Thanks for your thoughtful article.
As a Republican I do worry about the direction of the country, but very little of that worry has to do with the policies of the Republicans or Conservatives. Almost all of it has to do with the desires of liberals and their party, the Democrats.
How funny that you don't like to be called a "liberal" but a progressive. This is in keeping with the liberals constant attempt to change and contort language to prejudice debate. If liberals are "progressives" what are conservatives? Regressives?
Actually I believe the correct term for the Democrats is Socialists. That is you and your party believe that people are here to help build a better society, and the government is the tool which will set the goals, distribute the funds, and organize the citizens to build this better, 'progressive ' society. Conservatives, in contrast, continue to believe that limited government is the best, and that it is here to serve the individual, whom is invested by the creator with rights.
It is telling to me that Democrats and Socialists while continuing to clamor for the collectivist vision fail to intellectually deal with what really happened in the last 50 years. The terrors of Stalinism as well as the softer dimming of human potential in places like Sweden and Denmark have not really been dealt with forth rightly by your side. Until you do I will remain extremely sceptical about your goals and methods, no matter how much you try to disguise them by using nice sounding terms like progressives.
Now I would like to answer a few of your direct questions:
Can you, as a defender of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, support the Patriot Act, and the fact that under its provisions, at least three of your fellow citizens are today incarcerated without charge, without access to counsel, with no prospect of a trial and release – all this in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth articles of the Bill of Rights?
Why do you ascribe the Patriot Act to the Republican party? It was passed 99-0 in the Senate when the Democrats has control of that body? They Dems have shown impressive skills in stalling (forever) Senate business that they disagree with, even with their new minority status. If this is a huge concern of the Democrats, as you and others seem to make it out to be, then I suggest that you start with some serious house cleaning in your own party. At least SOME Democrats need to debate and vote against this before you can claim some leadership in this area.
On a practical level the fact that three or four terrorists are being help incommunicado in Gitmo in the wake of 9/11 does not bother me in the least. The current administration is not over-reaching. Common criminals are not being taken to Cuba.
The lefts hyperventilation over this issues makes me think they have lost all ability to think critically and are grasping at straws to find things to hate Bush over. Unfortunately this is one of the poorest possible exmaples, given the huge support it got from the Dems.
* Can you support an Administration that assumed power through election fraud, the disfranchisement of thousands of our fellow citizens, the violent disruption of official vote counting, and an arbitrary and incoherent ruling by five partisan judges?
In a word, yes. I can and do support this administration. If you really believe in shared values than I think you need to seriously rethink your "Bush stole the election" rhetoric. One of the great things about America is that we let elections decide things. There have been other close elections before. There have even been very credible accusations of vote fraud before, most famously in the Nixon/Kennedy election of 1960. But in every case there comes a point where we all move on and give the President the respect that he needs to do his job. This point came in 2000 when Al Gore conceeded the election to Bush.
To continue to howl in the wind about a stolen election endangers this critical keystone of democracy. Were citizens to fully start believing this shriking rhetoric of the far left they would soon conclude that the government is illegitimate. Why then should they pay taxes, follow regulations or even continue to vote. This is a very dangerous game you play, and for the sake of the nation I beg you to stop. There will be another election soon, and if your side is right, and Bush has taken us far off course a huge landslide victory no doubt awaits Dean or whoever the Dems nominate.
I say this even if your charges of election theft were true. In fact they are not. There was not theft because, as we learned after the famous NY Times recount, using almost any method you choose Bush won the popular vote in Florida, and thus the Electoral College. But it sure was close.
*Can you, as an opponent of “foreign entanglements” support a war of aggression, launched under demonstrably false pretenses, and provoking a world-wide hostility toward the United States administration?
Yes, I can and do. I believe that Bush was largely correct in saying that Saddam posed an imminent threat to world peace. Appeasment to evil, powerful dictators doesn't work. Eventually Saddam, or his surragates would have gotten the weapons they wanted, and used them. In his time in power he had already senselessly attacked two of this neighbors with full scale WW2 type military munitions. Both Iran and Kuwait (a decade apart) saw that Saddam was a mad man willing to kill any number of people to further his ambitions. We are much better off without him. *
Can you, as a conservative, sanction a federal deficit this year of half a trillion dollars and several trillion dollars over the next several years, causing an unbearable financial burden upon the generations that follow?
No, I can not. And I am not pleased with Bush's performance here. On the other hand I feel that he thinks it is a political neccessity because of the years of dangerous, absurd and horribly demogagic rhetoric that the Democratic party has put up on these issues. From a realistic point of view the deficit is caused by huge social programs, which have all been instituted by Democratic administrations. Republican attempts to deal with the reality of these ponzi-schemes have been a series of ads and speeches accusign the Republicans of wanting to put Grandma on a dog food diet. Bush has simply decided to not deal with this for now. Also, reality requires me to point out that Clinton's famous budget greatness was largely a result of a boom economy. It had nothing to do with him cutting domestic spending or making long term liabilities like Social Security become financially stable. The bubble popped, and so the numbers look bad. If it booms again they will look better, for a while. I believe I can look beyond the effect of the the business cycle to see the real state of our economy. My estimation is that the public part is in need of a serious overhall. Funny thing is I don't see any Democrat offering credible plans to do that. Do you? *
If conservatives believe in limited government, then can you, as a conservative, accept without protest, government surveillance of your book purchases and your e-mail? Is it the business of the government to interfere with a woman’s control over her own body?
Your lumping a lot of stuff together here. Again the only surveillance I am aware of is directed at terrorists. Surely you agree we may need to use extra ordinary means to prevent a 9/11 repeat. On a practical level I find that I can go to any bookstore, including Amazon and order pretty much anything I like. From left wing hate literature like Mein Kampf and Das Kapital to right wing tracks like "Treason" by Ann Coulter. Porno is available everywhere, from the local magazine store to the cable channels I don't subscribe to. For leftists to somehow charge that there is something like KGB style political observation, or Singapore style censorship going on is absurd. * As for a "womans control over her own body" sure. There is no argument about that, really. The argument is about the other body that is living inside her. The support of the GOP is a long standing one, but in a practical level it has not resulted in the end of abortion on demand in the 30 odd years since Roe V. Wade. Your scaring the horses, but again this fails the smell test for a real issue.
Conservatives uphold the rule of law. Can you then condone the arbitrary violation of laws by the President and members of his administration – including the Presidential Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the law forbidding the “outing” of covert CIA agents and organizations?
I think any fair assessment of the Bush administration vs. the last democratic one would have us agreeing that Bush works much harder to follow both the letter and spirit of the law, and has, on balance been a much more lawful administration. I am not aware of Bush being found guilty of breaking any of the rules you mention. Clinton famously, was stripped of his law license and Supreme Court credentials in a plea bargain. Investigations into his fund raising and pardons continue to this day. *
Conservatives insist upon responsibility and accountability. Can you then allow exceptions by such well-placed individuals such as Ken Lay, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove? Sorry I can't respond to this, it lacks all details. Ken Lay will be dealt with as part of the ongoing Enron prosecutions as prosecutors deem appropriate. The prosecutors are Clinton appointed, so I'm not sure what your point is.
* As a conservative who believes in free markets and free enterprise, are you not concerned about the growth of monopolistic cartels and conglomerates which stifle and absorb competitors (e.g., Microsoft). Are you troubled by the fact that virtually all broadcast media in the United States are owned and controlled by six corporations, and that the corporation- friendly Federal Communications Commission has ruled in favor of still greater media market concentration? Are you aware of the devastation that WalMart has caused to small town business throughout the country?
Maybe. I didn't see Clinton stopping any of this. Did you? Microsoft does not trouble me at all. I'm writing this on a Redhat Linux box. Not every problem (and Windows can be a problem, I know) needs a big government solution. As for Wal Mart, well I'm sure it's successful because those same small town people like the convenience and economy they find shopping there. In general, as a conservative I support free markets, which allows for better businesses to succeed and worse ones to fail. The fact that lots of expensive, small, poorly stocked rural stores are going under is part of the dynamic destruction that those who really believe in free markets appreciate. You, like many democrats, seem to want the milk without the cow.
You close with this comment:
For this reason, I refuse to describe the ideology and policies of the controlling faction of your party as “conservative.” Far better to describe it as “right-wing” or “radical right.”
Why not debate the issues instead of indulging in name calling? Right wing and radical right are not descriptive in any meaningful way. They are invective. Call us libertarian economists and cultural conservatives if you want.
Consider next, the corruption of our politics. The right wing has repudiated our tradition of civic friendship, and instead regards its political opponents as “traitors.”
Exactly what you do when you call Bush illegitimate. I disagree with nearly all of your characterizations of the Republicans from here on in your note. I also strongly disagree that Bush is a radical, in any way. This "radical right winger" just propsed a sweeping new benefit for senior citizens. I actually know some real right wingers, they are none to happy with that, I assure you.
So, in closing, I must ask you: Wherein is your ultimate loyalty? To your party or to your country? If you reflect soberly on what has become of your party, on the full import of the crisis facing our country, and upon you duty as a conservative and as a patriot, I am confident that you will arrive at wise and just conclusion.
Well I think about this stuff a lot too Ernie, and really we just disagree. I like my party pretty well. I wish they were more conservative, but compared to the Dems, well there is no comparison. I doubt I'll be pulling the donkey lever any time soon. Nor will an increasing number of my friends. The Dems are just out of touch and silly. Your open letter is a pretty good example. Lots of stuff thrown around, but none of it really sticks. Oh well, happy Thanksgiving. Here's for a veto proof Senate in 2004 ! -Jack