|
|
Political |
|
|
|
A while ago, I was asked to define the
phrase “Right Wing Conservative.” For months, I thought about the
definition I wanted to formulate. After months of thought, I was
encountered with an email exchange demonstrating the mentality, thought
processes, views and rigidity of those who consider themselves a part of
the right wing conservative movement. Recently, I wrote a piece on the Texas
Legislature, and the Republican efforts to “ramrod” redistricting
through the Legislature. The Republicans were giving the themselves an
advantage through a patently biased redistricting plan. Republicans had
not controlled the Texas Legislature in 119 years. Because of the
Republican efforts, the Democrats left the state thwarting the
redistricting plan. After writing the piece, I received the following
email: “I have one question, in the 119 years
democrats controlled the legislature how often did they compromise? I
would have done the same thing in Texas if I had gained control for the
first time… What would happen to our country if our Reps. and Senators
in Washington decided to do this kind of childish prank. Democrats are
sore losers. They have yet to get over the Presidential election yet.
Even after the mid-term elections when they lost the senate, they whine
and complain. Democrats are out of step with mainstream America, this
once proud party is home to liberals, gays, and former KKK members, AKA
Robert Byrd. This party is a minority in this country now and I hope it
stays that way. The majority rules that is how we tell if Democracy
wins.” I read the response to my column with interest.
I made the conclusion that the author was a Right Wing Republican,
particularly when I read the last sentence of his email “Democrats are
out of step with main stream America, this once proud party is home to
liberals, gays, and former KKK members, AKA Robert Byrd” After thinking about the email, I responded to
the question of “in the 119 years democrats controlled the
legislature, how often did they compromise?” My answer to the question
is contained in the article I wrote, which stated "But what about
the Democrats? Was their defection a stand for Democracy, or was it a
realization that they were going to lose? Was the defection an action
designed to thwart the Democratic process? How many times, while
Democrats were in control, did they ramrod legislation through the Texas
Legislature?” I cited this quote to the reader, a quote I
believe answered his question. I, thereafter, asked the reader to
consider the other statement I made in my article: "Now
that the shoe is on the other foot, can we truly say Democrats defended
Democracy, or are they now “sore losers”?" I informed the reader that my piece clearly asks
how many times the Democrats ramrodded legislation. I further asked him,
“Hum, could you be a Republican reading through partisan eyes? Or, is
it that you just missed this sentence…doesn't my statement asking how
many times the Democrats ramrodded legislation answer your
question?????” The reader never responded to these questions or quotes
in the article. In addressing my views about the Texas
Legislature, this reader also addressed the issue of majority rules. In
addressing the issue, he stated
“The majority rules that is how we tell if Democracy wins.”
I addressed the reader’s assertion that
majority rules as follows: “Hum, if the majority rules, Al Gore
would be President, he won the majority vote. President Bush won the
electoral vote—he did not win because he got the majority of the vote
by the people. If majority rules, then we abandon the electoral vote and
we put in the person who is elected by the majority. Food for
thought.” A few days later, I received a response from the
same reader. The reader wrote: “If you look at the majority of
the population Bush won more of the country than Gore did. The popular
vote is biased because of the giant liberal strong holds in a few major
cities. I still believe a majority of the nation is Bush country and it
is proven if you ever saw a county by county map of the country, Al Gore
one very few areas, but it just so happens that Bush won a majority of
the counties. Gore couldn't even carry his own state.” The reader blindly follows a certain political
thought. Majority rules is not defined as who won more states or
more counties, it is defined by the total number of votes. The
reader refuses to accept a simple fact—500,000 more people voted for
Gore than Bush. If the reader’s assertion that majority rules is
correct, we must ignore the Electoral College and elect the President by
the majority—in which case Mr. Gore won. The thought process displayed by this reader
demonstrates an extremist view, a view jaded by political ideology, a
view that refuses to accept facts. This rigid view of the world
shifts blame, it twists fact into fiction, it believes that there is
only one view—the conservative view. This email exchange shows the essence of the
right wing conservative thought process. I wonder if the reader will accept the following
as true: If President Bush is a candidate in 2004, and he wins the
election by 500,000 votes but his opposition wins the Electoral College,
did majority rule? I expect that this reader would be one of the
strongest voices in opposition to the Electoral College, demanding that
George Bush continue as our President. If this happens, I
certainly would have the same view—Bush won the majority, and if
majority rules he should be President. The email exchange I had with this reader
demonstrates how the right wing movement operates, and how they
think--rigidly. Enough said. Stuart James Sjames139@comcast.net
|
