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”.

This idiot sounds familiar. You suppose it's our Hal?

I didn't write the original letter, but I will try to answer your questions on his/her behalf:

>>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?<<

When you say "kill," that implies viability. Terminating a pregnancy is not at all equivalent to killing a person. But if you think it is, then you should answer for the same inconsistency.

>>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?<<

We'd like to reduce or eliminate the murders, accidents, massacres, and mayhem committed with weapons more powerful than anything our founders anticipated. Regulated hunting with appropriate weapons is constitutionally protected.

>>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?<<

Because of inequalities in our system, some people need a helping hand. Let's work together to eliminate racism, poverty, etc. We can design programs that encourage people to help themselves, instead of becoming dependent.

>>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? <<

Many of the things that are needed to assure a better life--infrastructure, education, defense, health, environment, etc.--can best be provided by pooling our individual resources.

>>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?<<

Your assumption is flawed: I don't see anyone trying to establish a religion of atheism. Many liberals do work to make sure that a particular religion is not endorsed by government agencies. Individuals can express all the religiosity they desire to but they should not be permitted to impose their religious views on others.

I hope this helps.

Your assumption is flawed: I don't see anyone trying to establish a religion of atheism. Many liberals do work to make sure that a particular religion is not endorsed by government agencies. Individuals can express all the religiosity they desire to but they should not be permitted to impose their religious views on others.

ROFL! You can't see the contradiction in this simple statement?!? And you post this while accusing another of a flawed assumption?!? TOO funny!

eLet me help you:

1. I don't see atheism (a belief that there is no God... a philosophical opposition to Theism, the belief that there IS a God... ergo, a religion)
2. Liberals work to ensure no particluar religion is endorsed. (ie, imposing the religion of atheism throughout the land)
3. People should not be permitted to impose their religious views on others (as you just stated liberals work to do!!!)

Your willful blindness ("I don't see it!") is truly amusing. Thanks for the chuckle.

We'd like to reduce or eliminate the murders, accidents, massacres, and mayhem committed with weapons more powerful than anything our founders anticipated.

Then imprison the murderers and massacrers (is that a word?) and throw away the key. Unfortunately there are some risks to living in a free society, but as Benjamin Franklin stated, those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. BTW, at the time the Constitution was written, private citizens owned cannon and even warships, the most powerful weapons of the day.

Regulated hunting with appropriate weapons is constitutionally protected.

Show me the article in the Constitution where hunting is mentioned. Or in the Bill of Rights. Regulation of hunting has fallen largely under state jurisdiction, and is a fairly recent (about 75 year old) phenomenon. The operative clause of the Second Amendment states in simple English (and the authors of the Constitution were masters of the English language): THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Look up Second Amendment threads on the FR search engine to see what the Founding Fathers had to say about private firearm ownership.

The Second Amendment ain't for hunting, it's for personal protection and defense (and deterrence) from a tyrannical government. And don't give me that "It can't happen here" garbage. I'm sure the people of Weimar Germany thought it couldn't happen to them, either.

I don't think Democrats per se are traitors, genius. I think ultra liberals are the real traitors as they want open boarders to lose our national identity and turn it into meaningless soup (like our neighbors the Canadians), impose high taxes to finance social programs to lock people into an underclass; dismantle and attempt redefining of institutions such as marriage to suit a minority of people who think this will legitimize their lifestyle.

You don't get this at all, Mr. Liberal. My great grandparents, grandparents and my parents were Democrats. I WAS A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. I am ashamed to say this, but I voted for Clinton TWICE!!! (Now the Freepers will really hate me LOL) until my final year of grad school when it "sunk in" that your petty idealism was nothing more than social darwinism and a philosophy ingrained in "glass half full" rationalizing. I could have stayed a "Red Dog" Democrat like Zell Miller, but in 1998 my entire family, from parents to sister to brother in law to myself changed to the Republican Party because of how Clinton acted and how he betrayed this nation, and how his party did not tell him to do the right thing and resign. How the party led by Carville and Larry Flynt ruined Livingstone and Chenoworth by some ridiculous exposure of "hypocrisy" when it was never about adultry but lying under oath and obstructing justice. I never looked back.

As for the 2000 elections how dare you put the GOP as the heavies here when the Democrats were paying hobos and homeless to vote and bribe them with cigarettes? How about the 1996 attempt by the Democrats to get all the illegal immigrants naturalized in time for the election...even many of them with criminal records? How about the push to get FELONS in prison the right to vote? Could that be because third world immigrants and felons vote Democratic 8 to 1?

I have never been affected by the Patriot Act once. I have nothing to hide so why are you fretting, Mr Conspiracy Theory? Deficit? WE HAVE HAD A FEDERAL DEFICIT since 1837 you jackass! Has this country gone under ever? So shut the hell up!!

Perhaps Academics have helped educate the small business owners and workers that create and maintain small businesses. I am new to American politics and am trying to understand Republicans and Democrats to see where I fit in. My experience so far is that each side has admirable qualities but that they are afraid that the other will become too powerful and ruin life for everyone so there is a lot of mistrust. You are right about the attitude of the writer but how is common ground to be found? Clearly when we don't talk politics we all get along great. It seems that labels are divisive.

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.