America the Narrowly Defined

Daniel McCarthy has a theory about the “birther” craze, particularly its ease of adoption by self-described conservatives:

For them, being an American is not only about being a legal citizen, but about a subscribing to certain beliefs. Knowing that Obama is a de facto un-American, it might make sense (for a paranoiac) to suspect that he’s not a de jure American either.

For the movement Right, being an American means 1.) that you support U.S. military actions, no matter how questionable their strategic, moral, or constitutional grounds; 2.) you support capitalism — that is, corporate capitalism as it exists in the U.S. (if you don’t endorse this kind of economics, you must be a socialist or Communist); and 3.) you’re suspicious of Mexicans, Muslims, and non-British Europeans, especially the French, who are socialists and military weaklings. There might be a fourth item on the list: you ought to drive the most fuel-inefficient vehicle possible.

This, along with the use of rumors as proxy for racially-based fear mongering (quick, name a non-white birther other than Alan Keyes…) is the underlying detail.  Birthers are the boiling point of a pot of views that its adherents define as “real America”, and as such see anything that conflicts with it as foreign.  To them, despite mountains of evidence that all is generally as it was, Obama represents the impending death of “their” America.  When that crazy woman in Delaware punctuated her outburst with “I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!”, this is what she meant.

Of course the actual political status quo, to anyone astute enough to acknowledge it, suggests that she has as much ownership (in terms of a say in its structure) of the U.S. as any of us do — which is to say jack squat.  The real owners don’t have to yell about it, and use such misguided uber-patriot-cum-neo-brownshirt sentiment as just another pawn.

Edit: Yay, I got my first birther comment on this entry!

Share
This entry was posted in random shots. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to America the Narrowly Defined

  1. Article2UJidrool says:

    The mountain of evidence is against eligibility. You must adhere to the Constitution to be elected – this is inarguable. We want our Constitution, our Country, our Children, our Schools, and our Churches back. We trusted government and professors to raise leaders, and what have we got ?

  2. b psycho says:

    Other people would respond to you by pointing out, yet again, that every “question” raised about it has already been answered. But I’m not other people. Instead, I will let you in on something:

    Frankly, I don’t care.

    See, I think the idea of representative government is, in essence, a myth. The idea that you can pick some among a population, entrust them with the power to use force to extract resources from others so as to tell them how to live and shape society to an alleged good, with a total lack of self regard, is nuts. If the Constitution of the U.S. was supposed to be a guideline for such power, then by definition it failed a long time ago. That either of us have anything to talk about is testament to that.

    “Your” Constitution. Did you help write it? Did you personally agree to it? Of course not, you weren’t around then. It was written by a particular group of wealthy land-owning “white” males. Were your ancestors of the time wealthy British land-owners? If not, then you can’t even argue ownership by blood. If so, then tell me, how much of a say do you have in it NOW? My guess is none, since rather than getting personal favors from these alleged “representatives” you’re griping at a self-admitted anarchist about adherence to the Constitution. The government is diluting the money in your pocket to cushion multimillionaires from the consequences of their own actions & prop up corrupt foreign regimes, and not only are they unconcerned about consequences, but many U.S. politicians have the nerve — or, as you might say to poke fun at the guy you think is a Kenyan illegal immigrant, the audacity — to argue that this is GOOD for you!

    You’re just a subject, a number on a balance sheet.

    Where you — where everyone really — failed is in believing in “leaders” in the first place. Obama being a natural born citizen or not means precisely zilch to that equation. The sole “change” brought about by his taking power is that a black man now runs the empire, an empire I’d rather cease to exist.

    No wonder people like you tend to love war so much, your own existence is so soul-crushing that you’re reduced to living vicariously through the ultimate projection of the empire, every explosion bringing you closer to orgasm as you choke back the tears. Not saying my life is all that sweet either, but when I want to get off I watch people fucking, not killing.

    Before you storm off to the nearest bar to erase this memory, some questions for you:

    -I’ve asked this before and never gotten a straight answer on it, so I pose this here: say, hypothetically, the requirement to be a natural born citizen had been repealed. Or, even better, that it never existed! Now, say a presidential campaign is coming along, and one candidate actually piques your interest, seems to be making the noises you like, damn near thinks like you’re programming their brain. One catch: they were not born in the U.S. Would you still vote for them? If not, why not?

    -You mention church as something that has been stolen from you, so I assume you’re a religious person. Regardless of your view on homosexuality, what do you think about the concept of the State licensing marriages (that is, ANY marriages)? Also, assuming that there is a one true religion, have you ever considered the possibility that the entirety of mankind could be wrong on what it is?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 × four =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>