism, Communism, etc. Ever since it's inception, it has been the basis of most if not all international conflicts, since the corner stone of these despotic notions have always involved the exaltation of an elitist governing body meant to be superior over its citizenry, subordinating and enslaving the latter without apology. If given any quarter, it spreads like a cancer and metastasizes across nations like wildfire.

The Liberal-Marxist's despicable call for "freedom," its very allure to the masses, is for the complicit suspension and eradication of all personal responsibility, a perversion which is in direct contradiction to the "freedoms" that our Founding Fathers have defined, and others have fought for and maintained within the sacred shores of this country. How one can then strive to legitimize or make "patriotic" so liberal, perverted and distorted view of "freedom" is beyond me...? Indeed, it makes reason stare! Such an understanding immediately disqualifies all forms of Liberalism as "patriotic," for at it's very heart, Liberalism and its adherents seek to destroy the liberties that are ours. To be sure, we can never be free or enjoin our God-given liberties without being self-responsible.

Shamefully, sir, your commentary simply adds to the problems before us; offering no further clarity you obfuscate the liberal dangers before us in trying to excuse their philosophy instead of more critically examining it. You then become complicit in their ever-changing propagandized make-over. The underbelly of the creature you so unwittingly wish to stroke, sir, woefully draws you into its snare, and makes you play stupidly around it's salivating teeth. But go on.... Keep insisting that you can house-train this beast you so affectionately wish to pet. You're it's probable dinner! Respectfully, I wish you a happy 4th.....

It looks like that Mr. Moran's thesis is "DOA". Back to the drawing board my friend. Cheers.

Very nicely written article and a noble attempt to unite us all.

Liberalism in America has existed since before the American Revolution. That traditional liberalism vs. traditional conservatism has indeed been the forge that has wrought this great nation. The two opposing forces, protecting what is vs. striving toward what can be, is what has moved our nation forward. It is that dichotomy which led to the American Revolution, to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It is perhaps why we remain devoted to our two-party system.

The premise of your essay breaks down sometime in the 50's or 60's when American Liberalism was usurped by socialism and communism.

Where our nation has faltered and failed to always achieve our highest ideals, it is not because the ideals are not practical or possible, but because people are imperfect. The very system which provides our liberty and potential, also grants such liberties to those of ill will. Sometimes they get in a position of leadership or power. Because of the brilliance of our Constitution, because of the genuine good will and decency of the majority of our population, we can correct the problems and failures and more forward again.

Communism and socialism are both utopian ideas as expressed by many above, but they seek to eliminate the weaknesses of human nature. They seek to prevent all injustice. This is not an ideal, it is an impossible fantasy and always results in the oppression of the good and decent. You don't chop off your hand because of an ingrown fingernail. That is what these two ideologies do to their populations. Because something "might" go wrong, they pre-empt all individuality and initiative.

These ideologies are antipathetic to everything America stands for. So, as long as liberals are in the thrall of socialism, they are actively undermining America. I cannot call that patriotic; but it is not about patriotism, it is about courage.

It takes great courage to allow the other guy his liberty because he might abuse it. That is the distinctive quality that makes America; not just the right of the individual to his liberty; but the individual's embracing liberty for the other fellow. This same trait is what Europeans see as stupid and naive. It is that naivety that resulted in the looting of Iraq. We really wanted the Iraqis to be free and being of such good will, failed to anticipate the gross abuses that ensued. Here's the key, here's the part about the real courage...we did not respond by giving up and saying, oh, they can't handle liberty. We didn't stop wanting liberty for Iraq because they abused their first taste of it. We stayed to see them through the transition; we didn't stop believing that these are good people worthy of our assistance. That is the story of America; we don't turn our backs on the other guy...except Vietnam, when we listened to the liberals. But, we learned and dint' make that mistake in Iraq, and we need to follow through on that conservative American prindiple.

Conservatives have that courage because they believe that most of the time the other guy is a decent fellow. In the few cases where he/she is not, the conservative believes he has the strength of will and character to restrain that individual. Liberals believe that most of the time, the other guy is corrupt and ill intentioned. So everyone must be controlled to prevent their "natural" tendencies from emerging.

To this, we must add that people tend to view others through the prism of their own soul. If today's liberals see corruption in their fellows, it is an expression of their self knowledge; not their knowledge of their fellow man.

So, modern liberalism isn't about patriotism at all, it's about a failed ideology that seeks to avoid responsibility for oneself and for one's neighbor. It is cowardice, pure and simple and is not very American.

Your essay is spot on regarding the traditional liberalism that helped to forge our nation. But that tradition has been usurped by socialism, and until it is restored, we must remain vigilant about protecting our nation from those within who seek to correct it by destroying it.

Best regards,
Gail

In an interview for frontpagemag.com (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23176 ), Peter Beinart "seeks legitimacy" for America's power and also desires to hold America up to the "highest standards" of democracy and human rights. For him, the morality of this nation is determined NOT by its ACTIONS measured against an objective standard such as international law, but SUBJECTIVELY, and INVERSELY to its perceived degree of military power. To this Leninist way of thinking, because America is militarily strong, it is immoral and needs to be "redeemed" and made "legitimate". This legitimizing and redemption of America has most recently and grotesquely mutated into giving murdering terrorists ever more than an even break. The fact of the matter is, America will NEVER live up to the "highest standards" of Peter Beinart.

Having jettisoned objective international law as a yardstick, Beinart and other liberal Left-thinkers will ALWAYS seek ever MORE higher standards no matter how well America performs. The problem with this mindset is that the more America does to overcome its shortcomings, THE WORSE - NOT BETTER - America appears. The reason for this is the more perfect America becomes, the more unbearable and unjust seem even its slightest remaining imperfections.

But what about the rest of the world, specifically totalitarian regimes and terrorist organizations that snub their noses with impunity at international law and any standard of human rights, and draw not a single word of criticism from the Beinarts? When asked about this apparent double standard, they respond with something along the lines of, "Well, I'm concerned about us, not them," or "We don't really expect them to follow the law." Now, think about that. Why should rogue regimes and terrorists obey international law if there ARE no expectations for them to do so, or, worse, if they are rewarded for their defiance?

Finally, this philosophy has (at least) one other strange aspect to it. It places the highest value on a DIPLOMATIC solution. So high a value is placed on negotiations that one is tempted to think the objective is negotiations for their own sake and not a solution to some problem. But think about that idea too. Beinart doesn't expect outlaws to follow existing, established international law; but they have convinced themselves, and try to get us to believe, that those very same outlaws, through some miracle, will be good and live up to their agreements THIS TIME if only we can just get them to promise it - AGAIN! As they were at Munich in 1938, the liberal democratic nations will have been stuck once again with "A Peace of Paper" which is nothing more than a guarantee of a larger future war. And who will pay the price of this repeated folly? Certainly not the Beinarts of the world, even if they did have good intentions.

Both of these ideas have at their root the desire to see America defeated, for, as Vasko Kohlmeyer observes ( http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5033 ), "Whether overtly employed or not, the side with the stronger military invariably triumphs, which is precisely why the Left so vigorously opposed ours. Hiding their real intent behind the rhetoric of high ideals, they wielded the peace movement as a ploy with which they sought to bring about our defeat."

The Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights in particular, is the finest and most concise statement of liberal values we have. These liberal values were a philosophical development broadly known as the Enlightenment that was the product of long periods of war and oppression.

So, why do today's "Liberals" impose speech codes, start lawsuits against the free expression of religion, and oppose Second Amendment gun rights, core liberal values that are enshrined in the Constitution?

Beinart and Obama assert, and Moran accepts, that today's "Liberals" are the philosophical descendants of the Founders of this Republic, but they are not. If they were, they would uphold liberal values, not oppose them.

Socialism, in all its forms, is inefficient and corrupt at best, and genocidal at worst. Communists and Socialists could not get themselves elected in the United States in the early years of the Twentieth Century, so they began calling themselves Progressives (Henry Wallace, Progressive candidate for president in 1948). That did not work either.

So the Socialists and radicals hijacked the "Liberal" label and are now engaged in destroying liberal values while pretending to love America.

It is clear that the American "Liberals" support and are supported by Democratic Socialists in Europe and elsewhere, and have a worldwide agenda straight from Marx. Marx intended to destroy bourgeois values, but these are the values we sought to preserve in the Constitution.

The Marxist revolution was supposed to be by and for the workers and the people, but no Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Liberal Revolution has ever been led by workers. On the contrary, these revolutions are led by militant elites (Russia, China) or bureaucratic elites (EU). When workers are subject to Socialist regimes they bail at the first opportunity, as in Eastern Europe in the 1990s. The bureaucratic Socialist elites in Europe are now amazed that the French, German, and Irish people voted against being governed by a Socialist bureaucracy, and are trying to impose their new EU government without the necessity of messy elections.

The American people have historically recognized and rejected attempts to install Marxist regimes in our country: Norman Thomas, Gus Hall, Henry Wallace, George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry. The further Left the candidate is perceived to be, the worse he does in the election. The only two Democrats elected to the presidency in the last forty years were non-ideologues, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

So, the current election poses interesting questions. Can an eloquent, shallow, callow Left elitist break the pattern that goes back nearly a century? Can the Kennedy influence and the Marxist moneybags (Soros et al.) swing the election toward the goal of global Utopianism/totalitarianism?

Interesting times we live in. Sit back and enjoy the spectacle.

The Left needs to subvert patriotism to enable the takeover by the "new world order" run by the U.N. The Left needs our country to be damaged and weakened and diminished so that the U.N. taking over is more logical. All the treason on the Left is towards this goal: the subservience of America under the International Left. So the Left needs to change the meaning of patriotism to undermine loyalty to our great country. The Left needs to undermine our war efforts and damage our international reputation to prepare for the day when the U.N. can become dominant. So Obama's "patriotism" is really all about despising America and trying to damage America. Obama is immersed in Black Liberation Theology which is just International Marxism with a black face fired by black resentment. Obama's patriotism speech was designed to hide this issue and move him more towards the middle. It is a phony move. There is benign criticism of America and there is malign criticism of America. Obama is trying to hide his malign non-patriotism which wants to diminish America, not make it greater. This is why Far Left "patriotism" can never really be patriotism: the unspoken goals are to damage and diminish America. There is nothing worse to the prospects of the International Left than a powerful and resurgent America. These people, Obama included, can never really be patriots.

funny thing about the "left" who claims to love america: they sympathize with all those who oppose what america stands for.

a cop shoots a criminal...they defend the criminal.

a soldier kills an enemy...they defend the enemy.

a person works hard and make themselves rich...they want to take away from them.

a doctor tries to save a life...they condemn the doctor.

Come on, Rick. I usually agree with your posts, but you are really passing gas here.

Beinert's thesis is pure crap:

"The liberal answer is, Not great enough. For liberals, America is less a common culture than a set of ideals about democracy, equality and the rule of law. American history is a chronicle of the distance between those ideals and reality. And American patriotism is the struggle to narrow the gap. Thus, patriotism isn't about honoring and replicating the past; it's about surpassing it."

How does bombing American buildings a la Bill Ayers allow one to surpass the past? How does honoring a thug like Che Guevara by putting a poster on the wall in a campaign office surpass the past?

Beinart and you can twist and sugar coat it all you want. Bill Ayers isn't a patriot and, by associating with him, neither is BO.

If he gets elected, you won't even recognize the USA in 8 years. So tell me, how patriotic is that?

I don't trust the liberal definition of patriotism. I have liberal friends who say outright, "I hate this country," and who argue that we should scrap the Constitution and start over. The fact is that liberals don't use constructive criticism to improve the country, they don't come together to solve problems and they don't support the country to outsiders. They attack the country, apologize for the country, and undermine our policies abroad.

Some modern American liberals may still have love of America and our founding principles of God-given human rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness; but what they don't realize is that there is a Euro/Marxist/Socialist hard core on the American Left. Modern American liberals are useful idiots for an encroaching collectivist American tyranny.

The Euro/Marxist/Socialists imbedded in the Democratic leadership do not believe that all men are created equal before the law, because they believe, like Plato, that the "Philosopher Kings" are more equal and should rule over ordinary people without their consent; and, of course, the Euro/Marxist/Socialists view themselves as those very Philosopher Kings. The Euro/Marxist/Socialists in the Democratic Party do not believe that all men are created equal before God, because they hate any God who would make man in His image, i.e.: individuals with infinite value. The very idea of a gun and Bible-clinging American cowboy or redneck having infinite value would make these elitists vomit in disgust or laugh long into the night. The Euro/Marxist/Socialists in the Democratic Party do not believe in individual inalienable God-given human rights such as life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness because they do not value the individual - they value government power over the individual; and as mentioned, they do not believe in a God who would create individuals with a likeness to Him the Creator of all.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are very close to tyranny; and I pray to God for help. There is dread in me; I fear that my children or my future grandchildren will not live in the land of liberty that our founding fathers struggled and died to create. I fear the American Marxist/Socialists in the Democratic Party much more than al Qaeda.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" Thomas Jefferson

It would be nice to see the left attempt to pass the 'olive branch' of common ground like you have Rick. They never do. To them, it's always their way or nothing. Remember when Clinton was first elected, the reports of liberals cheering after our military jets would fly overhead, "Those are our planes now!" They, as Edwards admits, see two America's. Like spoiled children when they don't have power, they sit on the ground with their legs and arms crossed pouting until they get their way. They will probably get their chance next year unless the republican's can pull out another contract with America on energy independence. The liberals, then flush with power in the Executive, Senate and Congress (plus the courts thanks to Kennedy) and no one to stand in their way, can begin to show their love of 'their' flag and begin to dismantle once and for all all other opposing voices. First Rush, then Sean, then the American Thinker. Now that's an America the left can finally love and Michelle can be PROUD of.

I feel as if anything I have to say at this point is redundant, but I'm going to put in my $.02 anyway.
The attitude of liberals, when you look deeply into what they say and do, is that they know better than 'us' about everything. Therefore we can't, dare not, question them in any way, about any thing. Tolerance is just intolerable unless agreement is being expressed. Patriotism is just a necessary exception because of it's recognized importance, sort of like an opiate for the masses. You leave it alone if you are liberal.
Conservatives have a love of country, warts and all, and do more than talk about how it should be run. They go out and take part and risk their lives in some cases. Liberals say loudly that such things are foolish and unnecessary, and they withdraw.
Liberals wish to replace the law of the land with an expression of current values, taken from a source of their choice. Justice Kennedy finds that taking from his own mind is completely satisfactory to him and us. At other times, European law can replace ours.
I don't object to looking at other examples of how to do things, but when they don't work, I reject them. Liberals aren't concerned about whether their ideals work or not. They persist in following them regardless, calling others who don't foolish and ignorant and say they cling to the past when they should change. Show me something that works first. Otherwise I have values that make me too smart to do tag along in that parade.
Patriotism is about all of us being free to live as we want, even if that isn't a particularly bright way to do things. Liberalism is about some people telling others how to live 'cuz one group is convinced that it is smarter than the other. Patriotism is just one small part of that ideology. It should be rejected because it has already failed in every country where it has been tried.

Ovrlooked is the traditional Christian view of American actions: We are sinful and err. But, with divine help, we have also corrected these mistakes and have become a better people and nation.
The Left sees the errors of America as systemic--as necessarily caused by our economic, social and political system.
A second difference is GRATITUDE. Conservatives are grateful for our ancestors, our soldiers, our oil workers--for all those who contribute to our great existence. Have you ever heard a liberal express gratitude for anything? They are the most miserable, unhappy creatures around.

Love of America and patriotism are feelings - feelings borne of appreciation of heritage and history.

Leftists lack these feelings about our country and instead apply critical thought 'process'. An attempt to rationalize and redefine in place of the empty hole in their souls.

Conservatives apply critical thought to where Liberals apply feelings, and Liberals apply critical thought to where Conservatives apply feelings: faith in God; love of country; the human spirit yearing for freedom. These feeilings and beliefs cannot be quantified or compromised by clever argument.

Questioning their patriotism - or their views on God, Man or Nature - in is met with indignation because their logical thought process, to them, smugly ended any debate.

As I am sick to death of all the liberal "taking" more and more of what I have earned, I believe it is time that we split the US into two parts, either the red states and the blue states, or let the liberals have one half (east of the Mississippi), and the consertatives have the other half. Then we could see which side could survive... any bets? I will put my money on the conservative side and give the Liberals 5 years at the outside!

Ann Coulter addressed this issue back in 2005. Here is my take on it posted at American Thinker back then:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2005/09/liberals_love_america_like_oj.html

Rick Moran has done a good job in summarizing the Liberal rationale in general (and Mr Obama's rationale in particular) as to why Liberals do not show outward signs of love of the country, such as wearing a flag pin. Mr Obama's rationale boils down to two points: 1. he points out that our country does not come up to its ideals and 2. he claims that his love of the country is shown through his suggested program for improvements. Mr Moran fails to see the intellectual shortcomings of Mr Obama's arguments. First, ideals are not possible to achieve completely. That is why they are 'ideals.' Second, if Mr Obama waits to show love of country untill we are perfect then he will never do it.
The Liberal attempt to redifine patriatism reminds me of the debate between Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan. Mondale claimed that he had a plan to reduce the deficit by raising taxes. Reagan replied that Modale did not have a plan to reduce the deficit, he had a plan to raise taxes. Mr Obama claims that his patriotism is to have a plan to improve our country. The answer to that is that Mr Obama does not really love this country. What he has is a plan to turn us into a Socialist country.

It is really great; no cynicism here, that those of you who are admitted 60's radicals now profess great love for the country and patriotism, but where was that love when you were diligently trying to destroy the country in the 60's? I too was a college student in the 60's and watched you all do your anti American deeds in the name of ..what? I don't think you even knew then. The ones I knew were simply spoiled children who believed in their superiority over the rest of us "uninformed idiots". I will carry a glowing hatred of all 60's radicals until I die for your opening of the "Pandora's Box" of Anti American vitrol which allowed the Communists to manipulate your passions; and you guys were too dumb to realize that you were nothing more than the "Useful Idiots" that communism must have to win. Now, as in the case of Pandora, no amount of effort that you can expend will undo what you did to the nation then.

Liberals don't love America they hate it and they wish to remake it into a "golden calf" whose god they woship.

Conservative: I love my country.

Liberal: I like some of the people in my country, BUT... (insert usual, droning, depressing, obsessively-negative, highly-narcissistic bring-down here).

God Bless America!

Happy Independence Day!

How can you claim to love America while simultanously promising you will change it beyond recognition? The problem is that liberals want an ideology, not a country.

I have a real problem reconciling liberalism as patriotic when expressed in the ways of Rev. Wright, Code Pink, MoveOn.org, to name a few. I'll continue, spitting on soldiers, burning flags, endangering babies by putting them in roadways, exposing covert intelligence personel and telling the enemy how our intelligence is gathered (all in the name of Journalism and freedom of the press)
Couple this with Obamas attempt to redifine "american patriatism" such that he fits the envelope and I have further problems.

PC is Thought Control
LEE

I can remember a time in which being a either a liberal or a conservative meant being the "loyal opposition" to whomever held the reins of power at the time. There was no question of patriotism or pride, just differing opinions of how to implement the words of our founders in order to achieve the American Dream. It wasn't a chasm that divided liberals from conservatives in those days - it was a small culvert and because of that, it was a lot easier for anyone to jump across on any given issue. Compromise was so much easier in those days. None of this is to say that there were not epic battles between the two sides, there were, but there was also more compromise than we see today.

Modern liberalism is no longer the same school of thought as it was back then. Modern liberalism has allowed itself to become co-opted by those who don't share the same reverence and respect for the American traditions of freedom, independence and sacrifice. Liberals used to pride themselves on letting those who had different opinions speak freely. They used to say "while I don't agree with you, I recognise your right to say what you think." Now, modern liberals shout down those who hold different opinions; invade all manner of public forums to spew venomous language and diatribe on those with whom they differ; seek to suppress the free expression of ideas over the airwaves and attempt to control the institutions of news dissemination and education. Modern liberals indeed have deserted and attempted to eviscerate the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Is it any wonder that others might question their patriotism?

Myself, I long for a day in the future when Americans are no longer working harder against themselves than they are against the forces that surround us daily in a hostile world. I pray that this will happen soon, because the threats from within and without are rising so quickly and from so many directions that if we don't regain our ability to work as one nation, we will suffer the inevitable decline that every great civilisation has faced.

Rick: Something is missing from all these musings: the average man wants to be safe, wants his family to be safe, his friends to be safe, his community, etc., to be safe. All of us, liberal and conservative, like it or not, depend on each other for safety, and all these patriotism arguments are basically disagreements on policy that have devolved to hysterical screaming. Some of us sincerely believe that mollifying enemies (both internal and external) will work, while others believe (with equal sincerity) that such approaches are mortally dangerous. Those who would mollify sincerely believe that confrontation is dangerous (and it certainly is, especially for soldiers and police). However, those who believe in confrontation believe sincerely that it is the policy that preserves most lives in the long run.

Do liberals love America? Some few may.

But if what liberals have espoused over the past few decades--and certainly in the past eight years--in concert with leftists and others of their stripe----if that represents their take on loving and supporting our country, then, no, they do do not love America.

And they never will, no matter how much they may protest, spin or scream.

Loving our country, our very imperfect country, requires an adult view that incorporates heart and commitment, as well as the ability to play on a team and put the interests of others above the individual. And to accept responsibility, without blaming others. And to do something more than blow hot air at any problem or obstacle. And to offer constructive, rather than destructive criticisms. And to remember that one does not bad-mouth our country and its leaders beyond our shores.

As someone said in an earlier post, Ronald Reagan said every day was July 4 to Republicans--surely, he also meant conservatives, whether Republican or not--while to Democrats--and, surely, this includes liberals, perhaps even leftists--every day is April 15.

I'd add: Given what's unfolded since 9/11, to Democrats, liberals and leftists, they willfully and ignorantly still live in that ignorant bliss of Sept. 10, 2001.

Bottom line: Liberalism appears to be disease of the mind and soul. And it's dangerous to America.

Excellent article but one crucial perspective is missing regarding how liberals feel about America. Liberals seem to dislike what makes our country what it is, captialism, freedom, personal responsibility, the right to have a gun, religious freedom and a common set of values. It's not that they are opposed to the excesses of capitalism for example, but they seem to want to eliminate it altogether. While few of them will admit it, it's hard to come to any other conclusion. Conservatives generally want an America that makes fewer mistakes but adheres to it's traditional values, liberals want to radically change America.

what i have learned is that both the conservatives(republicans) and liberals(democrats) desire is an activist government...by that i mean using the federal government to promote either conservative values (militarism,religion) or liberal values(enviromentalism,collectivism) unfortunately, both will require more abusive statism.this is not what our founding fathers had in mind.it is not PATRIOTIC...

According to a recent poll, more Americans said that they'd prefer to invite Barack Obama to their barbecue than John McCain. Here are some subtle ways to get Obama to your cookout:

-"Hey Barack, really glad you're coming by on the 4th. Oh and we have a tradition around our house: If you're the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States, you're on rib duty! Hope you've got more skills than that Kerry guy."
-"I hope when you're in office you do something about this food crisis. Do you know what they're charging for a bottle of Bull's Eye Barbecue Sauce at Pathmark? It's outrageous! I won't buy it! I simply won't buy it! It's a shame you can't save my cookout the way you're gonna save this country come next year."

Read more here: http://www.236.com/news/2008/07/02/americans_agree_black_folks_kn_7491.php

Dr.Savage said it so well. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

PC is Thought Control
LEE

Ok but you forget one thing. Modern liberals lie! They can't say the truth because they know that most people would have none of it. I truly believe that they hate this country and are seeking to destroy it with political correctnes, multi-culturalism and affirmative actionm just to name a few. Now we have to listen to a "Black" national anthem and live with it? This country will be destroyed if we let the lefties convince us that we are intolerant when we want in fact they are the intolerant ones. Just listen to them. I grew up in the sixties and I learned and I teach my kids that the Left/liberals/anti-war agitators/pacifists/peace creeps etc. are intolerant Fascists. DO NOT CROSS A LEFTY.

Come on, liberals love America? Right, no way. I have met to many that hate this country. They usually are bitter angry people who have some odd sense of entitlement. The left are not patriotic at all. They are takers and detractors. They have no love of country because they have no love of self. To love ones country you have to have some degree of self respect as well? Am I wrong? Do liberals have any self respect? If so, give me a example?
Obama's bud standing on a flag? Give me a break. Good thing I was not there, I would have put a Conservative boot up his sorry liberal a**. Show me anything that loser has contributed to both society and productivity? What has any of Obama's associates produced? Nothing.

This is Rick Pretending it's April 1 instead of July 4th.

The length is the insult.

Even if we concede the liberal idea of patriotism is valid, the fact is, they don't practice it... strive for it And they're interested in rule of law? Are you kidding, Rick?

Who upon embarking on a long-term relationship has the greater chance of success, the one who says, "I love this person warts and all and in spite of his flaws and dedicate my life to helping him be the best he can be?" Or, the one who says, "I love this person for his potential to be changed to better reflect my notion of the ideal?"

First of all, I don't accept either Mr. Moran's or Mr. Beinart's characterization of "conservative" and "liberal" patriotism. Conservatives, far from being mired in the past, strive to learn from it, a skill we wish our liberal counterparts would acquire. We do not idealize the human condition because we recognize how flawed we human beings truly are. Which is why we can revere our founding fathers even though some of them were slave holders and all of them ultimately chose an imperfect Union over no Union at all. Conservatives refuse to condemn this country for the sins of its past nor for its failure to live up to the ideal. In spite of all those sins and failures, we recognize that the US has come closer to that ideal than any other nation or civilization in history. And, yes, we do honor, if not "worship", the sacrifices of our past patriots, even those like my ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. On the other hand, it's difficult to get liberals to honor the sacrifices of today's patriots perhaps because the country they serve and its leaders are so very imperfect by liberal standards.

Do I want a more perfect Union? You bet I do. What patriot doesn't? But liberals aren't seeking to perfect the Founders' vision. They seek to remake the nation in the image of their own ideal, one actually worthy of their allegiance. While our Founders were dedicated to the individual's right to pursue happiness, liberals seem to view that pursuit as a zero sum game. For every winner, there must be a loser and their patriotic ideal is to temper the individual's pursuit with constraints designed to distribute that happiness in the most equitable way possible. While our Founders were dedicated to equal opportunity, the liberal's patriotism demands an equal outcome. While our Founders were dedicated to guaranteeing the equal rights of each individual, liberals are dedicated to making individuals of aggrieved groups more equal as a form of recompense. While our Founders were justifiably proud of our founding document and conservatives consider it the greatest blueprint for governance ever, patriotic liberals would cherry-pick the Constitution, throwing out entirely the parts they don't like and massaging the rest to reflect their liberal sensitivities. While our Founders were convinced of American exceptionalism, liberals find a pretense to such exceptionalism repugnant.

Beinart says, "For liberals, America is less a common culture than a set of ideals about democracy, equality and the rule of law." Perhaps, but whose ideals? Certainly not the Founders who saw the wisdom of Federalism and safeguards like the Electoral College. And I'm not sure liberals understand the concept of "rule of law" at all. They would have judges who legislate from the bench. They would have judges who ignore the law when it offends a liberal sense of "justice." Barack Obama will appoint SC justices who have "empathy" and understand what it's like to be a single mother or black or disadvantaged. Obama will appoint justices who will concern themselves with the collective good and fight for the underdog, the little guy. Can some liberal please tell me what possible difference it can make where one's empathies lie when one is charged with upholding the law?

As others have pointed out, liberal patriotism is not love for America, but for their vision of America as it should be and could be if they're allowed to "fix" it. Trouble is, their America would look nothing like the America we conservatives know and love and to which we pledge our allegiance.

And so, Mr. Moran, I guess you can include me in that group of "readers (at least those who leave comments) on this site or most sites on the internet" who do not grant Mr. Beinart "the legitimacy of his thesis." Certainly not when he posits that the individual who volunteers to fight a war and the individual who protests that war are but two sides of the same patriotic coin equal in both duty and sacrifice.

All you need to do is ask the question: "Are you patriotic?" Some will answer "Yes" and others will answer "Yes, but.."

how long do i have to wait?

The leftist liberals, as represented by Barack Hussein Obama, want to give away, compromise, and villify everything that has made this country great. Things such as private enterprise, free speech, freedom of thought and religion. Every one of these notions has been abused to the verge of socialism.

The MSM seizes every opportunity to let our sworn enemies know exactly what steps are being taken against them. (We'd be speaking German and/or Japanese now if the press had used these tactics in WWII.)

Free speech now apparently means "think left or you won't be heard." The ACLU now defends every imagined slight to where we lose sight of the original principle of "majority rules."

Criminals receive better treatment than either their victims or their guards. Jailed offenders are released in the hopes they will now obey the law (all evidence to the contrary) and go on to commit further atrocities. Gun laws are passed with the result that law-abiding citizens are denied the ability to protect themselves - and only the criminals have guns.

Social programs that don't work receive more money. Hard work is subjected to higher taxes, while handouts of these taxes increase to those who haven't earned anything.

If the Democrats take the White House and Congress (and by extrapolation, the Justice System), will there be a recognizable America left to love?

No. We'll be 'just like Europe.' That's the goal of BHO. Unity on his terms, change for its own sake - not to cure anything, but to remold this great nation into a weaker shadow of itself.

Wouldn't it be easier to let them all move across the Pond where they'll have the society that they can freely love and defend? Too bad Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, et al. DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH on promises to leave if GWB was elected President.

I think we would have all been happier. It has however, been my experience that when it comes to keeping promises - something that most of the Left insists that the conservatives do - they exempt themselves.

There is an answer. Unfortunately, by the time a true leader stands he will probably be jailed for daring to speak out in the USSA.

Rest in Peace, America. We won the Cold War, but gave it all away in the end. We don't deserve the freedoms of our Founding Fathers.

I draw a big distinction between traditional liberals (which would include folks like Hubert Humphrey, Ted Kennedy, etc.), and hard-core Leftists (such as Barbara Lee, and Medea Benjamin of Code Pink).

I agree that liberals can love America just as much as anyone else, but in a way that looks toward a bright future rather than a glorious past. They truly want to make America better (as they define "better").

But hard-core Leftists don't love America, period. They despise America for having made democratic capitalism triumphant over socialism, ending their dream of world democratic socialism. Michael Parenti has said it was a "catastrophe" for the Left when the USSR collapsed and Eastern Europe threw off their Communist masters.

And most of the leaders of both the anti-Vietnam and anti-Iraq war movements were these hard-core socialists--some were "red diaper" babies whose parents had been members of the Communist Party. Their anti-capitalist fervor was equal to their antiwar fervor (though they didn't publicize it as much due to its unpopularity, even with young people). Check their writings for yourself. Or even email them and ask them what they think of the capitalist system.

Their hatred of America has led them into alliances with some pretty unsavory characters, just so long as those characters also hated America. Michael Parenti formed the "American Committee to defend Slobodan Milosovic." Ramsey Clark became a paid agent for Saddam.

I don't yet know whether Obama is a traditional liberal or a hard-core Leftist. Men like Ayers and Reverend Wright give me pause.

Do the Conservatives here love the Taliban "freedom fighters" and Al-Qaeda (before they were so named) as much as Ronald Reagan and George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld did throughout the 1980s.

Is there a hint of regret over George H.W. Bush giving massive taxpayer handouts from Agriculture Dept and the Export-Import Bank for free weapons to Saddam Hussein?

How about