October 31, 2017

America's "sin" isn't racism, it's freedom

I have to link and quote this article too, since it is such a personal hot button for me.

First, a definition:

I-con-o-clast. . [īˈkänəˌklast]

NOUN

1.a person who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions.

John Daniel Davidson in The Federalist explains why it was inevitable that The Iconoclasts Come for George Washington. Yes, THAT George Washington. The first president. The father of our country. The man who "couldn't tell a lie." Except that, to hear the progressive SJW's tell it, it's ALL a lie. He was a heel, not a hero.

By now we should all be familiar with the inexorable logic of the iconoclasts, which goes like this. Lee, having fought for the slave-owning Confederacy in the Civil War, is more offensive than Washington, who merely owned slaves. Abraham Lincoln didn't own slaves but he did sentence a couple dozen Dakota Indians to death in 1862 for war crimes against defenseless men, women, and children on the Minnesota frontier. For that, student activists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have demanded the removal of Lincoln's statue from their campus. Frank Rizzo, the mayor of Philadelphia in the 1970s, didnít own slaves or sentence any Indians to death, but he was insufficiently supportive of the civil rights movement in his day, so his statue must come down, too.

Once it takes hold, iconoclasm knows no distinctions or subtleties. It sweeps everything away. When progressive activists began clamoring for the immediate removal of Confederate monuments across the country, I and others noted that since this wasn't really about the historical legacy of slavery but the imperatives of identity politics, there was no limiting principle to ensure that once they had finished with the Confederates they would not move on to the Founding Fathers, or Lincoln, or even the hapless Rizzo.

Identity politics. For what purpose? Civil rights? No, something else:

But the relevant history here is not what matters. The complexity and messiness of our nation's past - the irony, for example, that in the years leading up to the Civil War, Grant managed his father-in-law's 850-acre plantation in Missouri, including its ten slaves - is what makes American iconoclasm such a slippery slope. But it's not what inspires progressives to plunge down it. They do it because they believe it will lead them to power.

Never mind the irony that one of the things that truly made Washington great was his refusal to accept the mantle of King when it was offered up to him, no strings attached.

Politics Posted by JohnGalt at October 31, 2017 3:04 PM

"Leading them to power" is why progressives attack America's historical figures, and is also why the attack the Constitution - as DNC Chair Tom Perez did recently when he said "the electoral college is not a creation of the Constitution." His goal is to subvert the electoral college, and make the United States of America a democracy - something the Constitution was designed to prevent.

In such case the correct terminology is not "iconoclast" but "revolutionary" or "subversive" or "traitor." Take your pick, Democrat party.

Posted by: johngalt at November 1, 2017 2:51 PM | What do you think? [1]