TERB In Need of a Banner
Toronto Escorts

OPINION: The Making Of A 9/11 Republican

djk

Active member
Apr 8, 2002
5,953
0
36
the hobby needs more capitalism
This really explains Bush's win in Nov.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2005/02/24/cstillwell.DTL

OPINION: The Making Of A 9/11 Republican

Cinnamon Stillwell

Thursday, February 24, 2005

As one of a handful of Bay Area conservative columnists, I'm no stranger to pushing buttons. Indeed, I welcome feedback from readers, whether positive or negative. I find the interplay stimulating, but I am often bemused by the stereotypical assumptions made by my critics on the left. It's not enough to simply disagree with my views; I have to be twisted into a conservative caricature that apparently makes opponents feel superior. They seem not to have considered that it's possible to put forward different approaches to various societal problems and not be the devil incarnate.

But in some ways I understand where this perspective comes from, because I once shared it. I was raised in liberal Marin County, and my first name (which garners more comments than anything else) is a direct product of the hippie generation. Growing up, I bought into the prevailing liberal wisdom of my surroundings because I didn't know anything else. I wrote off all Republicans as ignorant, intolerant yahoos. It didn't matter that I knew none personally; it was simply de rigueur to look down on such people. The fact that I was being a bigot never occurred to me, because I was certain that I inhabited the moral high ground.

Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all evil in the world. Its democratic form of government and capitalist economic system was nothing more than a machine in which citizens were forced to be cogs. I put aside the nagging question of why so many people all over the world risk their lives to come to the United States. Freedom of speech, religious freedom, women's rights, gay rights (yes, even without same-sex marriage), social and economic mobility, relative racial harmony and democracy itself were all taken for granted in my narrow, insulated world view.

So, what happened to change all that? In a nutshell, 9/11. The terrorist attacks on this country were not only an act of war but also a crime against humanity. It seemed glaringly obvious to me at the time, and it still does today. But the reaction of my former comrades on the left bespoke a different perspective. The day after the attacks, I dragged myself into work, still in a state of shock, and the first thing I heard was one of my co-workers bellowing triumphantly, "Bush got his war!" There was little sympathy for the victims of this horrific attack, only an irrational hatred for their own country.

As I spent months grieving the losses, others around me wrapped themselves in the comfortable shell of cynicism and acted as if nothing had changed. I soon began to recognize in them an inability to view America or its people as victims, born of years of indoctrination in which we were always presented as the bad guys.

Never mind that every country in the world acts in its own self-interest, forms alliances with unsavory countries -- some of which change later -- and are forced to act militarily at times. America was singled out as the sole guilty party on the globe. I, on the other hand, for the first time in my life, had come to truly appreciate my country and all that it encompassed, as well as the bravery and sacrifices of those who fight to protect it.

Thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of those on the left, I began to look elsewhere for support. To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense. When I actually met conservatives, I discovered that they did not at all embody the stereotypes with which I'd been inculcated as a liberal.

Although my initial agreement with voices on the right centered on the war on terrorism, I began to find myself in concurrence with other aspects of conservative political philosophy as well. Smaller government, traditional societal structures, respect and reverence for life, the importance of family, personal responsibility, national unity over identity politics and the benefits of living in a meritocracy all became important to me. In truth, it turns out I was already conservative on many of these subjects but had never been willing to admit as much.

(cont)
 

djk

Active member
Apr 8, 2002
5,953
0
36
the hobby needs more capitalism
(cont)

In my search for like-minded individuals, I also gravitated toward the religiously observant. This was somewhat revolutionary, considering my former liberal discomfort with religious folk, but I found myself in agreement on a number of issues. When it came to support for Israel, Orthodox Jews and Christian Zionists were natural allies. As the left rained down vicious attacks on Israel, commentators on the right (with the exception of Pat Buchanan and his ilk) became staunch supporters of the nation. The fact that I'm not a particularly religious person myself had little bearing on this political relationship, for it's entirely possible to be secular and not be antireligious. Unlike the secular fundamentalists who make it their mission in life to destroy all vestiges of America's Judeo-Christian heritage, I have come to value this legacy.


So I became what's now commonly known as a "9/11 Republican." Living in a time of war, disenchanted with the left and disappointed with the obstructionism and lack of vision of the Democratic Party, I threw in my hat with the only party that seemed to be offering solutions, rather than simply tearing away at our country. I went from voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 to proudly casting my ballot for George W. Bush in 2004. This doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with Bush on every issue, but there is enough common ground to support his party overall. In the wake of this political transformation, I discovered that I was not alone. It turned out that there are other 9/11 Republicans out there, both in the Bay Area and beyond, and they have been coming out of the woodwork.


Like many a political convert, I took it on myself to openly oppose the politics of those with which I once shared world views. Beyond writing, I put myself on the front lines of this ideological battle by taking part in counterprotests at the antiwar rallies leading up to the war in Iraq. This turned out to be a further wake-up call, because it was there that I encountered more intolerance than ever before in my life. Holding pro-Iraq-liberation signs and American flags, I was spat on, called names, intimidated, threatened, attacked, cursed and, on a good day, simply argued with. It was clear that any deviation from the prevailing leftist groupthink of the Bay Area was considered a threat to be eliminated as quickly as possible.

It was at such protests that I also had my first real brushes with anti-Semitism. The anti-Israel sentiment on the left -- inexorably linked to anti-Americanism -- ran high at these events and boiled over into Jew hatred on more than one occasion. The pro-Palestinian sympathies of the left had led to a bizarre commingling of pacifism, Communism and Arab nationalism. So it was not uncommon to see kaffiyeh-clad college students chanting Hamas slogans, graying hippies wearing "Intifada" T-shirts, Che Guevera backpacks, and signs equating Zionism with Nazism, all against a backdrop of peace, patchouli and tie-dye.

Being unapologetically pro-Israel, I was called every name in the book, from "Zionist pig" to "Zionist scum," and was once told that those with European origins such as myself couldn't really be Jewish. In the end, the blatant anti-Semitism on the left, even among Jews, only strengthened my political transformation. I was, in effect, radicalized by the radicals.

But more than anything, it was the left's hypocrisy when it came to the war on terrorism that made me turn rightward after 9/11. I remember, back in my liberal days, being fiercely opposed to the Taliban and its brutal treatment of women. Even then, I felt that Afghanistan should immediately be liberated, as Malcolm X once said in another context, by any means necessary. But when it came time, it turned out that the left was mostly opposed to such liberation, whether of the Afghan people or of the Iraqis (especially if America and a Republican president were at the helm).

Indeed, liberals had become strangely conservative in their fierce attachment to the status quo. In contrast, the much-maligned neoconservatives (among whose ranks I count myself) and Bush had become the "radicals," bringing freedom and democracy to the despotic Middle East. Is it any wonder that in such a topsy-turvy world, I found myself in agreement with those I'd formerly denounced?


The war on terrorism is nothing more than the great struggle of our time, and, like the earlier ones against fascism and totalitarianism, we ignore it at our peril. Whether or not one accepts that we are engaged in a war, our enemies have declared it so. It took the horrors of 9/11 to awaken me to this reality, but for others, such lessons remain unlearned. For me, it was self-evident that in Islamic terrorism, America had found a nihilistic threat that sought to wipe out not only Western civilization but also civilization itself.

(cont)
 

djk

Active member
Apr 8, 2002
5,953
0
36
the hobby needs more capitalism
(cont)


The Islamists have been clear all along about their plans to form an Islamic caliphate and inhabit the entire world with burqas, stonings, amputations, honor killings and a lack of religious and political freedom. Whether or not to oppose such a movement should have been a no-brainer, especially for self-proclaimed "progressives." Instead, they have extended their misguided sympathies to tyrants and terrorists.

In the end, history will be the judge, and each of us will have to think about what legacy we wish to leave to future generations. If there's one thing I've learned since 9/11, it's that it's never too late to alter one's place in the great scheme of things.

Cinnamon Stillwell is a Bay Area writer. She can be reached cinnamons@earthlink.net.
 

irlandais9000

Member
Feb 15, 2004
637
0
16
USA
What a ridiculous distortion the article is, saying that the left was opposed to the war in Afghanistan. While there is much opposition on the left (and some on the right) to the war in Iraq, certainly the majority on the left felt taking out the Taliban was a necessary thing.

I am sure some of you can find some exceptions, but again, I say the majority supported the invasion - and some, like me, wonder why we turned the Bin Laden hunt over to Afghan warlords. I defy any of you to come up with the name of even 10 Senators who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan.
 

irlandais9000

Member
Feb 15, 2004
637
0
16
USA
djk said:
This really explains Bush's win in Nov.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2005/02/24/cstillwell.DTL

OPINION: The Making Of A 9/11 Republican

Cinnamon Stillwell

Thursday, February 24, 2005

But the reaction of my former comrades on the left bespoke a different perspective. The day after the attacks, I dragged myself into work, still in a state of shock, and the first thing I heard was one of my co-workers bellowing triumphantly, "Bush got his war!" There was little sympathy for the victims of this horrific attack, only an irrational hatred for their own country.
I can't remember one single person in my life, right or left, reacting in the way Cinnamon describes. We were unified in our shock, and wanting the perpetrators punished.

And Cinnamon says, little sympathy for the victims, only an irrational hatred of the country??? It's ironic that she is unfairly maligning her political opponents in exactly the way she decries in her article.

Nice reasoning, you don't agree with me, therefore you must hate this country......... but me, I won't stoop to that level. I, for one, believe that Cinnamon loves her country. She has little credibility with me in making an argument, however.
 

djk

Active member
Apr 8, 2002
5,953
0
36
the hobby needs more capitalism
irlandais9000 said:
I defy any of you to come up with the name of even 10 Senators who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan.
Since we're using logical fallacies to make an argument (Argumentum ad numerum).

I defy you to find 10 senators who opposed the Patriot Act during its draft.

And I personally know more than 10 of my left leaning friends opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan. I'm sure I could find 10 moonbats at democraticunderground.com, dailykos.com, indymedia.org, etc opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan too.

And I'm pretty sure it would be easy pickins in the SF / Bay Area as well.

Hell, in Berkeley, CA, they passed an ordinance banning displaying the American flag on firetrucks shortly after 9.11.
 

irlandais9000

Member
Feb 15, 2004
637
0
16
USA
Simple answer, there were definitely not 10 Senators who opposed the Patriot Act. Off the top of my head, I think it was one, although I am not 100 percent sure.

What this shows you is that both right and left were on the bandwagon for the Patriot Act in the aftermath of 9/11. More recently, however, civil libertarians of both right and left have argued for changes in the Act. .

My original point remains, both right and left supported invading Afghanistan. As far as your liberal friends, you know them better than I do, but I can honestly say not one of my liberal friends opposed invading Afghanistan.
 

irlandais9000

Member
Feb 15, 2004
637
0
16
USA
djk said:
I'm sure I could find 10 moonbats at democraticunderground.com, dailykos.com, indymedia.org, etc opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan too.
Yes, I'm sure you could, so what. It still isn't fair to characterize the left as a whole as having such an opinion.
 

Hard Idle

Active member
Jan 15, 2005
4,959
23
38
North York
9/11 this, 9/11 that...

Yes, yes, it was a horrible attack, few people anywhere denied it nor begrudged the Americans some revenge on Bin Laden. But people have every right to have a problem with the blank cheque America has given itself in all of its dealings since then. ( Notice how the author betrays his indoctorination by connecting Iraq to 9/11 despite the lack of even debatable evidence)

Look, terrorism happens man! There are many places that have been facing terror, assaisnations and insurgency for years, even decades! Half the time the US is there to shake a big finger (or missle) at them for using military force or perceived violations of civil libetries. But the US gets one attack on it's soil every 50 years or so, and they throw this big hissy fit, claiming all their "righteous outrage...". How do they think that looks to everyone? Don't care? Well then don't pout when you're made the bad guy!

3000 dead is a tragedy, but it's a mere fraction of the death and destruction which America has heaped on others with bombs, missles or through proxies. Other than WWII, no US campaign has been in any way imperative to US security. Their many "enemies" real or created, had no capability to threaten or retaliate - didn't then, don't today, and won't 50 years from now.

Blowing up downtown cores has been a shock tactic the US has gone to many times. Yet their experience with 9/11 has not taught them any empathy with others who have tasted such bitterness, to say nothing of renouncing such measures in all but life-or-death struggles.

You can safely go back to self-loathing now, Mr.Stilwell.
 
Last edited:

djk

Active member
Apr 8, 2002
5,953
0
36
the hobby needs more capitalism
irlandais9000 said:
Yes, I'm sure you could, so what. It still isn't fair to characterize the left as a whole as having such an opinion.
If you say so....

They may not speak for every single leftie but they're definitely the face of your party and I wouldn't be surprised if the majority.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Hard Idle said:
Yes, yes, it was a horrible attack, few people anywhere denied it nor begrudged the Americans some revenge on Bin Laden. But people have every right to have a problem with the blank cheque America has given itself in all of its dealings since then. ( Notice how the author betrays his indoctorination by connecting Iraq to 9/11 despite the lack of even debatable evidence)

Look, terrorism happens man! There are many places that have been facing terror, assaisnations and insurgency for years, even decades! Half the time the US is there to shake a big finger (or missle) at them for using military force or perceived violations of civil libetries. But the US gets one attack on it's soil every 50 years or so, and they throw this big hissy fit, claiming all their "righteous outrage...". How do they think that looks to everyone? Don't care? Well then don't pout when you're made the bad guy!

3000 dead is a tragedy, but it's a mere fraction of the death and destruction which America has heaped on others with bombs, missles or through proxies. Other than WWII, no US campaign has been in any way imperative to US security. Their many "enemies" real or created, had no capability to threaten or retaliate - didn't then, don't today, and won't 50 years from now.

Blowing up downtown cores has been a shock tactic the US has gone to many times. Yet their experience with 9/11 has not taught them any empathy with others who have tasted such bitterness, to say nothing of renouncing such measures in all but life-or-death struggles.

You can safely go back to self-loathing now, Mr.Stilwell.
What an asshat.

OTB
 

irlandais9000

Member
Feb 15, 2004
637
0
16
USA
djk said:
If you say so....

They may not speak for every single leftie but they're definitely the face of your party and I wouldn't be surprised if the majority.

I'm confused here, if nearly all the Democratic congressmen, Senators, Governors, legislators, party leaders,etc., etc., supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and public opinion polls showed that nearly all Democrats and Republicans alike supported the invasion, then how exactly are fringe opponents the face of the Democratic party???? And you think that opponents of going after Bin Laden might be a majority of the Democrats???? I can't think of one bit of plausible evidence out there in support of that argument.

P.S. Ann Coulter saying it's so doesn't count as evidence.
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
The problem is that the Dems say one thing and support another in the course of their crass opportunism or whatever their political plank is supposed to be these days. I remember every poison pen yellow pressist and tv babbler raving on about how it was America's fault, that Astan would be vietnam II, blah blah, war crimes, blood for oil etc. In contrast, Republican minded media said we would bomb the hell out of someone, and hey, guess what - we did.

irlandais9000 said:
I'm confused here, if nearly all the Democratic congressmen, Senators, Governors, legislators, party leaders,etc., etc., supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and public opinion polls showed that nearly all Democrats and Republicans alike supported the invasion, then how exactly are fringe opponents the face of the Democratic party???? And you think that opponents of going after Bin Laden might be a majority of the Democrats???? I can't think of one bit of plausible evidence out there in support of that argument.

P.S. Ann Coulter saying it's so doesn't count as evidence.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts