The chasm between liberal socialists and conservatives

At my age, I can’t imagine anything more invigorating than a good debate to get my juices flowing. Sadly, however, in the PC generation, the word “debate” has been redefined, and there are few objective minds available to decide which point or counterpoints win the day. I should listen to the sage advice of Mark Twain when he said you should never argue with a fool, as passersby may be unable to tell the difference. I should have known “common sense” isn’t that common anymore. But I didn’t

Mr. Daniel Pritchett [“The Electoral College is not fine with me,” Letters to the Editor, Dec. 10] simply refuses to separate fact from fantasy. He tells us he knows that America is a republic but takes less than two sentences in trying to claim it’s a democratic republic. Wrong again, Mr. Pritchett. America is simply a republic based on democratic principles, not a democratic republic. Venezuela, North Korea, China, Angola, the Congo, and Yemen are examples of a “democratic republic.”

If you’d bothered to read the Jefferson papers, you’d see that the main concern of the Founding Fathers is that history had taught them that a democracy had always, without exception, led to dictatorship, anarchy and revolution, and that allowing one particular sect to dictate the actions of all would lead directly to this outcome. In Mr. Pritchett’s mind, the methodology that has sold the millennials of this country that socialism has never worked is simply because the wrong people were running it.

In his letter, he bounces like a kernel of popcorn from the historical data to imply that our government was centered around their obsession of practicing racism, sexism, and any of the other adjectives the liberal party has invented to slander conservatives. He simply cannot fathom people of nearly three centuries ago being wiser to the birth of ideas he and those who agree with him would promote.

Yes, I voted for Donald Trump. And I actually have no qualms about more than half of Delawareans voting for Hillary Clinton. The problem I actually have is that the people who voted for her are part of the problem facing all taxpayers in the state whereby they had the most to lose if she didn’t win. I do detest, however, rewriting the Constitution simply to assuage the desires of those who’d stoop to stuffing ballot boxes and using the names of dead people to achieve their ends. Still, I understood the rules when the game started and I insisted that though I may not like the results, the rules weren’t the issue. As I said in my letter, that’s emblematic of how the Electoral College worked. I can only presume that Mr. Pritchett would have had no problems with the rules if Clinton had won nationally. In fact, all the liberal socialists never had an issue with the Electoral College as long as their candidates won. Certainly not in the last two elections, as they even posted handy slogans of “We won. Get over it.” Isn’t it ironic how the worm turned?

No, Mr. Pritchett, I don’t “think” you’re a socialist. I recall other comments in other letters heralding your “progressive” viewpoints. “Progressive” is just a redefinition of liberal, socialist, and Democratic Party ideals. You can’t change the spots on a leopard.

I am a bit surprised that I didn’t hear the buzzwords that the Constitution is “a living document.” I would urge all of you to watch for this catchphrase implying that since it’s “alive,” then, modifying it is incumbent upon us. Thirty years before our Constitution was written, the Rules of Golf were penned, and in that 242 years, moving your golf ball still incurs a penalty. Eliminating a part of the document that made this country great must be maintained with the same vigor, and politicians who disavow their oaths to protect and defend it are simply liars who should not be trusted.

And yes, Mr. Pritchett, I do worry about socialism and those who would advance it. I believe I was born with certain inalienable rights and that those who support it are enemies of those beliefs. I support and believe in your equal rights, but we differ in our beliefs that they stop at the end of your nose. In world history, no government has ever had the removal of those basic rights to succeed, and to think otherwise is simple lunacy.

George Roof


Facebook Comment