What Happened To The “Spirit of Comradeship?”

by lewwaters

Then General of the Army (Five Star) Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, expressed some lofty goals immediately after the Allied Victory in World War II that served us quite well, for a time.

Below are his opening remarks to an October 1945 film, The True Glory commissioned by the US Office of War Information and the British Ministry of Information, “documenting the victory on the Western Front, from Normandy to the collapse of the Third Reich.”

I have to ask, what happened?

How did we lose that spirit of comradeship and zest for freedom?

We don’t even have it amongst our own people any longer, much less in camaraderie with former allies we stood shoulder to shoulder with the defeat evil back then.

I can recall, even though the country disagreed on many political points when I was growing up and Eisenhower was President, people embraced that freedom. They praised our allies and even in disagreement, respected and defended each other.

Ever since the 1960’s it seems as extremists pushing agendas are continually dividing us, pushing us further apart and throwing barbs at each other.

First is was the radical left and today they have been joined by an equally radical right, infiltrating political parties to advance only their version of “how things must be.”

Forgotten as strict “constitutionalists” push their interpretation is that even that honored document came about by compromise between differing factions in order to give the best for all.

Today, self proclaimed “constitutional scholars” spew how they see matters and if you disagree, you’re the “enemy” and must be silenced.

The radical left during the 60’s and 70’s actually engaged in terrorism against people, some now dead, others rewarded with prominent position in Universities to taint our young people’s minds while some that agreed with them were elected to hold positions in the Government.

The extremist right has not yet engaged in direct combat actions against people, but some of the rhetoric spewing forth makes me fear it isn’t far off.

Rants of a “fight to the death” roll pretty easy off of the tongues of those that have likely never faced death or served time in our Military defending the country.

Some of them actually continue to denigrate the very Military that defends them; instilling fears of they will turn on the people, misrepresenting training exercises as forerunner to martial law.

Of course, Obama is blamed today, but just a few years ago they were blaming Bush and accusing him of the same exact thing.

Some candidates for President seem to be cosying up to these radicals that misuse the word “liberty” in their quest for totalitarianism under their views, describing them as “former Rep. Ron Paul’s rapidly-maturing political army” and “The power, the energy of the Liberty Movement is inspirational.”

I can imagine many of the same words were expressed in early 1930’s Germany!

Gone is any sense of real compromising.

Ignored is not everybody in the United States sees things as they do, not even many of us right of center.

And yes, the left has acted much the same in pushing their views on others through legislation that has changed America in detrimental ways, in my opinion.

Dwight Eisenhower expressed his desire that we never lose that spirit of comradeship and that it would last forever.

Sadly, it appears we began losing it shortly after he left office in 1961 and today, it is all but nonexistent.

I post this in hopes more of you will open your eyes, wake up to what is going on in our country and push back against the extremist left and extremist right.

Whether we agree in all matters or not, it is your country too, regardless of what the extremists from either side say.

11 Comments to “What Happened To The “Spirit of Comradeship?””

  1. If you can’t get the whole loaf, settle for half now, then get the other half later.

    This sums up the problem with compromise, as it works to the benefit of nanny state activists. Over time.

    It’s the frog in the slowly heating pan of water thing.

    Like

  2. Such compromise worked well to give us our constitution.

    Compromise, however, does not mean for one side to completely cave every time as has been happening.

    Neither the left nor the right should have such lopsided control over all that only their view is represented.

    Those making impassioned, dramatic rants of “a fight to the death” are speaking out of their asses, obviously never having faced death and actually calling on others to to face it, not themselves.

    The unwillingness to work together today has weakened us to the point we will soon be an easy takeover with neither left or right wanting to stand with the other to defend us.

    We better wake up soon to the extremists from both sides pulling the strings today before it is too late.

    Like

  3. “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” — Barry Goldwater.

    Libertarian and 1964 standard-bearer of the Republican Party.

    Like

  4. While I like Goldwater, I might point out he lost to LBJ in 1964 😉

    Seriously though, my effort here is to get people to turn away from the extremists that would lead us into another Civil War, a bloody shooting war. Seen it first hand, not very pretty.

    There is a reason the Libertarian message overall has been unable to make major inroads in the excess of 40 years the party has been organized, voters do not completely agree. Even Reagan did not completely buy into it, once saying,

    “Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals.”

    Those quoting his 1975 Reason Magazine quote always seem to ignore that part.

    My effort here is as much, if not more so aimed at the extremism on the left. But, ranting the way current extremists in control of the RPCCGOP are doing only plays into their hands. Their rants and vitriol remind me very much of early 1930’s Germany, ignoring the denying their views are not the only ones to be had. That is an exercise in futility.

    Goldwater also said, in the same speech,

    “Security from domestic violence, no less than from foreign aggression, is the most elementary and fundamental purpose of any government, and a government that cannot fulfill that purpose is one that cannot long command the loyalty of its citizens. History shows us – demonstrates that nothing – nothing prepares the way for tyranny more than the failure of public officials to keep the streets from bullies and marauders.”

    “It is further the cause of Republicanism to remind ourselves, and the world, that only the strong can remain free, that only the strong can keep the peace.”

    “Now, I needn’t remind you, or my fellow Americans regardless of party, that Republicans have shouldered this hard responsibility and marched in this cause before. It was Republican leadership under Dwight Eisenhower that kept the peace, and passed along to this administration the mightiest arsenal for defense the world has ever known. And I needn’t remind you that it was the strength and the unbelievable will of the Eisenhower years that kept the peace by using our strength, by using it in the Formosa Straits and in Lebanon and by showing it courageously at all times.”

    How does that fit in with the current call of Paulbots of “nonintervention” and their anti-Police rhetoric, encouraging more people to disobey and not cooperate with the authorities, in the name of “liberty?”

    If you read his 1964 Acceptance Speech in its entirety, it is pretty much the exact opposite of what is coming out of the extreme right, Ron Paul devotees today.

    I will say to you the same thing I have said to others I have met face to face as to my intent with this blog, beyond attempting to counter some of the bias of the Lazy C. And that is to draw the center back to the true center and away from the left, where it has been located far too long.

    Unfortunately, it is been the extremists on the right that have rewarded my efforts with back-stabbing and smears in order the promote their biased extremist views only.

    We do no honor to Goldwater’s words by twisting them into a vitriolic rant calling on others to take up arms.

    Like

  5. There is a clear distinction to be made between Libertarian and Anarchist, which may be thought of as Communist, as Anarchists do not believe in private property ownership. Just precisely the opposite of Libertarian, which puts government protection of private property by the individual, at the heart of the proper role of government, and by extension, a force necessary to protect those rights from external intrusion. In My Opinion, anyone who does not understand this, is not espousing Libertarian beliefs.

    “So: I take political power to be a right to •make
    laws—with the death penalty and consequently all lesser
    penalties—for regulating and preserving property, and to
    •employ the force of the community in enforcing such laws
    and defending the commonwealth from external attack; all
    this being only for the public good.” — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government

    Here’s an article by some guy who claims to have once been a Libertarian, then saw the light, and now tries to draw a comparison between the anarchy he sees in Honduras and how this is supposed to be what Libertarians are all about. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/honduras-sold-libertarian-paradise-i-went-and-discovered-capitalist-nightmare. Nonsense. Total garbage. The same as those who try to compare Somalia with Libertarian ideas.

    Lew Waters, I’m not sure who it is that is eschewing police as a legitimate and primary function of government, but whoever they are, they are not espousing Libertarian thinking.

    Here’s the caveat. Matters of degree, and what is a warranted level of, and use of police powers and military powers. In the former, you will recall the Ruby Ridge and Waco debacles. In the later, you will recall that it was Eisenhower who warned against the “military-industrial complex” while Reagan espoused “peace through strength”. So yeah, compromise is a legitimate tool in politics, but for my part, I’m back at the beginning of our thread in suggesting that the loaf of bread, has been compromised away to the Left, and continues to be so.

    Yes, Goldwater lost, and look what we ended up with. Another centralist planning Great Society Socialist.

    Like

  6. Goldwater losing was tongue in cheek, that is why I also posted 😉

    Now, Libertarians come in all stripes and colors and thought, much like the other parties once were. I even agree with some of their stances myself, but you will also find Libertarians in disagreement with the extremist right pushing nonintervention, defiance of authority and more.

    I’m also glad you brought up Eisenhower’s farewell address since, just like the Goldwater quote, much is left out;

    What gets quoted:

    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.”

    What else is in the same speech:

    “We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.”

    *snip*

    “A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.”

    “Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.”

    “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.”

    Our constitution is a great example of when we were able to compromise and seek the overall best, neither point of view getting everything they wanted. From what I have studied it is a wonder we have it all with the knock down, drag out arguments and battles in writing it. In fact, the Bill of Rights was left out originally and added just so it would be passed.

    The Creation of the U.S. Constitution

    The left has been rigid in compromise, leading the right all too often to cave in order to get things done. I have long maintained that was wrong and they needed to be stronger while I also have said the left needs to be less rigid in their demands.

    Yelling, screaming and rhetoric of a “fight to the death” accomplishes what? Nothing that giving the left talking points to point out how out of control the right is.

    You mention a Great Society Socialist currently. What is it the Paulbots would offer if they took over?

    Smears, back-stabbing, silencing opposing views as they impose their view as the law of the land? Weren’t they also the ones saying you cannot force Democracy on others a few years ago? But here they are desiring to force their view of Liberty on everybody?

    And is it Liberty when they seek to destroy someone elses freedom to speak if it opposes them?

    No, all they have to offer is Totalitarianism in them controlling the country by squelching anything not to their liking.

    That is not Republicanism and Germany saw where it leads.

    So yes, we need middle ground and to get there the left must be more willing to compromise.

    But we’ll never get there as long as the extremists control both sides.

    Like

  7. What you may get when lifting single sentences from a speech:

    According to Malcom X using Goldwater’s words, Black Muslims and Black Panthers are wholly justified in their acts against White America.

    And where does that attitude get us?

    Like

  8. As far as Goldwater’s speech goes, I don’t think that quoting those two sentences in any way alters the crux of Goldwater’s message, which is about personal liberty. Yes he DID advocate for a strong military; as a means of preserving individual liberty from foreign threats. His speech is full of references to personal liberty.

    Just a few:

    “…to flourish as the land of the free-not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism…”

    “…We have lost the brisk pace of diversity and the genius of individual creativity. We are plodding at a pace set by centralized planning…”

    “Security from domestic violence, no less than from foreign aggression, is the most elementary and fundamental purpose of any government…”

    “We see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone’s life for him – we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.”

    Libertarianism is nothing new. John Locke espoused Libertarian ideas, which is now known as Classical Liberalism. The Declaration of Independence is a reflection of that. Goldwater was a Libertarian. Reagan took up the torch after that. IMO, Republicans have strayed, becoming like Democrats, while Democrats have become ever more socialist, and Libertarianism is trying to reassert itself. Perhaps you’ve good reason to scorn some aspects of that Lew. (E.G., Ron Paul’s idea of Letters of Marque, while provided for in the Constitution, is pretty far out there in this age.) I’ll just point out the baby and the bathwater observation.

    As an aside, I wouldn’t compare Black Muslims to the old Black Panther party. The Nation of Islam has a rather sordid history considering some things that happened, but to their credit (I think), they did advocate self-sufficiency. So far as I know, the Black Muslims advocated separation but not violence, well except for killing Malcolm X.

    Another aside, Black Panther co-founder Eldridge Cleaver later became a Republican.

    Like

  9. And Lew Waters, in case you’re wondering, and apparently you are, I’ve nothing at all to do with the RPCCGOP, and am in no way politically active. No one you’ve ever heard of. Just exploring and discussing my own thoughts on matters. I do appreciate the forum you provide here.

    Like

  10. You seem to keep missing that it is Paulbots, the vehement devoted followers of Ron Paul that I disagree with the most, not Libertarians. That is the point in justifying extremism because of words spoken by Goldwater back then being applied to today to justify extremist actions they undertake.

    And again, in spite of their highjacking both Reagan and Goldwater’s legacies, Paulbots today would oppose both over their foreign policy views and even support of the Vietnam war then.

    AS for my post, I’ll give you another quote from a well-known Republican quoting an even more famous historical figure, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

    Extremism only deepens that divide we continue to be in.

    So which extremism should we live under? Paulbots or Obama’s?

    Which side should be annihilated so the other can have complete control over everyone and everything else?

    Do we become 1930’s Germany or the Soviet Union?

    That is what I see us becoming if we cannot restore that “Spirit of Comradeship” Eisenhower spoke of in 1945.

    Incidentally, I wouldn’t promote Eldridge Cleaver as a bastion of Conservative Republican: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldridge_Cleaver#Later_life

    Like

  11. Kndalai, whether or not you are politically active has no bearing here. You are free to speak your views and discuss different points of view.

    That is what I desire for more to do without beating each other over the head or firing up an audience with a bunch of rhetoric to inflame them.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: