2009-07-10 / Letters

Dismissing The Republican Party

Dear Editor,

I must congratulate Joseph O'Malley for his open-mindedness. I'm glad he can now admit that the Republican party has been ".... a forceful advocate for equality" and that aside from those pesky hundred years of obstructing civil rights progress between 1860 and 1960 the Democratic Party; "...from that point on... became the party of racial equality." I guess his previous statement that the "... GOP has a disgraceful track record" doesn't quite pass the test of historical fact after all. He reminds me of a magician attempting to pull a rabbit out of a hat while the uncooperative rabbit is busy running off stage left...and for my next trick, I will make the rabbit disappear....ba dum bump...the audience laughing nervously.

Still, despite all manner of reasoned argument and debate, aside from the overwhelming factual evidence and historical documentation I have provided, he steadfastly holds on to his bitterness at the Republican Party which seems to simultaneously enrage and enthrall him. In fact, his zeal in condemning and accusing half of the nation's electorate for all manner of sin, is only matched by the hypocrisy and unwitting inconsistency inherent in his words. At the risk of tiring the readership of The Wave, I'll respond to the numerous unsupported assertions and hasty generalizations expounded by our mutual friend.

Regarding Social Security Mr. O'Malley states, "… instead of drawing benefits at 65 they should begin to take them at 70." That's great, so the answer to the impending bankruptcy of this system is to make seniors work for five more years. Perhaps if you live to 95. But what if you are a Black American or a Native American and your life expectancy is closer to 71? You get to work for 50 years, pay taxes into Social Security and in the end, your reward is just enough for a funeral and a shiny casket on the way out. That's the best idea from the party of racial equality? He also inaccurately portrayed President Bush's proposal on partial privatization of Social Security as applying to today's seniors when in fact what Bush was proposing was a voluntary and gradual inclusion of Social Security taxes into stock and bond markets, thereby benefiting from the historically larger rate of return of these investments. This was specifically geared towards today's 20 and 30 year-olds who don't have a chance of collecting social security at today's rate of depletion and taxation. Of course, if you are against free market capitalism as the driving force for American prosperity, this proposal is moot.

On World War I, he states, "[the war]...was fought to protect American military and economic interests in Europe." In fact, WWI was fought because a Serbian national assassinated Archduke Ferdinand which led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia igniting a slew of war treaties and secret alliances which then drew in Russia, France, Germany, Italy, England, the Ottoman Turks, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and so on until the war was raging across Europe into Africa and Asia and even the south Pacific and Atlantic. Wilson was elected to a second term because he managed to keep the US out of the war.

Eventually however, his Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned because of what he felt was Wilson's "warmongering." The US was finally dragged into the war in 1918 and suffered over 300,000 casualties including 100,000 deaths in that last year of the war, setting the stage for WWII, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperialist Japan and Communist Russia. Yeah, I would call that one big mess Mr. O'Malley.

On Woodrow Wilson he has this fawning description: "...the great champion of human rights and selfdetermination." Well I guess you missed the chapter where Woodrow Wilson, a Southern Democrat, as President of Princeton University actively fought against integration of that University, the only major northeastern university to do so. Next, as President of the United States he proceeded to re-segregate the government. Mission accomplished, as the Democrats so often like to paraphrase.

On Republican social values he says, "...their positions on other social or values issues will make you cringe." I am left to wonder what exactly he has against the values and traditions of observant Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, Orthodox/Conservative Jews, Muslims and Hindus who have religious views in respectful opposition to the progressive left? Where is the freedom of religious

Letters expression? Perhaps that only applies to left wing religious expression. If an elderly nun's faith and piety makes you cringe, I hate to think what you would say about Mother Teresa.

On the abortion issue he states, "...actually, according to most scientists fetuses don't even perceive pain until the 26th week of pregnancy..." am sure this will be comforting news to all involved. That line says it all in a nutshell. But as if to further emphasize the hypocrisy, he proclaims a few lines later, "...the Democratic Party stands for the rights of all."

Next, on the Second Amendment issue, the right to bear arms, he states; "...[the Republican Party] has been bought lock, stock and barrel by the NRA." I say, take it up with the Supreme Court which last year ruled decidedly in favor of a citizen's right to bear arms with the States regulating their distribution. A win for the people against an over-reaching federal government and left wing which sought to redefine the Second Amendment in more narrow terms (for citizen's militias only). The Second Amendment ensures and protects all others. For a primer on this concept, see the recent headlines on the massacre of Iranian activists by fascist mullahs. Iran would be a democracy today if they had a Second Amendment.

Finally, he ends his argument with the odd statement that he is "...a partisan and damned proud of it... The Republican Party is a grotesque institution.... and I pray for its destruction." Where does one even begin? With the fact that he prays for a nation with no opposition? Sounds suspiciously like Ahmadinejad in Iran who is busy "praying" while his thugs are beating down and executing the not so faithful. What is evident here is a complete lack of respect for opposition, an intolerance bordering on hatred and an ideological rigidity that is the breeding ground for fascism.

I will continue to point this out, if it takes all summer to do so, for at best Mr. O'Malley's missives are nothing more than vanity masquerading as righteous indignation and at worst a chilling glimpse of an increasingly polarized nation which must be called out for what it is.

HAROLD PAEZ

Return to top


Email Us
Contact Us

Copyright 1999 - 2014 Wave Publishing Co. All Rights Reserved

Neighborhoods | History