Political Discussions
Why does Sean Hannity hate America's traditions?
Posted by Agit8r • 6/09/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Hannity, unamerican bs
"The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy."--Thomas Jefferson
And yet, here Sean Hannity and Mark Levin base THEIR conservatism on Edmund Burke... Edmund freaking Burke!!!
"All this cry against nobility I take to be a mere work of art. to be honoured and even priveleged by the laws, opinions and inveterate usages of our country, growing out of the prejudice of ages, has nothing to provoke horror and indignation in any man."--Edmund Burke
C'mon Hannity this is America... love it or leave it!
User Comments
-
You obviously don't listen too the show and if you did you would know that he loves America. The socialist pigs that think he is unamerican haven't probably read anything on American history.-
When you mentioned artificial aristocracy I thought you were referring to Obama, but I fail to see the connection to Hannity. With regard to loving it or leaving it, the same could be said of left leaning commentators. If you do not like him, why bother with him? -
Of course they do not listen. Obama does not love this country because he is going around apologizing to all the other countries. -
Maybe he thinks he can rack up a bunch of frequent flyer miles on Air Force One.
-
-
The point is that Hannity in reality is more of a neo conservative rather than a traditional conservative. If you don't truly understand that then you need to study the founding fathers more. New conservativism violates limited government in its own ways just as liberalism (politics, not economics) does it in other ways as well. Hannity supports conservative government intervention in social means while liberals support it in economic means. Government intervention is that no matter what angle you look at it. -
The entire quote by Burke from his book "Reflections on the Revolution in France" is thus:
"All this violent cry against the nobility I take to be a mere work of art. To be honoured and even privileged by the laws opinions and inveterate usages of our country growing out of the prejudice of ages has nothing to provoke horror and indignation in any man. Even to be too tenacious of those privileges is not absolutely a crime. The strong struggle in every individual to keep possession of what he has found to belong to him and to distinguish him is one of the securities against injustice and despotism implanted in our nature. It operates as an instinct to secure property and to preserve communities in a settled state What is there to shock in this Nobility is a graceful ornament to the civil order. It is the Corinthian capital of polished society"
And the whole of Jefferson's quote in his letter to John Adams:
"For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy."
What don't you like about Burke? He had some very good ideas on what modern conservatism is. Incidentally, I have never heard Hannity envoke Burke; Mark Levin, yes. In his book, "Liberty and Tyranny," Mark Levin quotes Burke heavily. I have read it and I think it is a very good book.
That being said, in reference to the two partial quotes you posted I believe that Burke, speaking to the French Revolution, was saying that the common man's problems with the powers they were revolting against were being exacerbated by pundits of the day. The ability to hold possessions, or property was the common man's best deterrent against the ruling class.
Jefferson seemed to be looking down his nose a bit at the common man. His thinking reminds me of the reason why the Electoral College was created; the idea that the common American could not make proper judgments about their elected officials.
I could be wrong, but that is my take. Now why is it you say that Hannity and Levin hate America?-
What a retort!
-
Jefferson believed that a person should be free to use their natural abilities, free from hereditary constraints and special privileges granted to the few. A sort of meritocracy that would be limited in its ability to transcend generations.
Burke seems to have believed that the well bred and well mannered were both well suited and entitled to lord it over the rest of mankind.
Which of these suits the arguments of a Market economy better?
This tirade was sparked by yesterday's Sean Hannity Radio Show, in which he was interviewing Levin, and they were attributing "modern" (aka "Neo") conservatism to our founding fathers and Burke. Those of our founding fathers who favored a limited government (the republicans) had nothing good to say of Burke -
I haven't thought about Burke with respect to nobles or elites, but I know he supported the American Revolution and rejected the French Revolution. The difference? He saw Americans as merely defending their old rights. The French, on the other hand, threw away their old institutions, in his mind, and started from scratch. That radical break from their past---when the Estates General declared itself the National Assembly---made the French Revolution illegitimate and ill-advised. By way of contrast, he says, the English in 1688 were also merely asserting old rights. Of course, deposing a king and asserting the primacy of Parliament is a pretty radical step, but he didn't see it that way, since it was part of an evolutionary process, unlike the French, who ripped out their old institutions by the roots.
I have never read an American conservative praising Burke, though I know he is a key text for American conservatism. I assume the part that is attractive is not his emphasis on gradual, evolutionary change, since that might require accepting that twentieth-century product, the welfare state that cares about its citizenry's well-being in varying degrees. I assume the part that is attractive is his emphasis on England's constitutional traditions and how they were drawn upon to fight tyranny. And Burke's line fit better with Whig politics, a strong Parliament and weak king. That was radical stuff in 1688, but by 1789 this position had become conservative, because the arguments were based on constitutional traditions and a preference for evolutionary change over revolution.
Of course, how that looks in our current American discourse is another matter, since our strict constructionists seem to think that the Constitution and its meaning can be read literally, the authors' original intent divined in all cases, and an evolution of any kind stopped in its tracks. I suppose this discrepancy is less important to than the emphasis on the "ancient" liberties and constitutional traditions and structures of Englishmen that he made his arguments with.
To get back to nobles, briefly, England's titled nobility was represented in the House of Lords, which played an important, albeit evolving constitutional role. I suppose his respect for England's (Britain by that time) constitutional traditions would lead him to respect the nobility too. Of course, the titled nobility was much larger in France, and it played an altogether different role, but Burke was nothing if not consistent about what kind of change was legitimate.
By the way, following his take on the American Revolution, it couldn't have been a revolution at all, but rather a war of independence, which is often how I see it. I realize there were some pretty important innovations that resulted from it, but many fundamental constitutional traditions were carried over from England. More on this basic point: clioandme.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/why-i-like-the-declaration-of-independen... -
I missed Hannity's radio show yesterday, in fact I haven't heard it in about two weeks.
I think that the attraction in Burke, for conservatives anyway is his, pardon the expression, conservative approach to all things political. He steadfastly held that the status quo, while not always staying as such, should be changed slowly; as you mentioned, mark. And Burke did think that liberty and possessions or property were intertwined and that is also a big appeal to modern conservatives. -
See THAT's the problem! Here in America, while it is important that one has the ability to aquire the fruits of one's labors, the possession of property is not a prerequisite to having inalienable rights.
"Mr. Burke is contending for the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living. There was a time when kings disposed of their crowns by will upon their death-beds, and consigned the people, like beasts of the field, to whatever successor they appointed. This is now so exploded as scarcely to be remembered, and so monstrous as hardly to be believed. But the Parliamentary clauses upon which Mr. Burke builds his political church are of the same nature...
...Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man; Part the First -
No what I meant was that Burke believed in the rights of man to keep the fruits of his labor and not have them taken away by the government, whether that be a republic, tyranny, autocracy, etc... I believe that unalienable rights are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can one pursue those rights, or attain liberty if his property is confiscated?
-
valid to a point... however with regard to 'Property'... "In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage."
I am quite in agreement with Madison on his sentiments herein.
press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html -
As in our opinions expressed here on BC, for example are also our property and therein have value to us; in other words our rights become a property so to speak?
-
They are as if a birthright
-
-
I am almost amazed that anyone would rise to the bait of "hate America". I say "almost", because I remember the GOP talking about a real and a fake America last fall, a line of thought entirely consistent with the House Un-American Activities Committee (www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/huac.htm). I know why Agi8r framed things this way. He was having fun agitating the far right with its own rhetoric. But we really need to move past that. Of course, to do that, we would have to accept that there are many versions of America in our minds and on the ground. I hope I can say that. Pluralism isn't just a left-wing concept, is it?
-
this is true mark
I'm sure that Hannity loves America, even if he doesn't understand it. -
Sean Hannity does love America and Americans. His Freedom Concerts raise money for children of our fallen military personnel so that they might be able to better pursue their education. I would say that someone who hates America wouldn't do that.
-
-
Liberals don't have any one person to identify as a leader of their party so they have to attack the leaders of the conservative movement.
-
There is no "liberal" party. there is a party that calls themselves Democrats, but who are Hamiltonians
-
The Democrats don't have a leader then. Idk why they are worried about the Republicans so much?
-
The Democrats don't have a leader then. Idk why they are worried about the Republicans so much?
-
I don't think they do. But this independent is scared as hell that the we'll get another Bush!
buh bye America, then
-
Your looking at the person who will destroy America. Barack Hussein Obama!!!
-
Not destroy, jhix. He will CHANGE America...(into a socialist utopia - let us rejoice as we shun our fast food and gas guzzling cars)
-
@Jhix, what do you base this assumption on?
-
The fact that he is trying to control the private sector (even though he says he doesn't want to) and demoralizing the U.S. with almost anti American values.
-
actually, I have seen a rather large amount of meddling in the corporate sector. But the private sector?
-
GM takeover and eliminating tons of well established and profitable car dealerships with no explanation to why. Not to mention no warning up front that they would be terminated.
-
Is that being dictated? or is it a company matter?
If you can provide a good article on that, I would be interested. -
@Agit8r - "Is that being dictated? or is it a company matter?
If you can provide a good article on that, I would be interested."
I found this -
"Chrysler Deputy CEO Jim Press said the cuts were part of the shared sacrifices by the United Auto Workers union, bondholders and others needed to avoid liquidation.
"Going through bankruptcy was not our choice," said Press, who along with Henderson and the other witnesses were required to raise their right hands and testify under oath.
But the committee heard from shutout dealers such as Frank Blankenbecker III of Waxahachie, Texas, whose voice cracked as he recalled the hard work of his father, a World War II veteran, to build their family business.
"I am glad that he is not alive to witness this travesty. To have risked his life for a country that would do what they are doing would destroy him," he said.
"There's something wrong with a business model that basically says, 'In order to survive, we've got to crush our local dealers,'" said Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt.
Rep. Mike Burgess, R-Texas, confronted Henderson about GM's decision to maintain a parts distribution center in the district of Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Frank had urged Henderson to keep the facility open.
"What is the number I need to call? Is it 1-800 Car Czar?" Burgess asked. "I have a nagging suspicion that there is a political calculation.""
www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-06-12-gm-chrysler-defend-dealer-cuts_N.ht...
Republicans and Democrats both hate this, which is as it should be. This is crap that the dealers are left holding the bag. -
So the bankruptcy court called for the dealship closings? This confuses me, because it isn't a liquidation, but rather a restructuring. What purpose does the closings serve? Do they pose some liability to the companies?
-
-
Oh please, *rolls eyes*
He's not my cup of tea, but he was the lesser of two evils. Here's what Milton Friedman's son had to say:
liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3273-
I say we use the game "Deal or No Deal" to pick our presidents. I just wanna see those girls!! :-)
-
Maybe we could get the general public to be more engaged that way...
...or is that engorged -
HAAAAAAAA!!!
-
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
