Letters to the Editor for Sunday, August 31, 2008

Published: August 30, 2008

Writer: Give me a big-government liberal any day
The News & Advance’s recent series of editorials disparaging Barack Obama has not been surprising in terms of your opposition to his positions or proposals. What has been surprising is your regular efforts to discredit and impugn the man.

Click to send

Might the reason for this be that you, along with millions of other Americans, cannot bear to vote for a Black American candidate for president?

Or, on the other hand, might it be that he is the first presidential candidate in many, many years who can truly and honestly identify with the majority of us, average Americans? We don’t have annual incomes in excess of $5 million. We don’t own seven or eight residences. And we don’t move around a state or the country in our own private jet. Perhaps John McCain’s campaign is correct in calling us a nation of whiners because, let’s face it, the majority of Americans find themselves in quite deplorable conditions.

In the Aug. 22 editorial, you reference that most despicable and hated term: a big-government liberal, who is more abhorrent than the worst agent of genocide and who leads us to a fate worse than death.

In disparaging a liberal big government, are you thereby supporting a conservative big government?

I, for one, would prefer the former over the latter any day.

I welcome the advances that have resulted for world peace and security due to the Marshall Plan and the United Nations on the international scene. On the domestic front, it is obvious that our country is much better off as a result of Social Security, Medicare, the Interstate highway system, national education standards and some protections, although now greatly diminished, from environmental and occupational hazards as well as for us consumers.

Liberal big government is not perfect by any means. However, despite failures and imperfections, at least it is based on the view that government should exist for the betterment of society in general together with the majority of its individual members, without regard to race, ethnicity, or economic status.

On the other hand, conservative big government has demonstrated time after time that its constituents are only the extremely wealthy, both individuals and corporations. It offers the ownership society, which means that individuals should have carte blanche to amass as much wealth as possible even if it involves the exploitation of individuals. Each person is on his or her own; there is no safety net. Sorry buddy, but that’s how it is.

Conservative big government, as manifested by the Bush and soon-to-be McCain administrations, believes that it is acceptable and appropriate to run up huge budget deficits that do not result in any improvements in the quality of life for citizens; instead, the deficits should finance more tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy. With conservative big government, we can’t afford to repair our crumbling infrastructure (let’s have more bridge collapses and flooding resulting in massive losses of life and property), the richest country in the world can’t afford universal health insurance because the insurance companies and drug manufacturers don’t want it and, of course, the wealthy don’t need it.

However, one has to admit that conservative big government has shown itself to be quite effective and successful in robbing us of our civil rights by spying on us, monitoring our communications, telling us what decisions we should make in our personal lives and our homes, keeping records of what we read or watch, and treating women, minorities, and gays, among others, as second class citizens or worse. Accountability, if it exists at all, extends only to those special interests conservative big government serves.

In many respects, conservative big government resembles the oppressive communist East European governments of the cold war.

Four more years. After McCain’s term, however, the tables will turn, in that conservative big government Republicans will be on the other end of the stick due to the demographic change in which Anglo-Saxon whites will no longer be the dominant group numerically. With this tidal wave of change, we must strive to resist and repel all efforts to prevent citizens from registering to vote and from voting. Exercising the right to vote may be our only salvation.
CHRIS MILLSON-MARTULA
Altavista

But is he qualified?
I think this means there’s been progress. We have a party that fought so hard against basic civil rights legislation now offering their presidential nomination to a black man.

There’s still work to be done, though. Blacks still don’t have the freedom in this society to advocate Republican ideas without being ostracized, criticized, insulted and labeled (as are Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Ken Hamblin and Larry Elder).

As a white man, I even risk charges of racism for daring to suggest simply that a black man may currently be unqualified for the office of the presidency.

Regardless, it used to be that blacks had to be twice as good as whites to get some jobs or even be considered for them. Today we officially have a Democratic nominee who is certainly better at giving speeches than any white politician who comes to mind.

Questions remain, though. He can inspire, but can he lead? Does rhetorical skill often equate to executive ability? Is giving him the presidency where we should find out?
MIKE COBB
Lynchburg