Is this the kind of country you want? A letter to my Republican friend. ---(hurl alert)

Note: While I have many Republican friends, none are named “Whitney.” This letter is for all my Republican friends in general, and none in particular. It is also for all Republicans with whom I am not personally acquainted, who are willing to pause and reflect upon the condition of their party and their country, and then upon their consequent duty as citizens of the United States.

At no time in my memory, or yours, I suspect, has the rivalry between the two major parties been more mean-spirited and poisonous.

And yet, despite our separate party affiliations, we remain close friends as we have for all the decades since high school. Moreover, I see no reason for this to change, nor, I trust, do you..

Surely you know that I have never regarded you as a fascist, just as I know that you have never thought of me as a traitor. Yet these are the kinds of labels that are routinely hurled by one fringe of our respective parties against the other.

Such mutual incivility is more than acutely unpleasant, it strikes at the foundation of our republic. Thus it falls upon cooler heads, such as ourselves, to reject the insult and abuse, and to restore the calm civic dialog and mutual respect that is the foundation of a just and secure political order.

Sadly, much more is required if we are to restore our republic to its former health and vigor. For our country and its founding political principles are gravely endangered by a radicalism that has taken control of all branches of our government as well as our mass media.

This means that it has, regretfully, taken control of the Republican Party – your party. It is thus imperative that moderates, such as yourself, take back their party.

I suspect that this stark accusation might put you on the defensive. If you feel that the Democrats also pose a threat to our republic, I invite you to present your case and I promise to consider it carefully. But first, please hear me out,

Our respective political differences manifest more than contrasting political philosophies. These differences issue from contrasting professional perspectives, career commitments, family backgrounds, social contacts, and even religious commitments. Though different, our perspectives on life and politics may be more complementary and compatible, rather exclusive.

I chose an academic career. You opted to join your father’s small manufacturing enterprise. So we encountered government differently. The taxpayers furnished my salary, while government imposed environmental and work safety regulations on your company.

I joined the California Teachers Association – a union. You were management, at the other side of the bargaining table.

In my professional life, I had the privilege of teaching foreign students, corresponding with scholars abroad, and frequently traveling overseas to international conferences. You had to deal with the problem of competition with foreign goods.

As a philosopher, my convictions strayed from religious faith of my childhood. You have remained steadfast in your religious convictions. So, of course, we have different views on the relationship of church and state.

And so, of course, we adopted different attitudes toward government, labor relations, foreign policy, and so forth. Almost inevitably, you have allied yourself with the Republicans, and I have supported the Democrats – albeit often reluctantly, as “the lesser of the evils.”

Our political differences have been a constant topic of conversation between us over the years, occasionally heated, but never placing our friendship in any great peril. You see, we are both moderates. And while, in our arguments, our attention was understandably focused upon our differences, we took little notice of our common ground of commitment and belief.

You correctly describe yourself as a “Conservative.” I am willing to be called a “liberal,” despite the recent disparagement of that once honorable label. However, because of the abuse of that word, I prefer to call myself a “progressive.” “Conventional wisdom” treats “conservative” and “liberal” as opposing point of view. I prefer to see them as complementary. Thus an authentic conservative and a liberal can hold a great deal in common.

We both revere our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Accordingly, we believe that “to secure these rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "governments are instituted among men.”

Along with the founders of our republic, we share a suspicion of “big government” and thus endorse the protection of our “inalienable rights” as articulated in the Bill of Rights.

We both believe that our elected leaders have a bond of honor to the citizens which requires that these leaders deal candidly, openly and honestly with the people.

We both prize freedom, though you are more inclined to interpret freedom in economic terms, while my attention is directed to freedom of inquiry and expression.

With Jefferson, we both believe that a free press and the open competition of ideas are the life blood of a democracy.

With Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Monroe, we eschew “foreign entanglements” and disavow any imperial ambitions for our country.

Despite our religious differences, we both endorse the “traditional values” that are taught by all the great world religions: tolerance, mercy, charity, compassion, moderation, peacemaking.

We both reject sudden social change through violence or the radical imposition of alien ideologies.

These are all, let us note, “conservative” values, which we learned together from the outstanding public school teachers that taught us history and civics. These values have stood the test of time, and may serve us well today. Neither of us are at all inclined to abolish these principles.

The differences between “conservatism” and “liberalism” are grounded in perspective and in emphases – again, not necessarily in conflict.

Webster’s dictionary defines “conservatism” as “The practice of preserving what is established; disposition to oppose change in established institutions and methods.”

The liberal looks forward to an improvement of the human condition. The best expression that comes to my mind is that of Edward Kennedy, at the funeral of his brother, Robert F. Kennedy:

"My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it... As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

The liberal, then, is a “meliorist” – one who endorses worthy values and institutions received from the past, and who recognizes suffering and injustice in the present which he strives to ease and rectify for the future.

What deserves most to be preserved from the past, and improved in the future? In the specific answer to these questions reside the divergences of our political opinions. But in the general content of these received principles and future aspirations, we are united. It is that concurrence which has bound our nation together.

For now I must urge you to look directly and soberly upon your Party. With the aforementioned principles of conservatism firmly in your mind, ask yourself: Does this organization embody your conservative convictions? Do those public figures who so readily describe themselves as “conservative” authentically fit that label? Where your Party is leading our country, do you truly wish to follow?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

If these trends and conditions trouble you, then you are in agreement with this liberal, for we both find in this list a violation of our shared political and economic convictions.

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.”

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.” Liberal policies are condemned, not merely as erroneous or misguided, but as “evil.” Politics today has become “warfare by other means,” wherein it is not enough to defeat one’s opponents in a fair election; the opponent must be destroyed. Witness the attacks on the Clintons, and on John McCain in the South Carolina primary of 2000.

Thus our once-united national community is being split into warring factions as we forget our common loyalties and lose the capacity to act in common purpose.

There may be among your fellow Republicans, individuals who would respond, “spare me all this ideological Choctaw. My politics is guided by my self-interest, and it is clear to me that Republican policies are best for my investments, my business, and my personal prosperity.” Surely such a consideration is at least an ingredient of the Republican case.

However, on close examination, even the appeal to self-interest fails the radical right. Be honest, now: would you trade your investment portfolio today with the one you had when Bill Clinton left office? Don’t you feel at least a little anxious about the direction of the Bush economy – with ever increasing unemployment, ever-decreasing consumer confidence and disposable income, interest in the national debt soon to become the largest item in the federal budget, and half of that national debt owed to foreign creditors? In point of fact, throughout the twentieth century, the stock market has performed better under Democratic presidents and congresses. . (See also). History confirms Harry Truman’s observation, “to live like a Republican, vote like a Democrat”.

Is this the kind of country you want? A letter to my Democrat friend.

Note: While I don't have any Democrat friends, I will pretend I do for the sake of this letter. This letter is a basic primer for all morons in general, and none in particular. Rest assured that I am not interested in becoming friends with a moron, nor do I think they can stop being morons, but just in case:

Dear Moron,

I'm going to start from the presumption that you like your life. Whether or not you subscribe to a digital television medium, you are glad one exists. I presume you are thankful you can go down to your local supermarket and stock up on enough of a Thanksgiving feast to feed half of Southeast Asia, charging it all on your credit card which you can pay off in installments until next year. You appreciate being able to climb in your car at will and drive at will to where you will, listening to whatever you want on the radio the whole way. You are glad that you don't get dysentery, or the flu, or measles, or polio and will probably live to be a hundred. You appreciate being able to dial your cell-phone in traffic, driving like a jerk in the mean-time, and have a clear call to virtually anywhere in the world.

If you appreciate these things, then stop to consider what it would be like around here if the so-called "progressives" were in charge.

You would have to wait months to see a doctor, unless you had an emergency. In that case, you would only have to wait weeks.

You would stand in a long line to buy bread. The stores might run out before you get yours. If you do get bread, it will only be enough for a day or two. Then you have to stand in line again.

You can climb in your car and go anywhere you want to go, as long as it's on the approved list, and as long as your sorry excuse for a car can make it. You also have to hope you will find gasoline along the way. If you listen to the radio you will get one station, the state approved station.

You won't celebrate Thanksgiving because you won't be sure what you are thankful for. If you do celebrate Thanksgiving you will wait in more lines than just the bread line. And you won't have any credit so you will only eat what you can pay for today, assuming someone will sell it to you.

You won't have a cell phone, a microwave, a digital (or possibly even an analog TV) or heat or AC for your home. And if you are still teaching, you will teach what the state wants you to teach when the state wants you to teach it or pay the consequences.

Lest you think my description is the flight of fancy of some extremist who likes to call liberals "traitors" consider that the U.S.S.R. did indeed exist, run by progressives, and it did indeed pose these hardships and more on everyone who lived there.

Is that the kind of country you want? If so, continue to repeat the lies of the left, that George W. Bush stole the election, that the war against Iraq was launched under false pretenses, that the U.S. is responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, and that Al Gore and Hillary Rodham Clinton have an ounce of intelligence.

Just don't expect those of us who are not morons to listen to you.

Shalom.

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?

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?

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?

----------------------- Responses

1) I do not support the provisions of the Patriot Act that you identify. However, there are may other provisions that I find very reasonable and agreeable.

2) You claim that the Administration came to power through fraud - this has proven to be false. Further, it has been further shown that that had Al Gore been allow his re-re-limited recount of selected counties, he STILL would have failed to gain enough votes to win.

3) AFTER 3,000 plus civilian and military casualties (more than Pearl Harbor) the United States decided to act. It is to my mind a war of self defence. I reject your claim that the war on terror is a war of agression. It is necessary and just.

4) I do not support the growing of the Federal deficit and as soon as we can cut the unconstitutional spending on social engineering projects and return to a constitutional spending that provides for the common defence, the budget deficit with it's perpetual entitlement programs will be fixed.

5) I do not support government monitoring of any indviduals purchases - be they bibles, books or even guns. I futher do not believe that a women have a "right" to kill another human being. Women have a right to do with their body what they will - but they do NOT have the right to harm another person (their child). It is the "life" part of "...life, liberty and the persuit of happyness"

6) I do believe in the rule of law including innocent until proven guilty. You make unsubstantiated accusations. Better to bring criminal charges that can be proven or not.

7) I do believe in personall responsibility. And support President Bush's enforcement of the SEC laws that were so blithly ignored and not enforced by the previous administration. I'm thankfull that the President and the long arm of the law is enforcing the laws of our nation and bringing proscutions against Mr. Ley and others who have defrauded investors. I have yet to see where criminal actions have been taken by Mr. Cheney or Mr Rove. If you have evidence of a crime, bring it forth.

8) As a free market supporter, I'm more concerned about a level playing field where the rules apply equally to all and all have a chance to aquire great wealth. As to Microsoft, I find that there practices did need be be reigned in. As for the national media, as long as they obey the laws and have equal access to the markets and customers as the next individual or company, then I do not see a problem with them controling such a large portion of the market.

And as long as you are asking questions to conservatives, perhaps you would be willing to answer a few questions to liberals?

If liberals oppose the government using the death penalty on convicted rapist and murders, why then do you allow, even encourage, a women to kill her unborn child who has never harmed any person?

If liberals are so stauchly supportive of individual rights under the Constitution, why then do liberals work so hard to take away a person's right to own and carry a firearm?

If liberals are so concerned about their fellow man, desiring to lift them up and change their station in life, why do liberals create programs that force their fellow man to be a slave to the government hand out?

If liberals or progressives are wanting the people to have a better life, why then is it that liberals desire to take (by force of arms and pain of inprisonment) more and more hard earned money away from the people through ever progressive taxation?

If liberals are so supportive of the Constitution and state that there is a "wall of seperation" between church and state, why then do liberals work so hard to establish the official state religion of athiesm? And further work to actively prohibt the "free expression" of religion - a phrase that is ACTUALLY IN the first amendment?

Dear Ernie,

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:

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. *

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? *

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.

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

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.