Funny that Jon Stewart is the one to point this out; and sad.  I do not understand why people believe Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity are “conservatives”.  Ron Paul is an American Conservative.

I suppose in truth, FOX’s Flag Wavers are Conservatives, but more of the European type.  Liberty has never been the default position of Conservatives in Europe.  There, “Conservative” refers to the position in re: The French Revolution.

European Conservatives support The Established Church (whether Roman Catholic, Anglican, Russian Orthodox), the rights and privileges of hereditary landed gentry and nobility, a patriarchal social order descending from Monarch to serf.  Military Pomp and Glory are also a Conservative Motif, as well as severity of Criminal Justice.

European Liberals oppose all the above.  American Revolutionaries were Liberals, as John Locke would have recognized the term.

In America, all is chaos when we try to define our politics in European labels.  An American Conservative actually would be seeking to conserve the Radicalism of the American Revolution, of which there was plenty.  (Many claim it was not a true revolution but merely a national liberation movement or Civil War within the British World.  However the voting franchise was vastly expanded in America compared to the Colonial Period.)  The formative Revolutionary struggle has imbued American consciousness with a prickly sensitivity to all government intrusiveness.  The Bill Of Rights to this day provides more liberty than is present in Great Britain, namely Freedom of Speech and the Right to bear arms. The Founders’ and Framers’ both fought oppressive governments.  The Pilgrims were Separatists who would not compromise their Religious Liberty to the Established Church of England or any other human established authority!  The Framers had just fought the British Empire, and many were old enough to recall the previous war against Catholic French North America.  One of the important grievances of the Colonies against Britain was the Quebec Act of 1774 that formally conceded the open practice of Catholicism in Quebec.  The Pilgrims and Puritans had left Britain in the time of the Stewart Dynasty.  Charles I, married to a Catholic woman and fueled the suspicion that Stewart policy was to return Britain to Catholicism.  The Smells and Bells of the Anglican Rite itself were highly suspect in Puritan eyes.
The Seven Years War known as the French and Indian War in the USA was deeply carved into American identity.  The entire Western Frontier from New England to Virginia was raided and burned by Indians armed and unleashed by France.   The Colonial Militias performed spottily.  In some places they were useless.  In others, like Louisbourg the French Fortress guarding the mouth of the Saint Lawrence the Colonial Militia performed admirably.  The fear of Catholicism had been an integral part of British identity since the time of Elizabeth and the defeat of the Spanish Armada.  It was the ideological Cold War that informed the foreign and domestic policy of the British Isles and British North America.  The Puritans risked all to escape an Anglicanism that was itself to near to Catholic theology.  Their sons and grandsons suffered murder and being burnt out of homesteads by French Catholic supported Indians.  So, it was with much anger that the Colonies saw the Quebec Emancipation Act of 1774.
A muscular Protestantism was part of the self-definition of the settlers of British North America.  Even Catholic immigrants, as the original settlers of Maryland, and later Irish backcountry settlers took on and absorbed the Protestant ethic based upon individual salvation.  Whether explicitly or implicitly, self-reliance in terms of an Individual relationship with Jesus Christ, generalized to self-reliance in all things: this is the beginning of “the American Can-Do spirit”.  The defining characteristic of the twentieth century may someday be seen as the great turning away from Protestant values in the English-speaking world.  Catholicism is now the most numerous of all the Christian Churches in America.  Though the total number of Protestants swamps that number, they are divided into small sects, and even into individual Congregations.  This cultural change is not well appreciated and I have yet to read any commentary about it.  Nevertheless, it may not be mere coincidence that self-reliance appears to be on the wane.  “Rugged masculine individualism” is now to be mocked.  The TV male, is vain, a bully until called on it and then a sniveling coward.  He is the Boss in his house, as his wife uses his simplistic animal urges to train him.  When did this phrase “Honey-do list” become courant?  Recall Archie Bunker, the strawman WASP; a bigoted, bully, whose racism is due to inferiority to non-WASP’s that “needs” be suppressed through The Establishment and the Good Ol’ Boys networks.  I recall his anti-Catholicism when Edith became interested in The Church through her neighbor.  The Reverend Feltcher, Fletcher “whatever”, was a wispy, lispy, liberal nondenominational protestant who was open to all ideas.  Nonjudgmentalism was the new way; Archie, the old.    Archie was mocked out of existence.  Meathead, the mooch, dared to “educate” the man under whose roof, he lived and with who’s daughter he slept.
Our society has devolved since then to the point where Presidential candidates must distance themselves from congregations that preach a no-compromise Protestant theology.
So where are the true American Conservatives? An American Conservative must be seen as a Radical, a product of the Protestant rationalist enlightenment.  In order to be a conservative, one must be conserving something!  And in America that something must be Radical Individualism!  So, are the “conservatives” we see on FOX really American conservatives?  I’d say “no”.

O’Reilly and Hannity are supportive of The Church, of conformity, contempt for deep thinking (i.e. The category called “Pinhead”), idealizing the Military, Law and Order, and Police worshipping.  They have their own Political Correctness in which any suggestion of False Flag operations is dismissed as originating with “Loons” or “Pinheads”.  Is there a single war that is not necessary to them?  Even on Libya, they complain that Obama did not go to Congress, but they support this Fight For Liberty farce. That the ever-handy Al-Qaida is the nucleus of the rebels’ attack on Qadaffi is a nonfact.  Only pinheads may notice that!

Given that O’Reilly and Hannity are the stars of FOX, and theirs is a non-American Conservationism, we need to look more deeply at this network.  Glenn Beck, though Mormon represented the more American type of Conservative, who is not tied to Militarism, and not wed to Religious Symbology, over Christian ethics.  But let me be clear, there are many Catholics who have been immersed in the Protestant Ethic that despite where they go on Sunday, they have internalized the Protestant worldview.
FOX tried to play booing sounds when the clip of the CPAC 2011 polls was announced with Paul’s victory of 40% vs. the 2nd place of Romney at 20%.   They played video and audio from 2010, notice the ID and its strap in 2010, and absent in 2011 from the CPAC announcer.  In 2010 Romney people were told to get in early and fill the room before anyone else’s supporter’s can get in.  This did not happen in 2011, this year. FOX has tipped its hand into being the Loyal Opposition to a Regime that does not deserve our loyalty, only our opposition!

Glenn Beck was the only truly American Conservative on FOX, and his days were numbered.

However my one caveat, with Ron Paul, and perhaps more so with his supporters is the anti-Israel tone.  Paul himself I believe wishes to cut foreign support to all parties, and believes Israel ought to take care of business with Iran or whomever without asking for America’s permission.  His moral support of Israel, including selling weapons to them, is really all that Israel wants or needs.  However, his supporters are full of angry anti-Zionists, anti-Semites who feel that finally enough time since the Holocaust has elapsed and that a change in foreign policy from pro-Israel to pro-Palestinian is “reasonable’ and must not be called anti-Semitic. Because it is a foreign policy position and not a Jewish Question, they can indulge their Jew-hatred behind the plausible deniability of justice for Palestinians.

I hope Ron Paul can carefully delineate his position on Israel.  If he is of the persuasion that support for Israel must be calculated as would the support of “normal” nations, then I will have to part ways, but with respect.  An American President must do what he perceives to be in the best interests of the US.  I believe that supporting Israel puts us on the right side of History, and that can only be good for US.  But, if someday  it becomes evident that support of Israel is damaging to America, (I cannot foresee such an occasion), then each of us will have to decide to go where their loyalty guides them.  God forbid the day shall come when the interests of the United States are opposed to the God Of Israel.  It is this very God who blessed America.  See how long it will take to see those blessings disappear and be replaced with their opposites, if we turn away from our blesser; the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob (Israel).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s