Letters to the editor
Sound and fury
Generally speaking, when writing a letter in response to an editorial, it’s not a good idea to insult the editor. First, because the letter probably won’t be printed, and second because the purpose of writing – to win hearts and minds to a particular viewpoint – becomes a lost cause.
But I’m going to blow it, because the editorial “Army can’t hold this tide,” by Don Rogers, is the most arrogant, elitist, snobbish, smarmy, knee-jerk, shallow, least-informed collection of words that I’ve ever seen.
Comparing regulation of our national borders to “Dr. Strangelove”-type plans for H-bombs is disingenuous and offensive as hell!
Lest we forget, Dwight Eisenhower, who fought in a war that was ended by use of an A-bomb, also deported illegal aliens from our nation. So it has been done and can be done again.
But putting offensive verbiage and history aside, citing the Wall Street Journal as an authority on immigration is like asking PETA for a BB-Q Spareribs recipe. The WSJ is notoriously open-border, cheap-labor who worships the bottom line like all elites – for example, people who live in ski resorts far from the chaos created by a 40-year wave of poverty-stricken humanity in the lowlands of California.
The Los Angeles Times, which is the left’s open-borders mouthpiece, has had its “Road to Damascus” moment and actually ran a story last Sunday that paints a picture you won’t soon forget: “Infinite Ingress – A Human Wave Is Breaking Over California. It’s Flooding the Freeways and Schools. It’s Bloating the Cost of Housing. It’s Disrupting Power and Water Supplies. Ignoring Reality Hasn’t Worked.”
There is no single magic-potion cure for illegal in-migration. But throwing in the towel and saying that it’s too big for us to stop betrays our “can do” heritage that has tamed challenges far greater than protecting our borders.
Who needs parties?
It often occurs to me that our two political parties do lots of harm, while they contribute very little toward good government.
Both parties employ the kind of tactics and rhetoric that has been a factor in turning off half of our eligible voters. Two examples were the recent squabbles over redistricting here in Colorado and in Texas. The ugliness that resulted was disgraceful and it was caused by a political party seeking power.
Whatever the rationale was, many of us were appalled by the lack of civility, and I dare say that it discouraged some eligible voters from participating in the next election. Dirty party politics is not the only reason, but it is one of the major causes of voter apathy.
The end result of this apathy is that 50 percent of us are totally turned off and officials then get elected by 20 percent to 25 percent of those eligible to vote. That’s a pretty disgraceful performance for any democracy.
Then too, a party affiliation invites us to be lazy. Rather than honestly evaluating the virtues of each candidate, we tend to vote for (and re-elect) the nominee of our party.
Before voting, we should be evaluating individuals based on their records and their personal platforms. As to re-elections, during the last general election, of 435 congressmen, only eight incumbents were defeated and four of those were by other incumbents. That doesn’t indicate that we really pay much attention to the performance of our elected officials. We might do that, if they didn’t have a party affiliation – be it Democrat or Republican.
Also, if our elected officials were not associated with and somewhat beholden to a political party, they would be far more likely to form a staff of the very best. They would not be under pressure to consider party loyalty as an important factor as they chose their advisers. They would be better served and it would also be far more likely that they would represent all of their constituents rather than only those who voted for the party.
Then, too, after being elected, each official is under great pressure to vote the party line rather than making thoughtful decisions. That most certainly prevents civil discussion and an honest exchange of ideas. Instead, it ensures considerable rancor within our governmental bodies.
Now our political parties have included in their platforms all sorts of issues that have social and religious implications. Why should divisive subjects such as abortion and gay rights be identified with political parties? Why shouldn’t our representatives in government be free to consider them regardless of political affiliation?
Political parties have really intruded into the most private convictions of our elected officials and all of us. Furthermore, they take extreme positions on these very divisive issues and they demonstrate little interest in compromise. These issues beg for thoughtful consideration before being intelligently resolved.
The electoral process (without political parties) would be quite simple. To be on the ballot, candidates would be required to have X number of signatures on a petition and would run on their record and their PERSONAL platform. There might be run-offs between the two candidates who receive the most votes.
We citizens would become more knowledgeable about our candidates and our elected representatives; many more of us would become participants in our democracy; our governing bodies would behave with a greater degree of maturity; and we would be rewarded with much wiser legislation.
David Le Vine