Reducing patriotism to a sleazy roll in the hay

Mr. Bookworm is catching up with the Jon Stewart episodes he missed while we were away. One particular segment, which starts at the 2 minute mark, caught my eye. In it, Perry talks about love for country, clearly distinguishing himself from Obama, who hasn’t shown such love, either explicitly or implicitly. Take a look at what Stewart, a very bright, and periodically honest, dyed-in-the-wool Progressive, does with Perry’s simple statement of patriotism:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 – Michele Bachmann Fever & Rick Perry’s America
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

I was disgusted, not just because I’m not a fan of coarseness as a substitute for humor, but because I think this is the perfect example of what the Left has done to patriotism. It’s reduced it from love of country to a sleazy roll in the hay, something embarrassing, wrong and deserving of no respect. You, my readers, get this. A whole generation of young people, however, raised on 30 years of Progressive education, no doubt feels that this little “comedy” segment is the perfect epitaph for that embarrassing animal known as American patriotism.

That same Leftist embarrassment with patriotism is manifest in the White House’s approach to 9/11.  Stated simply, on September 11, 2001, shortly before 9 a.m. E.S.T., nineteen men, all of whom were foreign nationals and Al Qaeda members, hijacked four jets.  They flew two into the World Trade Center towers, one into the Pentagon, and one crash landed in a field in Pennsylvania, a crash that almost certainly averted a direct hit on the Capitol or the White House.  Almost 3,000 people, most of them Americans, died that day.  Or more briefly, ten years ago, foreign nationals, acting on American soil, slaughtered almost 3,000 Americans.

Even more briefly:  This was an American tragedy.  Is that how the Obama Administration is framing it, though?  You tell me (emphasis mine):

The guidelines list what themes to underscore — and, just as important, what tone to set. Officials are instructed to memorialize those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and thank those in the military, law enforcement, intelligence or homeland security for their contributions since.

A chief goal of our communications is to present a positive, forward-looking narrative,” the foreign guidelines state.

Copies of the internal documents were provided to The New York Times by officials in several agencies involved in planning the anniversary commemorations. “The important theme is to show the world how much we realize that 9/11 — the attacks themselves and violent extremism writ large — is not ‘just about us,’ ” said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal White House planning.

I don’t know about you, but I think the tenth anniversary of one of the greatest tragedies in American history is an appropriate time for looking backwards and mourning, rather than a time to engage in feel-good cheer.  Contrary to that official’s blithe assurance, it was just about us.  The attack took place on American shores, against American symbols, and killed American citizens.  Sure, there’s a larger narrative — Islam against the West —  but our current government is as steadfast in its refusal to acknowledge that larger narrative as it is to acknowledge an American tragedy.

What we’re left with is a government that won’t acknowledge that 9/11 was an attack against us, nor will it acknowledge that it’s a subset of a larger existential war.  If our government fails to acknowledge those vital facts, what’s left?

The box the government has locked itself into, one that sees it commemorating a transformative national event for a nation it doesn’t love and an event, moreover, that was a battlefield in a war our government refuses to acknowledge, effectively exposes the nihilism underlying Stewart’s sordid attack on simple patriotism.  The Left has left itself with nothing.  Sadly, as is typical for all degraded movements, it tries to take everyone else down with it.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for the new low price of $2.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • pst314

    “It’s reduced it from love of country to a sleazy roll in the hay, something embarrassing, wrong and deserving of no respect.”
    Turnabout is fair play: I do not regard Jon Stewart as a fellow American, and therefore feel no moral obligations toward him. In the (admittedly stratospherically unlikely) event that I came upon him while he was in need of assistance, I would refuse to help, and would tell him why.

  • kali

    “A sleazy roll in the hay . . .”
    That’s so judgmental. Don’t you know that sleaziness is all about being sex positive, of being open to the ecstatic joy of sexuality unbound by past-its-sell-by-date morals? The people who celebrate sex without boundaries (or any concern for personal safety, or workplace discretion, or good taste in dinner table conversation) are far superior to those who celebrate their country’s exceptionalism.

  • Oldflyer

    I really don’t think that the Obama Administration’s spin on 9/11 will sell with Americans.
    History channel is doing a week long retrospective leading  up to the day.  It is still gut wrenching to watch.  The anger boils up anew and fresh.  It is clear that this was not an event that was shared with any other nation.  Obama is cheapening the memory.  Others  have had their own tragedies, and they will remember them  individually, in a manner of their choosing;  but, 9/11 was unique in scope and intent, and was uniquely an American tragedy.  I hope, and believe, that Obama’s attempt to make it seem otherwise will backfire.
    Last night History aired an hour long reminisce by President Bush.  I wish everyone could see it.  I did not agree with everything he did as President, but I sure do miss him.  What a strong, good-hearted man.  Simple in his manner, but so much deeper than his critics understood or acknowledged; and, in fact, much deeper than  many of his critics and adversaries.

  • suek

    What did Mr.Bookworm opine about that particular section?

  • johnfromcolumbus

    Wow Bookworm, you really knocked it out of the park with this blog entry.  Thank you.

  • Bookworm

    Suek:  Mr. Bookworm said nothing.

    John:  Thank you!

  • Alix

    You are exactly right!  I saw this clip when a Facebook friend of mine put it up and said that Stewart “should get an Emmy for this”….   I watched it and was not only disgusted but angry that this is what Hollywood “talent” is now.  Not incidently, my Facebook friend is also quite successful in Hollywood.   When I first saw it I thought mostly that is was vulgar and immature — but you are right it is much more troubling than that.  The left’s view of America is showcased in this clip.

  • Mike Devx

    I wasn’t all that interested in what Jon Stewart might have had to say – but I at least assumed it would have been funny.  He is often funny…  But if Alix’ friend thinks it deserves an Emmy, well, then, it must *really* be funny, and worth a look.

    So I looked.

    Not funny.

    A politician says he is passionate about America and we need a President who loves America – as Obama clearly does not – and it is worth a three minute Stewart monologue that is, basically, about a degenerate (flyover country) Texas/hillbilly boy getting the nasty on?  (Saying to America: “You shore got a purty mouth”)

    Stewart had a long monologue riff on New York Pizza a ways back concerning a Palin/Trump lunch meeting that I thought was funny.  This one was just plain old bad.  And while I’m in Texas, I’m not from here, so this isn’t my dog in the fight.  It simply was pedestrian; not funny at all.  Emmy-worthy?  Hardly.

  • Lauren K.

    Speaking to Jon Stewart’s actions, I’m really not surprised.  His little rant about Rick Perry’s patriotism was gross, disturbing and over-the-top.  But what can you expect from a liberal who, most likely, has no moral compass.   What is really disturbing was the hearty laughter from the audience.  There is a generation of young people being influenced by Jon Stewart and that is really concerning to me.   I’m new to the board….could someone fill me in on what the Watcher’s Council is…Thanks.   

  • Mike Devx

    My take on what the Watcher’s Council is: A group of mid-tier conservative bloggers who submit one post per week in a competition, in which they each vote for the best submission; you must vote but cannot vote for your own.    They also submit one “outside post” in a separate competition and vote on that (the non-Council posts).

    Membership in the Watcher’s Council changes over time. When one leaves, I think the others get together and select a new prospective member and ask if he wants to join.

    What else does the Watcher’s Council do?  I don’t know.
    When and WHY did the Watcher’s Council first form?  A way to promote interest in conservative blogs beyond the top-tier huge ones (Malkin, Instapundit, etc)?

    I’m interested in Book’s explanation of the Watcher’s Council, what the duties are, what the future plans are; why did it first form, etc…

  • Ymarsakar

    It’s amazing how bigoted Steward is concerning Southerners or people from Appalachia. If Steward tried to mimic black ghetto ebonics slang, I’d guarantee you he wouldn’t have the guts for that on the air.

    Also I was talking to M Devx before concerning chain linked propaganda or how the Left doesn’t believe the media. Listen to Steward talk about his own Leftist media. Why do they do that? Because it reinforces the propaganda message of the media itself. See the Leftist media gives events, which is then MASSAGED by people like Stewards, and because Stewards is in “opposition” to the media, people will believe Stewards more than if Stewards agreed with the media and said “I agree”. But notice the propaganda trick here. Both the media and the Stewards, have the same propaganda line on Perry. So, what’s the difference? The difference is that Libs can tell themselves they aren’t in an echo chamber because Stewards disagrees with the media, and the media is “right wing”, so when they have the media and Stewards, the Left is imbibing a “balanced information”.

    But that’s not how it works in reality.


  • suek

    >>The difference is that Libs can tell themselves they aren’t in an echo chamber because Stewards disagrees with the media, and the media is “right wing”, so when they have the media and Stewards, the Left is imbibing a “balanced information”.>>

    Very perceptive, Y. I’ve wondered how they could consider that the media was “right wing” when it so obviously isn’t.

  • Ymarsakar

    Propaganda is often times counter-intuitive. Because if it was intuitive, nobody would be fooled so easily. But they are.

  • Pingback: Maggie's Farm()