Post by the sandman on Jun 14, 2011 10:20:08 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixs27-xUSRA&feature=pyv
Oh Lord. She keeps saying "taking our country back." Think about that phrase for a moment. "Take our country back."
I keep hearing that phrase tossed around a lot lately. "Take our country back." Think of the implications of that statement. If the country needs to be "taken back," it's clear the speaker means that the country has been taken from, well from us? From someone obviously since I'm sure I don't qualify as "us" to Bachmann and her ilk. They are saying that the country is now in the control of people who do not have the right to control it. Not "us," but "them." And "them" apparently have no right to political voice.
Who are these people who have "taken" the country from its "rightful owners?" Liberals? Democrats? Socialists? Immigrants? Blacks? Atheists? There is a dangerous attitude to the statement "take back the country" that there are those who should never be allowed a political voice, those who simply have no "right" to the country in which they live, work, and hold citizenship.
I would like to point out to Ms. Bachmann that the leaders of the nation right now are duly and legitimately elected by the people of the United States of America (perhaps more so than the last such leader they had no problems with at all), and as such there is no need to "take back" what already resides with the citizens of this nation. Political power rests with the people, the people have exercised it, the people continue to exercise it. There is no need to "take back" anything. There is nothing to "take back" in the first place.
What Bachmann and the rest of the "take backers" really mean is that they wish to silence the political voices of all those who disagree with them and their skewed version of conservative politics. They want to "take back" not the nation, but the rights to free political discourse. They wish to return to an era where social, political, economic, religious, and racial pressure forced those with progressive ideas to conform to conservative means. They want nothing less than to force all those who do not march in lock-step with them to fade into the back row of the bus, the balcony of the theater, the "special" waiting room off the "special" wing.
I find it ironic that Bachmann endorses this kind of reactionary, tyranny of the minority. How far does she want to regress? How far does she want to "take back" the country? If she takes this far enough she will lose her own political voice, granted to her in 1920 with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, entirely due to the efforts of progressives who did not want to "take back" the country, but rather wanted to take the country forward. Push this far enough, Ms. Bachmann, and you will be back in your parlor taking tea and chatting about the weather while you wait for your husband to return home and inform you what you should think.
I understand, Ms. Bachmann, really I do. The future is a scary place. It looks the the USA isn't going to be the only 900 pound gorilla on the playground for much longer and we are going to have to learn how to play nice. We're not used to that, I know. There seems to be a hell of a lot of people in the USA with funny accents, odd clothing, and weird food now, and that's scary, too. We are being forced to really think about what "American" really means now, and I understand how that scares you. But surely even you can see that this is a good thing, that this is a national conversation long overdue.
I know that when the future gets scary it's comforting to take refuge in the past, but let's not take the country "back," Ms. Bachmann. We've been there. It's time to move forward.
Oh Lord. She keeps saying "taking our country back." Think about that phrase for a moment. "Take our country back."
I keep hearing that phrase tossed around a lot lately. "Take our country back." Think of the implications of that statement. If the country needs to be "taken back," it's clear the speaker means that the country has been taken from, well from us? From someone obviously since I'm sure I don't qualify as "us" to Bachmann and her ilk. They are saying that the country is now in the control of people who do not have the right to control it. Not "us," but "them." And "them" apparently have no right to political voice.
Who are these people who have "taken" the country from its "rightful owners?" Liberals? Democrats? Socialists? Immigrants? Blacks? Atheists? There is a dangerous attitude to the statement "take back the country" that there are those who should never be allowed a political voice, those who simply have no "right" to the country in which they live, work, and hold citizenship.
I would like to point out to Ms. Bachmann that the leaders of the nation right now are duly and legitimately elected by the people of the United States of America (perhaps more so than the last such leader they had no problems with at all), and as such there is no need to "take back" what already resides with the citizens of this nation. Political power rests with the people, the people have exercised it, the people continue to exercise it. There is no need to "take back" anything. There is nothing to "take back" in the first place.
What Bachmann and the rest of the "take backers" really mean is that they wish to silence the political voices of all those who disagree with them and their skewed version of conservative politics. They want to "take back" not the nation, but the rights to free political discourse. They wish to return to an era where social, political, economic, religious, and racial pressure forced those with progressive ideas to conform to conservative means. They want nothing less than to force all those who do not march in lock-step with them to fade into the back row of the bus, the balcony of the theater, the "special" waiting room off the "special" wing.
I find it ironic that Bachmann endorses this kind of reactionary, tyranny of the minority. How far does she want to regress? How far does she want to "take back" the country? If she takes this far enough she will lose her own political voice, granted to her in 1920 with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, entirely due to the efforts of progressives who did not want to "take back" the country, but rather wanted to take the country forward. Push this far enough, Ms. Bachmann, and you will be back in your parlor taking tea and chatting about the weather while you wait for your husband to return home and inform you what you should think.
I understand, Ms. Bachmann, really I do. The future is a scary place. It looks the the USA isn't going to be the only 900 pound gorilla on the playground for much longer and we are going to have to learn how to play nice. We're not used to that, I know. There seems to be a hell of a lot of people in the USA with funny accents, odd clothing, and weird food now, and that's scary, too. We are being forced to really think about what "American" really means now, and I understand how that scares you. But surely even you can see that this is a good thing, that this is a national conversation long overdue.
I know that when the future gets scary it's comforting to take refuge in the past, but let's not take the country "back," Ms. Bachmann. We've been there. It's time to move forward.
