Note:  Originally posted on the web site of the Chicano Veterans Organization.

Despite my frustration with today’s toxic politics, the Republicans continue to use various forms of “seditious rhetoric” and which must always be challenged, otherwise our standing as military veterans, does not becomes us, and therefore, our lack of “standing tall” for the Constitution makes us a hapless non-entity for espousing our ‘brand’ of politics.  Thusly, we must ask ourselves the proverbial question relative to our being staunch Democrats and members in good standing within the Democratic Coalition, knowing that on some issues we will “win” while on other issues we will “lose.”

And this proverbial question is the following:  “Are we ‘constitutional’ Progressives with a firm grasp of the Unassailable Facts?”

I believe so since we continue to espouse our continuing support for both the New Deal and the Great Society, and that’s just for starters.  However, today’s conservatives espouse their seditious rhetoric, and like-minded Progressives very seldom challenge these seditious comments.  And in today’s latest installment among conservatives here in Arizona, Republicans in support of an expanded Medicaid program, are being called “traitors” by those Republicans in opposition to an expanded Medicaid.  Subsequently,  or in contrast, the Republicans in support of an expanded Medicaid, have taken their velvet gloves off and are now calling the Republicans in opposition to an expanded Medicaid, “traitors” too.

And in yesterday’s book salon here at Firedoglake.com and where Dina Hampton’s book and titled, Little Red:  Three Passionate Lives Through the Sixties and Beyond, was discussed in great detail and with over 100 comments.  To wit, the “anchor” of these three separate and distinct persons, the Communist Party champion of Black Power, Angela Davis, the New Left advocate in Tom Hurwitz, and the neo-conservative for ‘no boundaries’ on Empire in the person of Elliot Abrams, was the subject under discussion.

As such, all three attended the same school called the Little Red School House and the Elizabeth Irwin High School, collectively known as the Little Red. Subsequently, a divergence in a political life, that in all likelihood, won’t make the footnote section of any publication authored by historians of the future.  And for those among us and who lived through this era, we well understand that none managed to corral any votes as either Elected or Appointed Officials. And therein, is the difference, when we write our ‘history’ and with our ‘starting point’ being the history that is accurately representative of and reflective of the Sonoran Desert.

And my being grey of beard, long in the tooth, and an obvious Contrarian, I never got to pose this proverbial question, and find if or not, would these three persons now see themselves as “constitutional” Progressives?

But more on point, several days ago, the new President of the National Rifle Association, not only called President Obama a “fake president” but went on to suggest that the Civil War was an example of an armed citizenry, and thusly, training all able bodied Americans in the use of a prodigious amount of military weaponry, each trainee will have developed the skill set to repulse ‘tyranny,’ of any sort. Subsequently, any disagreeing with James Porter is equivalent to ‘bordering’ on Treason.

And yet, today, I have found only one person, via the Internet, that has taken the time to challenge Porter, and perhaps, permit me to lead you to Ed Kilgore of the Washington Monthly Magazine, and from several days ago when he said the following:

Am I perhaps being unfair to these people in suggesting that they are behaving like America-haters and are flirting with treason?  I don’t thinks so.  Porter and those like him could dispel this sort of suspicion instantly, any time they wanted, by just saying, Let’s be clear:  the kind of ‘tyranny’ we are arming ourselves to forestall is something entirely different from anything Americans have experienced since we won our independence—a regime engaged in the active suppression of any sort of dissent, and the closure of any peaceful means for the redress of grievances.  We’re not talking about the current administration, or either major political party, as presently representing a threat of tyranny.

I’m not holding my breath for any statements like that to emerge from the NRA, or indeed, from the contemporary conservative movement.  It’s ironic that people who almost certainly think of themselves as patriots—perhaps as super-patriots—are deliberately courting the impression that loyalty to their country is strictly contingent on the maintenance of law and policies they favor, to be achieved if not by ballots then but bullets.  Republican politicians should be repudiating such people instead of celebrating them, accepting their money and support, and even adopting their seditious rhetoric.

In closing, historians in the future will be utilizing the nomenclature for the “constitutional” Progressive and albeit, the “liberal” label will become an outdated acronym and non-comparable to the ever-increasing “Demographics is Destiny” mindset, and especially for those of us and who ascribe to being categorized with the Nixon’s “racial and ethnics” and furthermore, where we are overwhelmingly Progressive in our politics.

Jaango

Photo by Fibonacci Blue under Creative Commons license