Posted on 07/28/2004 7:39:58 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
The following letter appeared in my local newspaper today, and I suspect that similar letters have appeared in newspapers across the nation. I will try to answer these points.
First the letter:
Dear Editor:
1. I would like to know why ''liberal'' is a negative word. I am a registered Democrat, vote, and try to lead a good life.
2. I believe that I should help my fellow citizens whenever I can.
3. I believe that I don’t have the right to tell you how to believe. I support other people's rights to free speech, choice, and beliefs.
4. I believe that patriotism does not mean blind faith and I exercise my right every day to question and disagree.
5. I want to save our environment and protect our resources.
6. I think everyone in this country should have guaranteed basic health care; it is the least we can provide as a country.
7. I believe we have every right to defend our country but we must have honesty and a clear understanding of why we would put people in harm's way before flexing our strength.
Why is this bad? Why am I labeled pessimistic? I am optimistic that if we make a change now and restore our credibility and honor we will continue to be a country of hope. I am a Democrat and I am progressive and ''liberal'' and proud to be.
***
Counteracting these reasons step by step:
1. Conservatives also try to live a good life.
2. Conservatives also help their fellow citizens whenever they can.
3. Conservatives respect free speech, too, but not when it is treasonous and when it might cause us to lose a war or American lives. Many liberals are willing to put American troops in harm's way by aiding and abetting those who would attack us.
4. The same is true about patriotism. Encouraging our enemies by publicly declaring that our president and commander-in-chief is wrong and that he has lied to us is not only false, but such a lie gives hope to the terrorists that America is weak and will capitulate quickly if attacked sufficiently.
5. Conservatives want to save our resources and environment, too, but not fall for junk science that ends up killing millions of people or destroys our nation as a result! Congress voted against the Kyoto treaty because it would destroy America's economy. Walter Williams, world famous economist, and former economics department chairman at George Mason University, has written how liberal environmentalists banned DDT, after Rachel Carson's 1962 book, ''Silent Spring,'' only to find out now that their arguments at that time have been scientifically refuted and, as a result, millions of people are being killed again by a return to malaria and other diseases due to the loss of DDT. DDT actually saves lives at a low cost. There are other chemicals now that might help, but their costs are prohibitive in the poor countries of South America and Africa. Junk science continues to kill poor people around the world because of faulty environmentalist reports created by liberals.
6. Guaranteed health care has been tried in Canada and other countries by using the money created by people who have worked hard and having government redistribute it evenly to those who were not willing to work as hard. Unfortunately, sick people now have to wait for months to be taken care of, due to the demand for free health care. Some die while waiting. Generally people who do work hard to accomplish things lose their incentive to do so when those who do nothing get the same thing for free.
7. Conservatives believe, when a number of innocent American women, men, and children are slaughtered on American soil without any reason by terrorists who hate all ''infidels,'' that waiting to see if more Americans will be murdered in the future before we act is wrong and dangerous. We need to take preemptive action on those who will feed, finance and fuel future attacks as Saddam was doing! To do nothing is a sign of weakness that will only invite terrorists to kill millions of Americans the next time! Do we really want to spend time studying while Americans are being killed on our subways, trains or planes?
Why is liberalism bad, the writer asks? Perhaps, it is because the word has changed its meaning in the past decades, as testified by Ronald Reagan, Bill Bennett, and Zell Miller. Do we need more innocent Americans killed, more Americans to lose their incentive to work, more government taxation to take money from our purses or wallets to give to politicians so that they can buy votes with freebies for all who will vote for the new definition of liberal values, thus putting more Socialists into office? I don't think so.
About the Writer: Lee Ellis is a retired journalist who formerly worked for CBS and USA Today. He resides in Indio, California, where he write op-eds that appear in several local newspapers. Lee receives e-mail at indiolee@dc.rr.com.
What planet has this doofus been on?
Second, it's a mental disorder!
If you don't try to take away the freedom of others and finance your agenda with the money of others, it wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately, that's exactly what liberals do when they get elected.
In 1945 a liberal was to the right of socialist. Today the liberal and socialist occupy the same slot. I dare say that today liberal politicians and their friends are getting rich off socialist government programs. Duh?
" I would like to know why ''liberal'' is a negative word."
Would you rather we call you socialist/marxist anti-American person? Alright then, you are a liberal.
IMO .... 2004 Liberal = Socialist edging on Communist = people who wish everyone to be equal execpt for themselves who wish to be more equal than the others
The term 'Liberal' was once a good word to describe what the Conservative party and people really were. That word has been corrupted by the Democrat party is associated with communism and socialism which kills and destroys people and nations.
"Liberal" has become a dirty word for the same reasons that "diversity" has... because it's been consistently used as a euphemism for humanity-destroying socialism.
I consider a "progressive" to be much worse than a "liberal". To me, a "progressive" is a flaming Communist.
Time to go to work on that word. "Gee, Mr. Lib, why do you call yourself progressive? Isn't that the description of an untreated cancer?"
Actually, I think a premise of teh original point is wrong. When did we sacrifice hope? We as a people are among the most optimistic and forward looking people in the globe.
Reminds me of Churchill's comments re Chamberlain that he had faced a choice between War and Dishonor, had chosen Dishonor, and would get War.
BINGO!
progressive compared to what?
It's a negative word to me because I've met and talked with liberals.
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.