Does the Left Hate America?

The question, on one level, seems preposterous.  After all, however flawed Leftists may be from a conservative perspective, they are fellow Americans.

Yet the conduct of many on the Left makes the query not so easy to dismiss.

Most recent examples concern attacks, destruction and the removal of statues of notable Americans who give offense because of the subjects’ association with slavery as owners, supporters or holders of racist views.  (Abraham Lincoln qualifies on the last point.)

The targets started with Confederate military leaders but has been extended further back into history to include George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, slave holders both.  Even Christopher Columbus (of 1492 fame) is in the Left’s sight.  Although popular culture (incorrectly) credits him with being our land’s first European discoverer, it’s not as if Columbus lived here.  Maybe the objection to his New York City statue is that if America had not been “discovered”, the “horribly flawed” USA would never have come into being!

This attitude, which some characterize as “anti-American”, is not exactly new.  For example, remember President Obama’s “apology” tour in the Middle East?  But the Left’s campaign to tar leading historical figures with the brush of racial prejudice seems to be encountering less public resistance as well as more media encouragement. 

The campaign, itself, speaks volumes about its adherents.  The desire to remove symbols of America’s past – to erase those who, by their human nature, are flawed – is apparently driven by embarrassment that they are Americans.  Are Leftists demonstrating that they are ashamed to be?

To feel that way requires a denial that great progress for black Americans is also a fact of America history.  America today is not the country of the Civil War era.  That denial is a consequence of either colossal ignorance of malevolence against the USA.   In either instance, the denial provides a basis for Leftist hostility, even hatred, toward America.  It’s perceived to be evil and irredeemable to its core.  Given that perspective, how could they love America?

Should Confederate Monuments Come Down?

On one level, the presence of Confederate statues in memory of a variety of military and political leaders should occasion no comment.  They were on the losing side of the war and, with a few exceptions (Robert E. Lee being one) memories of who they were 150 years ago have disappeared.  They were and remain symbols meaning different things to different Americans. 

Certainly many statues were raised in towns across the South after the Civil War in commemoration of “the lost cause” – what was perceived as noble and justified resistance to the Northern states.  Undoubtedly, the statues were meant to show defiance, too.

Were they intended to glorify and honor those who fought on the side of slavery?  Surely, by some.  But perspective is called for.  In its initial stages, the Civil War was not a battle for abolition.  President Lincoln, himself, made clear that the South could retain slavery as it long as it returned to the Nation.  It was only after Union forces “prevailed” (earned a stalemate would be more accurate) at Antietam in September, 1862 that the Emancipation Proclamation was announced that “freeing” the slaves became a national objective.  That decision was, at least, partially an attack on Southern morale.

Whatever symbol white Southerners intended the statues to be after the Civil War, today many Americans (black and white) see them as a commemoration of slavery.

Whether that perception is accurate is beside the point. 

Focusing on a person’s negative conduct to the exclusion of positive aspects, of course, is not fair.

[Robert E. Lee was a remarkable military leader and effective advocate for reconciliation when the fighting ended.  He earned honors for those aspects as well as condemnation for being on the pro-slavery side.]

But symbolism as considered is not subtle or nuanced.  It strikes emotional chords.  When a person kills worshippers in Charleston, South Carolina, or runs down an opponent of Southern statues in Charlottesville, Virginia, it’s understandable, indeed, that those statues become symbols of racial hatred.  Will their removal lessen or soften such animosity and related bias or prejudice?  Unlikely.  It’s more probable that those harboring such attitudes will feel them more intensely because their symbols have been taken down.

Nonetheless, the removal of what are considered to be offensive symbols of racial hostility are welcomed.  In a fashion, their removal is viewed as an act of reconciliation and respect for the feelings of those offended (black Americans and others, as well).  However, to be sure, there are many good Americans who are also offended by the removal of the statues.  They deserve not to be ignored. 

It should be possible to accommodate, by compromise, the symbolic concerns of the well-motivated, on both sides.   

The dead-of-night removal of such statues by city leaders in Baltimore is not a worthy blueprint.

Should Transgenderism Be a Concern Of National Policy?

Transgender people (those born physically with the anatomical characteristics of one sex but who identify with the other sex) are a miniscule portion of the general population – well under one percent according to surveys.

Despite their relatively small numbers, the apparent plight of transgenders has recently been the focus of the left and their media echo chamber.

First was North Carolina’s legislation – having the distinct mark of common sense – which formally mandated what was previously a given, not seen as requiring legislative action.  Restrooms dedicated to one sex or the other were to be used exclusively by members of that particular sex (the exception, again common sense driven, of a very young child accompanied by an adult).  The outrage was deafening. 

And there was President Trump’s reversal of government policy which permitted proclaimed transgenders to serve in the military.  The outcry focused on the loss of purported rights for those of transgender inclinations.  But that’s nonsense.  There’s no right to serve in the military.  The purpose of defense is best served by recruiting and retaining personnel who carry out their missions in an efficient and as effective manner as possible.

In the White House statement, announcing the policy change, mention was made of concerns of “unit cohesion”.  That concept is vital to the performance of any group, particularly military forces where loyalty, commitment to fellow unit members, are essential to a successful mission.  That justification was ignored by critics

The possibility of destabilizing sexual tension (long recognized as an impediment of integrating women into combat roles, for instance) involved with the presence of transgender personnel cannot simply be ignored.  If such soldiers are not a detriment as shown by studies and research, fine.  But what if they are?  “Transgender rights” are not involved.  Efficiency and effectiveness of the military is the correct standard.

Realistically, the number of transgender personnel is likely so small that the answer won’t make much of a difference to the military broadly speaking, anyway.

The left has never been good about common sense and perspective.  Ideological blindness can do harm.