In Defense Of Scott Simon & America III: Anti-Americanism At Home And Abroad
In Defense Of Scott Simon & America III: Anti-Americanism At Home And Abroad
By
Ken Eliasberg
To properly understand and evaluate the argument of members of our left-wing academy on the subject of America’s culpability in the “war on terror” or, for that matter, on almost anything that goes wrong on the geopolitical scene, you need to first try to see where these guys are coming from — THEY’RE SOCIALISTS, AND THEY DON’T LIKE AMERICA IN ITS PRESENT CAPITALITIC FORM. Ergo, any conflagration in any location in the world is somehow related to some transgression — real or imagined — of the U.S. How does this relate to the Scott Simon matter? Simple — since we are at fault, anyone, anywhere who engages in any form of reprehensible conduct which can in any way, no matter how strained, have any form of geopolitical connection, it must perforce be due to our transgression. Get it?
We are going to take a very close look at the arguments of the left — or at least those presented in Mr. Shaffer’s bit of anti-American nonsense— in the next column or 2 (or 3 or 4, since it is important that the reader know what’s happening in our schools). But first a brief look at anti-Americanism. At the outset, it is important to note that there are 2 very different sources (as well as reasons) for this animus: one comes from abroad and another is a home grown variety. The latter is the one that has infested — indeed, taken over — our schools. The former has been around, in one form or another, for a very long time, certainly since WWII (and probably before that). It dates back to when America became a world power, and while the seeds of that were sown soon after the turn of the 20th century, it became incontrovertibly clear (i.e. quite manifest) after WWII.
Indeed, even during WWII there were issues with America, mostly stemming from envy. I recall that while stationed in England soon after the war there were signs of resentment. For example, during the war, the Brits used to say that the Yanks were overpaid, over sexed, and over here. To which our boys would respond that the Brits are underpaid, undersexed, and under Eisenhower. While this reflected a bit of spirited revelry, it also was sourced in a bit of envy — envy that we were now the preeminent power in the world, and that we had pulled England’s chestnuts out of the fire. It also reflected the end of the British empire (the Commonwealth was falling apart, and very soonCanada, Australia, and India, inter alia, were to go their own way), and, at the same time, Great Britain was moving toward socialism.
At the time I was young and a liberal (translation: na