Fox News psychiatrist calls for "jihad" to promote US Constitution

[lpetrich]

Fox News Psychiatrist Calls for ‘American Jihad’ by Ed Brayton
Fox's Keith Ablow Calls For An "American Jihad" To "Spread Around The World" Our System Of Governance | Blog | Media Matters for America
both noting It’s time for an “American jihad” | Fox News

An American jihad would reawaken in American citizens the certain knowledge that our Constitution is a sacred document that better defines and preserves the liberty and autonomy of human beings than the charter of any other nation on earth.

The Constitution, along with the miracle of our nation's founding and the providential history of America fighting and winning war after war against oppressive regimes, proves our manifest destiny not only to preserve our borders and safety and national character at home, but to spread around the world our love of individual freedom and insist on its reflection in every government.

Seems like self-congratulatory nonsense. What does he think the Civil War was? It claimed the lives of more Americans than any other of the US's numerous wars.

We would urge our leaders, after their service in the U.S. Senate and Congress, to seek dual citizenship in other nations, like France and Italy and Sweden and Argentina and Brazil and Germany, and work to influence those nations to adopt laws very much like our own. We might even fund our leaders' campaigns for office in these other nations.

What does he think other nations' systems of governments are like?

Would he go to the UK and say "You people ought to scrap your Westminster system, have a strong President, and abolish your monarchy"? Or to France and say "You people have got to stop directly electing your President and use an electoral college instead. Also scrap that runoff election"? Or to many countries and say "You people have got to scrap proportional representation and do single-member districts only"? And in some countries "No more preference voting. First-past-the-post only"?

Also as to the UK, I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks that Queen Elizabeth II is exactly like King George III.

 

[Angry Floof]

Good points, lpetrich, but useless in the face of zealot mentality.

 

[braces_for_impact]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M[/YOUTUBE]

 

[barbos]

Send Keith to North Korea

 

[dystopian]

"Better defines and preserves the liberty and autonomy of human beings than the charter of any other nation on earth."?

Would it be overly presumptious of me to assume that the person who uttered this hasn't read a single constitution other than the American one?

And "We would urge our leaders, after their service in the U.S. Senate and Congress, to seek dual citizenship in other nations, like France and Italy and Sweden and Argentina and Brazil and Germany, and work to influence those nations to adopt laws very much like our own. We might even fund our leaders' campaigns for office in these other nations."?

How quickly would this person erupt in bile-spreading hatred if it turns out another country was doing this in the US? Of course, not that his plan could ever actually work. Germany for instance, only allows dual citizenship from EU countries and Switzerland, and otherwise only if the person was born and grew up in Germany and only if their parents have lived in Germany for at least 8 years. Good luck finding US senators and congressmen who qualify for that.

 

[maxparrish]

Fox News Psychiatrist Calls for ‘American Jihad’ by Ed Brayton
Fox's Keith Ablow Calls For An "American Jihad" To "Spread Around The World" Our System Of Governance | Blog | Media Matters for America
both noting It’s time for an “American jihad” | Fox News

Seems like self-congratulatory nonsense. What does he think the Civil War was? It claimed the lives of more Americans than any other of the US's numerous wars.

We would urge our leaders, after their service in the U.S. Senate and Congress, to seek dual citizenship in other nations, like France and Italy and Sweden and Argentina and Brazil and Germany, and work to influence those nations to adopt laws very much like our own. We might even fund our leaders' campaigns for office in these other nations.

What does he think other nations' systems of governments are like?

Would he go to the UK and say "You people ought to scrap your Westminster system, have a strong President, and abolish your monarchy"? Or to France and say "You people have got to stop directly electing your President and use an electoral college instead. Also scrap that runoff election"? Or to many countries and say "You people have got to scrap proportional representation and do single-member districts only"? And in some countries "No more preference voting. First-past-the-post only"?

Also as to the UK, I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks that Queen Elizabeth II is exactly like King George III.

The criticism of the original article is nearly as simplistic (or simple-minded) as their target. None the less, the back-bencher Fox contributor wrote an unread and well-meaning, but wrong headed, call to rhetorical arms, apparently in ignorance of cosmopolitan sensibilities and America's own Constitutional short-comings. There is nothing wrong with national pride in the historical document, or in the principles of governance it created - as the world's first surviving constitutional republic (excepting, perhaps, Switzerland) it was (at one time) a true exception and beacon of freedom.

But today their are quite a few democracies, more than ever before. And the author has little appreciation (or knowledge?) of the prior intellectual conservative framing of this view. In the days of William F Buckley, James Burnham, or Jean-François Revel (and more recently Samuel Huntington) the theme was that of the liberal tradition of the West vs. the world's many secular and religious barbarians...a theme as timely today as it was during the cold war.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

If given the change I'd scrap this one for some of the better functioning ones out there. It was a good start, but it is far from perfect and not scared.

But then again the constitution to these folks probably comprises the 2nd amendment and anchor babies.

 

[+or-1]

A "jihad" is always insane. Calling for such is a sign of insanity.

 

[maxparrish]

A "jihad" is always insane. Calling for such is a sign of insanity.

Nonsense, haven't you heard? Islam apologists tell us that it is a religion of peace, and "jihad" merely means prosthelytizing, not war making.

 

[dystopian]

The criticism of the original article is nearly as simplistic (or simple-minded) as their target. None the less, the back-bencher Fox contributor wrote an unread and well-meaning, but wrong headed, call to rhetorical arms, apparently in ignorance of cosmopolitan sensibilities and America's own Constitutional short-comings. There is nothing wrong with national pride in the historical document, or in the principles of governance it created - as the world's first surviving constitutional republic (excepting, perhaps, Switzerland) it was (at one time) a true exception and beacon of freedom.

The pride you speak of is just as misplaced as that in the article. The US may technically be the oldest surviving constitutional republic; but it is by no means the oldest surviving constitutional democracy. More to the point, the US constitution and its declaration of independence were not created in a vacuum, and are directly modeled after other such documents; as was its government and national model. It was not a "true exception" at the time of its founding, and it certainly wasn't one shortly thereafter. Taking pride in a document is silly to begin with; taking pride in it to the extent that you elevate it and that which follows from it as exceptional when this is clearly not historically accurate is even sillier.

Plus, I don't see how anyone could consider the notion that "we are exceptional, we should infiltrate other governments and make them more like us because everyone else is inferior to us" to be "well-meaning".

 

[lpetrich]

Good points, lpetrich, but useless in the face of zealot mentality.

I agree.

"Better defines and preserves the liberty and autonomy of human beings than the charter of any other nation on earth."?

Would it be overly presumptious of me to assume that the person who uttered this hasn't read a single constitution other than the American one?

I wouldn't be one bit surprised.

And "We would urge our leaders, after their service in the U.S. Senate and Congress, to seek dual citizenship in other nations, like France and Italy and Sweden and Argentina and Brazil and Germany, and work to influence those nations to adopt laws very much like our own. We might even fund our leaders' campaigns for office in these other nations."?

How quickly would this person erupt in bile-spreading hatred if it turns out another country was doing this in the US?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Of course, not that his plan could ever actually work. Germany for instance, only allows dual citizenship from EU countries and Switzerland, and otherwise only if the person was born and grew up in Germany and only if their parents have lived in Germany for at least 8 years. Good luck finding US senators and congressmen who qualify for that.

Unless they are willing to drop American citizenship, but even then, they'd look like silly carpetbaggers.

If given the change I'd scrap this one for some of the better functioning ones out there. It was a good start, but it is far from perfect and not scared.

Not scared?

But then again the constitution to these folks probably comprises the 2nd amendment and anchor babies.

The Second Amendment isn't even very well-written. It seems to be about buying one's own weapons and practicing with them, so that one can be good at military service. I've seen various attempts to argue it away, but none of them I find very convincing. As to it being for rebellion against the government, I find it unconvincing. It would make the Constitution a suicide pact, and in fact, in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, it states that the powers of Congress include "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" Not exactly endorsing rebellion against it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I agree.

"Better defines and preserves the liberty and autonomy of human beings than the charter of any other nation on earth."?

Would it be overly presumptious of me to assume that the person who uttered this hasn't read a single constitution other than the American one?

I wouldn't be one bit surprised.

And "We would urge our leaders, after their service in the U.S. Senate and Congress, to seek dual citizenship in other nations, like France and Italy and Sweden and Argentina and Brazil and Germany, and work to influence those nations to adopt laws very much like our own. We might even fund our leaders' campaigns for office in these other nations."?

How quickly would this person erupt in bile-spreading hatred if it turns out another country was doing this in the US?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Of course, not that his plan could ever actually work. Germany for instance, only allows dual citizenship from EU countries and Switzerland, and otherwise only if the person was born and grew up in Germany and only if their parents have lived in Germany for at least 8 years. Good luck finding US senators and congressmen who qualify for that.

Unless they are willing to drop American citizenship, but even then, they'd look like silly carpetbaggers.

If given the change I'd scrap this one for some of the better functioning ones out there. It was a good start, but it is far from perfect and not scared.

Not scared?

But then again the constitution to these folks probably comprises the 2nd amendment and anchor babies.

The Second Amendment isn't even very well-written. It seems to be about buying one's own weapons and practicing with them, so that one can be good at military service. I've seen various attempts to argue it away, but none of them I find very convincing. As to it being for rebellion against the government, I find it unconvincing. It would make the Constitution a suicide pact, and in fact, in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, it states that the powers of Congress include "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" Not exactly endorsing rebellion against it.

That's what I always bring up whenever someone claims that "a soldier with a proper understanding of the Constitution would not stop a rebellion" or "the Second Amendment was written to allow rebellion". It's funny how that part is always overlooked by the patriots and it's sad how many people believe those myths.

 

[bilby]

The criticism of the original article is nearly as simplistic (or simple-minded) as their target. None the less, the back-bencher Fox contributor wrote an unread and well-meaning, but wrong headed, call to rhetorical arms, apparently in ignorance of cosmopolitan sensibilities and America's own Constitutional short-comings. There is nothing wrong with national pride in the historical document, or in the principles of governance it created - as the world's first surviving constitutional republic (excepting, perhaps, Switzerland) it was (at one time) a true exception and beacon of freedom.

The pride you speak of is just as misplaced as that in the article. The US may technically be the oldest surviving constitutional republic; but it is by no means the oldest surviving constitutional democracy. More to the point, the US constitution and its declaration of independence were not created in a vacuum, and are directly modeled after other such documents; as was its government and national model. It was not a "true exception" at the time of its founding, and it certainly wasn't one shortly thereafter. Taking pride in a document is silly to begin with; taking pride in it to the extent that you elevate it and that which follows from it as exceptional when this is clearly not historically accurate is even sillier.

Plus, I don't see how anyone could consider the notion that "we are exceptional, we should infiltrate other governments and make them more like us because everyone else is inferior to us" to be "well-meaning".

It is "well-meaning" in the same way that an inquisitor who burns heretics at the stake in order to protect the souls of his co-religionists from damnation is well-meaning.

The US Constitution has indeed become a sacred document, insofar as it can be interpreted to mean pretty much anything that those who hold it sacred want it to mean.

The second amendment in particular is a source of real mirth for me (although no doubt I would find it less amusing if I lived in its jurisdiction); That a law written in the 1780s can be successfully claimed to give people rights to own modern breech-loading, self loading, and/or automatic weapons just goes to show that the Sacred True Meaning^TM of the text has no relationship whatsoever to anything the authors could possibly have been thinking about. James Madison might have been the greatest thinker in history, but even then he could not have been expected to consider the implications of his proposed laws for the use of devices that wouldn't be invented for another sixty to a hundred years.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

On the bright side, at least they've gotten a psychiatrist over to those guys at Fox. It's a step in th right direction.

 

[Herrick]

wherever leaders and movements appear that seek to trample upon the human spirit, we have a God-given right to intervene — because we have been to the mountaintop of freedom, and we have seen the Promised Land spanning the globe.

 

[bilby]

wherever leaders and movements appear that seek to trample upon the human spirit, we have a God-given right to intervene — because we have been to the mountaintop of freedom, and we have seen the Promised Land spanning the globe.

Alex de Wall, writing in the Harvard International Review on the subject of intervention, says:

One hundred and forty years ago, the British statesman Sir William V. Harcourt, writing under the pen name Historicus, defined intervention as “a high and summary procedure that can sometimes snatch a remedy beyond the reach of law. As in the case of revolution, its essence is its illegality and its justification is its success.” This definition has not been improved upon since Harcourt’s time. He points to the illegality of intervention, well aware that to codify the practice would be to legislate for imperial adventures. But he nonetheless allows for exceptions, instances when the rule can be broken in pursuit of a higher good. And he identifies the criterion in such instances: success. Intervention is a matter of policy rather than law. As well as considering intervention alongside revolution, he might also have made the comparison with invasion; intervention is an act of war, and as such is politics conducted by other means.

I have to say that Harcourt's criterion for declaring an intervention to be justified - success - is less unappealing than this appeal to an invisible friend; And by that criterion, the supporters of the doctrine of US Manifest Destiny clearly do not have a just cause.

Every single time that the US has tried to impose freedom on people against their will, they have failed miserably. Given the internally contradictory nature of their task, this is far from surprising.