Sunday, September 12, 2010

No really! Everything's fine!

In response to my WND column A House Divided in which I argue that the differences between Progressives and Conservatives are so deep and profound that the only solution may be to divide this nation in two, a Progressive reader sent the following.

Dear Ms. Lewis,
There are no places in America so liberal, such as New York City and San Francisco and Chicago, as not to have conservatives there as well.  There are no places in America so conservative, such as Houston and Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City, as not to have liberals there as well.
It would be impossible to divide the country into a progressive and a conservative entity.  Furthermore, it would destroy the very concept of America as a nation that encourages diversity.  We fought a war to settle the issue of dividing our nation into two regions with entirely different concepts of the value of humanity.
As a progressive, I believe that we need the give and take of liberal versus conservative, for that only makes us stronger.  America is fine - and the conservatives have 2010 and 2012 to put their candidates into office.  If they can do it, that would be the way to change America to their ways.  In the meanwhile, I'll be working to keep our country on the track that it's on.
Color me stupid, but somehow I don't see this as a solution.  This reader's "track" is profoundly hostile to my values.  My "ways" are, presumably, the same to this reader's.  Nothing will be solved or resolved because the Progressives and Conservatives will continue to be at each others' throats.  And meanwhile, our country continues to depart farther and farther from (a) the limitations on governmental interference set forth in the Founding documents; and (b) the standards of morals, values, and behaviors that Conservatives believe are divinely inspired.


  1. Did you note the complete arrogance? To that progressive the only thing that counts, the only parts of America that count are the urban wasteland cities.

    Of course we have mixtures of progressives and conservatives in the cities no matter where they are located but you don't get many true progressives outside the cities or burbs.

    He or she also had to throw out the diversity thing. Who is it that promotes this diversity? Equality for all has somehow been turned into forced diversity and social engineering with the bill handed to those who do all the work. This forced diversity might be what they want in the cities but nature prefers the balance of herself the equality of what works and thrives.

    These progressives have never watched a pack of feral dogs, more than likely cast offs from the cities, attack livestock. Yet they feel justified to enforce gun legislation on those who have had to stop such things.

    One way or another it will come to an end.

  2. By saying what your liberal-progressive said in reply to your "House Divided" column, he/she only confirmed everything you stated! They just don't get it, and they never will. Well, almost never. There HAVE been many liberals who finally woke up and realized how far off-base they were. But I venture to say those are probably the ones who were never really, totally liberal in the first place, and they were intelligent enough and not so self-centered that they couldn't change. Liberals today are so like undisciplined children. The more they get their way, the more they want, without end. Liberal leaders in government, our schools, psychiatrists, psychologists, the media, etc., all insist we should never discipline our children. Therefore children grow up to be... PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS!!! What liberals really need is a darn good spanking, but as long as liberal wolves are guarding the hen house, that will never happen.

  3. Apparently I have a new reader on this blog who is attempting to post some *seriously* snarky comments. I just deleted one I had let slip through. So I'll repeat: MIND YOUR MANNERS, PEOPLE. This is a private blog. I welcome dissenting opinions as long as they're expressed politely. But my kids read this. When someone gets snarky and can't control the profanity, it goes into the cyber roundfile. Got it?

    - Patrice

  4. Many years ago I visited Fort Monroe Virginia. There is a small museum there called the Casemate Museum. It was the place where Jefferson Davis was held for several years after the Civil War. One of the things I learned in that museum refutes the arguement of your progressive 'friend.' We fought a war, but apparently the case was not settled, at least not legally. Mr Davis was released without trial. The verbiage at the Casemate indicated that the US government did not want to take the chance that the judicial branch would rule that states had the right to secede, which would have been a requirement in a Jefferson Davis trial. I pass along this verbiage from Wikipedia, which I believe is what I read at the Casemate, alludes to the issue:

    He [Davis] was held at Fort Monroe for two years. Some historians have speculated that his treatment in captivity was intended to be lethal. In poor health, Davis was released in May, 1867, on bail, which was posted by prominent citizens of both Northern and Southern states, including Horace Greeley and Cornelius Vanderbilt, who had become convinced he was being treated unfairly. The federal government proceeded no further in its prosecution due to the constitutional concerns of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase.

  5. There is no reasoning with a progressive.
    There is no intellectual honesty in a progressive.
    There is no true compromise from a progressive.
    There is no live and let live with a progressive.
    There is only hypocrisy and deceit.

    I say these things not out of anger or hatred, but out of experience and the pain of lessons learned.

    It has been a difficult decision, but I severed all friendships with progressives. I found out they were not true friends, but only fair-weather friends who would toss me to the wolves if it meant furthering their agenda. Full of
    self-righteousness and arrogance, a progressive
    will never admit to being wrong. Instead, a progressive will sell out the country to make a point...even when the point itself is wrong.

    In case anybody still questions where I stand on progressives - I DON'T LIKE THEM.

    Anonymous Patriot

  6. Patrice...I didn't think to try you copy?

    A. McSp

  7. Ah yes, the "give and take" of progressives. It is really take and give. Take from those who work their butts off and give it to the lazy so and so's who sit around waiting for their government handouts.

  8. Hi Linda, it's Linda:) I'll add something to my name so Patrice and the readers won't confuse us. However, I couldn't have said it better myself.

  9. I wonder which side of the divide would put me on. I clearly don’t believe in the American Funding Documents, and according to the people who read your Blog I’d be a raving Liberal Progressive. However, actual Raving Liberal Progressives don’t like me very much for my ideas concerning Tradition, Traditional morality and Family Values being chief, the idea that we need to focus on God, the idea of Property Rights, ect… which brings me to my point.

    If Americas ideals were so great, then why do we talk of secession? It is clear that a Republic can never Unify a diverse group of people, and the current divide, mistakenly called “The most divided time in American History” despite the fact that an actual Civil War was fought in 1861, and the Revolution saw 1/3rd of the Populace against another 1/3rd with 1/3rd Neutral, we see only that America cannot be sustained on the Premise of “The Will Of The People”, for there is no such thing as a General Will.

    While you may see me as pushing totalitarian dictatorship and call me a communist, something I’m rather use to by now given that the TEA party booted me out and Neocons can’t grasp what I’m actually saying as its either “For us or for the Liberals”, the Truth is, I’d much rather have a basic agreed to limit on Government Power. Which is why I advocate the style of Government I advocated months ago.

    The idea that a Government can be created by a General consensus has been proven wrong, and the republican model cannot exist without creating a society divided against itself in endless contention that further erodes the people into a polarised mass which stands endlessly at war with itself, in which people are sucked into political ideologies which become more distinct and different over time, preventing true Unity and cooperation to actually occur and in the end satisfying no one. Meanwhile the faceless State, in the name of “The People’ removes our rights from us, and takes our wealth form us, and we do nothing, as we think we are free. How can the above secession you propose really be the answer? What happens when the Conservatives in the new Conservative States of America become Polarised into camps, something hat is inevitable in a system based on Popular vote?

    If the system itself is based on voting, which itself in inherently divisive to a community, you'll endlessly have a broken society where the citesenry are at each others Throats and new Political Ideas, distinguished by their extremism, will always be those debated commonly.

    Lets go back to Gods order for man, and not mans order for himself.

  10. So you assume Patrice that "progressives" and "liberals" are denied divine revelation even if they are believers? Or does one automatically become a conservative if one believes?

  11. Zarove

    The answer is simple really. A democracy needs to be run by those who have a real stake in it. Had we never left the property owner as the voter for the family we would never have gotten to the point where the masses can be bribed with their own money.

    Not that I expect anyone to agree with me these days but there needs to be some stake in the outcome other than more welfare and entitlement.

  12. Preppy, I’d prefer we simply Abolish Democracy outright. Read Hoppes “Democracy: The God That Failed” to see why. I believe that the biggest problem is that our Government is a Public entity. It never ceases to amaze me that so many ardent conservatives will insist that something that is Privately owned will work better than Public Ownership, yet when someone proposes that perhaps the flaws in our Government are the result of it being Public ally owned, and that it should be Privately Owned itself, they balk.

    I think that a Privately Owned government is the solution, not Democracy of any stripe.

  13. Zarove, without reading the book you recommended and just glancing at each others posts I would say we are saying the same thing or generally close.

    I stress having a stake in the process which really is the same kinda things as being privately owned.

  14. Given that the original WND post was about abortion: ANY law controlling abortion that has ANY exceptions isn't about abortion but rather about control. ANY exception is hypocritical, if one is really against abortion, even if to save the mother's life, or if the pregnant person was gang raped, or impregnated by her own father.

    Laws must be passed that will totally outlaw abortion, including jailing the woman who seeks one. If it is a crime to provide, it should be a crime to seek an abortion. Given that it is generally couched in terms of murder, and the average length of time someone serves for murder is 29 years, that should teach people...

  15. Servelan, I don't know where you're from, but the average time served for murder is a lot less than 29 years. Perhaps you meant to say time in Congress? That is at least 29 years on average and has been murdering the middle class for decades.

  16. Capitalism in Europe and then elsewhere lead to a break down of the feudal system and migration of people to urban areas to work in factories, with industrialization this has simply increased. In 1790, 95 % of the population lived in the countryside, now 80% live in the cities and towns(urban areas). This is poised to increase especially with regards to youth migration to the cities.

    In 1790, only about one out of every twenty Americans (on average) lived in urban areas (cities), but this ratio had dramatically changed to one out of four by 1870, one out of two by 1920, two out of three in the 1960s, and four out of five in the 2000s according to the 2010 Census.

    This leads to different groups living side by side.Considering the future is in the urban areas and especially with regards to the uni directional move of the youth in those areas.

    As a group, the largest cities, with populations exceeding 1 million, are growing far, far faster than before. During the entire first decade of the 21st century, they expanded by 2.1 percent. Between 2010 and 2013, though, they've bulked up by 3.1 percent.

    This actually accounts for Obama's win as well -it was the big cities that won him the election, not the countryside.