Is This the Kind of Country That You Want?
A Letter to a Republican Friend
By Ernest Partridge Co-Editor, The Crisis
Papers
October 14, 2003
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.
Dear Whitney,
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 and authentic conservative and a liberal can hold
a great deal in common.
For example:
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 is 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.
Until now.
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?
For
consider:
-
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 is 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.
Of course,
there are 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.”
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. . History confirms Harry Truman’s
observation, “to live like a Republican, vote like a
Democrat”.
It is not difficult to understand why the
self-interest even of the wealthy is best served under Democratic
administrations. Democrats along with moderate Republicans believe
that a flourishing economy is the result of cooperative teamwork
functioning according to fair and explicit rules and regulations –
teamwork among investors, entrepreneurs, educators, researchers,
workers, and yes, government. The right wing, on the other hand, takes
a short-sighted and self-defeating view of “self-interest,” whereby
society is a jungle, a frontier, where the ruthless and self-serving
individuals are best fit to survive. Thus the liberal is more inclined
to think of morality in social terms, as justice, fairness,
compassion, tolerance, equal opportunity. The radical right
defines morality more as an inventory of individual virtues:
chastity and fidelity, sobriety, piety. (See my On Civic
Friendship and Consumer
or Citizen?).
In sum, a gang of radical
dogmatists have captured the Republican party.
Consequently,
-
This is no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln who
urged “malice toward none and charity for all.”
-
This is no longer the party of Theodore Roosevelt, who
waged political war against the “malefactors of great
wealth."
-
This is no longer the party of Dwight D. Eisenhower
who warned us of the “military-industrial complex” and who lamented
that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket
fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger
and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. “
Face it, my friend: your party has deserted you and
your fellow moderates. All worthy content has been drained from this
party, and all that remains is the empty shell with the name,
“Republican,” and the false attribution of the word
“conservative.”
If you are to take back your party, you must
paradoxically leave it for a brief season. Clearly, the moderates can
not now wrest control of the party from the radicals – certainly, not
before the 2004 election which, if Bush wins a second term, will
solidify the radical right control of our government for another
generation.
If moderate republicanism is to revive, the
radicals must be repudiated and thrown out of power next year. To
accomplish this, you and your fellow moderates must form an alliance
with the moderate Democrats – with whom, I submit, you share a
significant inventory of political ideals and policies. You differ
with these Democrats primarily in name – and “what’s in a
name?”
When I reflect upon the political landscape today, and
upon the dilemma faced by moderate Republicans such as yourself, I am
reminded of the closing scene in the magnificent war drama, “The
Bridge on the River Kwai.” Col. Nicholson (Alec Guinness), the
commander of the British prisoners of war, becomes so personally
invested in the project of building the bridge, that he forgets that
he is assisting the enemy. Seeing the explosive charges set by the
Allied saboteurs to destroy the bridge, he rushes down to the river to
save the bridge and, upon encountering the British and American
commandos, is suddenly shocked into a recognition of his authentic
loyalties and duties. “My God,” he says, “what have I
done?”
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.
Your friend and compatriot,
Ernie
Copyright 2003 by Ernest Partridge
|