are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism.
We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page
Links we recommend
Link to us
Free email update
What's New & Interesting
|Rushing to Judgment
by Frederick Meekins
The Left rushes to accuse
Cheney of being "divisive" for appearing on the Rush Limbaugh
show on the anniversary of 9-11, yet says nothing about Bush's
speech the day before to a gathering of Arabs and Muslims at
the Afghan embassy.
On September 11, 2001, Americans were awakened to a war of ideas whose
outcome will determine the fate of this great nation and the ultimate
disposition of freedom throughout the world. Yet despite the unimaginable
tragedy that befell our country that day, to some the worst thing you
can possibly still do is stand by your convictions regarding traditional
conceptions of right and wrong, labeling those daring to take such moral
positions as ‘divisive” and “intolerant” in the
To commemorate the first anniversary of this terrible event, the Vice
President appeared on The Rush Limbaugh Show. On the broadcast, Dick Cheney
discussed the Bush Administration’s policy on the pending conflict
From the response by the Democratic Party to the scheduled appearance,
you would have thought a far more controversial or riveting topic was
to have been discussed. In a statement by DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe,
Cheney is chastised and Limbaugh lambasted for somehow violating the sacred
nature of such a solemn day.
McAuliffe said in a September 10th statement posted on the Democratic
National Committee’s website, “September 11th isn’t
a day for politics ... Vice President Cheney cheapens the day when he
appears with an irresponsible and divisive figure like Rush Limbaugh.”
Someone of McAuliffe’s stature should at least provide examples
to support his claims or explain his accusations, information which McAuliffe
neglects to provide.
In his brief statement, the only charge levied by McAuliffe is that of
“divisiveness”, something normal people hardly worry about
but perhaps the most disturbing impropriety one can commit in the mind
of the radical pluralist. The context and meaning applied by McAuliffe
and those like him is highly eclectic and extremely hypocritical.
Instead of applying these criticisms across the board, McAuliffe selectively
imposes such labels on those refusing to comply with his leftist political
agenda. He apparently has no problem with high public officials addressing
other controversial groups.
On September 10th, the day before Cheney’s appearance on Rush, President
Bush addressed a gathering of Arabs and Muslims at the Afghan Embassy.
Where’s McAuliffe’s outrage regarding this appearance? Islamic
leaders, after all, have not exactly been sterling advocates of American
unity this past year as even those paraded before the American people
by the Bush Administration as pillars of virtue have turned out on a number
of occasions to have has ties to terrorist groups or at least expressed
sympathies for these organizations in the past.
The President’s appearance at the embassy could be justified on
the policy grounds of needing to recruit support in the hopes of overcoming
one’s adversaries. That is, simply, the definition of good politics.
If politicians of both parties are going to view Muslims living within
the borders of the United States as another constituency to be placated
and wooed, why shouldn’t Limbaugh’s listeners be treated with
the same degree of respect? At least those in Limbaugh’s audience
aren’t known for flying jetliners into skyscrapers or hurling stones
at Israeli security forces.
In condemning both Cheney’s appearance and even Rush Limbaugh himself,
what McAullife really means is that he does not want those in Limbaugh’s
audience having any influence over American public life. The millions
of conservatives who tune into the program who embrace a wide range opinions
ought to keep quiet so as to not rock the boat regarding what liberals
have in store for the United States. Thus, McAullife has more respect
for the six Muslims arrested in Buffalo on suspicion of terrorism, all
registered Democrats by the way, than he does the average working American
who continues to embrace the traditional Judeo-Christian values that made
this country great despite the overwhelming cultural pressure to abandon
these particular standards today.
It is highly ironic that DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe would go to such
lengths to bring up the matter of “divisiveness” as one could
make the argument that this shortcoming he now rails against has characterized
his own career. Anyone remember the Global Crossings scandal?
Furthermore, if one is going to embrace the notions of radical absolutist
inclusivism, isn’t it an act of division to point out divisiveness
in others if the appearance of a relativistic unity is to serve as the
highest ideal? Those at the head of the Democratic Party (and the same
with the GOP to a lesser extent with all its blather about “Big
Tent Republicanism”) can’t very well celebrate the diversity
of all viewpoints being equal and then proceed to ostracize anyone daring
to disagree with them.
Copyright 2002 by Frederick