Hi 23° | Lo 8°

Letter: A display of liberal ignorance

Fred DiFronzo’s recent letter to the editor “What it means to vote for the Republican Party” (Monitor letter, April 18) is just another example of how Democrats think, and how extreme and far from reality progressives and liberals are.

DiFronzo suggests that Republicans are against the environment, the poor, Social Security and Medicare, all social programs and the minimum wage, and in favor of unlimited war.

Those suggestions are far from reality, but they represent the mind-set of so many Democrats, progressives and liberals.

More disturbing were some of the comments in the Forum section from readers.

Those who preach tolerance, inclusion and diversity are the same people who fail to practice those same principles. To stereotype an entire group as “bigots, racists, homophobes and misogynists” is not only ignorant, but it speaks to the character and demeanor of those who describe their fellow citizens in that vein.

To liken Republicans to Nazis is so repugnant that it reveals a political agenda aimed at ends justifying the means.

DiFronzo’s letter and the comments following it, demonstrate why there is such a divide in this country. With people who think like that, why would anyone vote for a Democrat.



Legacy Comments16

Given that this poster in his on-line comments thinks that global warming is a hoax designed to enslave the masses, espouses an energy policy that he has summed up in Palinesque terms as "Drill here, drill now", attacks unions at every opportunity, denied there is any reason to raise the minimum wage, has suggested foreign policy moves that would quickly lead to a shooting war, and has suggested that "birthers" have legitimacy, one wonders: what has Mr. Bunker to complain about really? His letter is a rhetorical echo of those from Democrats, but with little substance. The GOP has been hijacked by the far-right, composed of equal parts Neo-cons vying for power with right-wing libertarians and biblical literalists. Letter-writer: heal thyself.

Sir, I agree with you regarding Neo-cons and Biblical Literalists. Please do describe for us "Libertarians vying for power". I simply am most interested in the nature of your reply. Thanks!

He may have been referring to the Koch Brothers who are buying America state by state since they couldn't win by running for President as Libertarians in 1980,

The Koch brothers are, or profess to be, libertarian. Their deep pockets fund all manner of libertarian "think tanks" and publications: Cato Institute, Mercatus Institute at George Mason University, and Reason Magazine.

don't forget the hundreds of Colleges, Hospitals and our own Bartlett Center. HEADLINE: Koch Brother Donates Money to Hospital, Liberals Protest ...

Given that the combined wealth of the 2 older brothers is somewhere north of $70 billion, it would be surprising if they weren't major donors to charitable organizations. The Josiah Bartlett Center is different, however, and should be seen as a lesser version of Cato or Mercatus. From the center's mission statement: "The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan, independent think tank focused on state and local public policy issues that affect the quality of life for New Hampshire’s citizens. The Center has as its core beliefs individual freedom and responsibility, limited and accountable government, and an appreciation of the role of the free enterprise system. The Center seeks to promote policy that supports these beliefs by providing information, research, and analysis."

And your problem with this mission is??? "The Center has as its core beliefs individual freedom and responsibility, limited and accountable government, and an appreciation of the role of the free enterprise system"

There’s nothing wrong with that, but don’t confuse the Bartlett Center with hospitals, art galleries, or the ballet. The Bartlett Center’s mission statement is not unlike that of another “think tank” that has received Koch money, the Heartland Institute. Heartland says: “Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” Well and good. Except that in service of that claim, Heartland routinely distorts the facts on a wide number of issues. As for both think tanks’ stated preference for “free market solutions”, the evidence from economics that laissez faire capitalism is the answer to very many problems is notably absent. Nor is free market capitalism enshrined in the Constitution as some would claim. We have evolved a mixed economy with both public and private ventures, and strong regulations (stronger at some times than others, alas) as have all the other advanced democracies. Adam Smith was only the first to warn against blind adherence to laissez-faire capitalist doctrines. 20th century giant JM Keynes wrote of capitalism in its pure form, that it’s “the extraordinary notion that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of notions will somehow work for the benefit of us all.” You may place your faith in such a doctrine, but it’s a blind faith, not one based on facts or historical experience. Oligarchs like the Kochs now wield extraordinary power with the capacity to undermine democracy with their "think tanks" and lobbying efforts. Overly expansive claims of laissez-faire capitalism, and its modern iteration, libertarianism, are only expressions of and justifications for human greed. And contrary to the Kochs, Ayn Rand, and their acolytes, I don’t believe that is the principal motivation for human behavior, and I wouldn't wish to live anywhere that it was. I don't think anybody really does.

Bruce...I think you have accurately characterized Mr. Bunker. What I find interesting is how after the Republican Party lured the Tea Party to join, they found that the TP'ers had absolutely NO interest in 'discussing and negotiating', it was 'my way or the highway'. The 2012 elections have reduced the TP presence in the House, but Boehner still has 18 that won't consider anything conciliatory. One can only hope that the Palinesque Tea Partiers will be voted out and reasonable politicians elected.

Thanks! Let's hope the Democrats can energize enough voters to counter the Faux-poisoned, Koch-powered minions the right will have whipped into a frenzy for the mid-term elections. Unless the D's have some issues they feel strongly about, irrationality may prevail as it did in 2010 in NH and in Congress. If the GOP manages to take the Senate, the final 2 years of the Obama admin may be rocky ones. But on the bright side, two years of O'Brien style craziness at the national level might be enough to assure a Democratic landslide in 2016.

Why, Mr. Bunker, would any thinking person take the remarks of one person and assume they represent the beliefs of an entire political party, whether Democrat or Republican? Your letter was one of your more reasonable, until you got to the end and ended up sounding like the person you were railing against.


Mr. Bunker, I suggest you take the time to read ex speaker O'Briens' remarks to his fellow Conservatives when he won his award. Those "enemies" he speaks of are not Russians or Al Qaeda they are his fellow citizens, Democrats, Or maybe you should read the letter to the Monitor on Friday by a Mr. Jursik, calling Terri Norelli a "functioning ignoramus". Maybe when Republicans start changing your rhetoric, I will be able to take your outrage a little more seriously.

I read that letter not as a condemnation of all (or even most) Republicans. I read it as a wake-up call to Republicans about how far to the right their leadership has drifted (or been dragged). It was a call to the rank-and-file Republican to take back their party and return to a more reasonable approach to governing.

there are numerous polls that disprove your statement - It is indeed the radical left liberal progressive socialists democrats (or whatever the choose to call themselves these days) that are way out of the mainstream. A reasonable approach to governing is a return to the constitution and not some big govt utopia the democrats push.

So just what party does Heir O'Brien represent. Curious about your answer. I belive the original post in question was probably referring to those on the right that post here, I can't remember the last mainstream GOP comment I have seen posted here. Some looking at these comments and using that experience as baseline would no wonder jump to his conclusions. Where you and I differ is that I don't think either extreme is capable of governing responsibly and we need each other so we can meet in the middle. I don't think liberals are always right, you however take the rights view as gospel. Given the choice of a label, I would take progressive over the opposite (regressive) any day. As for Mr.Bunker, that comment on stereotypes was rich, this from a group that regularly uses the term Real Americans as if those that disagree are any less. Nice try tho.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.