New party needed
Once, conservatism was a respectable intellectual position. People like Everett Dirksen, Margaret Chase Smith, and Robert Taft had thoughtful principles and a rational approach to governance. Conservatism sought to conserve the best of the past while moving with due caution into the future.
Unfortunately, today’s “conservatives” have almost nothing in common with the old conservatives. Today’s self-styled conservatives take pride in ignoring truth, fabricating impossible stories, and using violence to achieve their ends. They worship Donald Trump, who continually expresses contempt for democratic processes and ideals, and whose favorite foreign leaders are brutal dictators.
It’s past time to resurrect true conservatism. We must take back the political stage from liars, bigots, and fools, and return it to responsible people respectful of our democratic heritage, holding a reasonable vision for an America embracing all races, sects and sexual orientations.
It’s time for a new party.
Twice before, the right-wing party has lost its grip on the public and been replaced by one with a more appealing vision. The Federalists ran their last candidate in 1816; by 1824 the National Republicans (later Whigs) had replaced them. The Whigs disappeared after 1852, and in 1860, the new Republican party had its first president, Abraham Lincoln.
The party of Lincoln, favoring an end to slavery, a strong central government and federal support for infrastructure programs like roads, has disappeared. In its place is a racist rabble, denying truth, despising democracy and resorting to violence to block the people’s will.
Trump and minions like Ted Cruz, Matt Gaetz and Louis Gohmert have so soiled our political landscape that it will take decades to cleanse it.
But we must start! I think the best beginning is to create a new conservative party. Leaders like Lisa Murkowski, Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney deserve to be seen as true conservatives, distinct from ravings of Trump and his apologists.
The new party could be called the National Party — rhymes with “rational.”
HTH ‘quite neutral’
This is a response to the recent letters by Julie Inman and Patricia Enoka.
I have been reading the Tribune-Herald almost daily for the past 15 years. I also access news from multiple sources, some with an identifiable “liberal” or “conservative” slant. I have found their reporting quite neutral and factually based.
On the rare occasion of an error, they have published a retraction or a correction. That is important to me. If a friend of mine tells me something that is factually incorrect and subsequently amends their assertion because they discovered evidence to the contrary, they were simply mistaken. Yet, if they double down and continue to claim that their initial assertion was true in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, they are a liar. I have no place in my mind, my heart or my life for them.
I find congruence with many op-ed pieces published in the Tribune-Herald. On the other hand, yes, I find many distasteful, yet we must come to terms with a level of emotional intelligence that allows us to make intelligent choices.
Personally, I like Will Smith, yet I would never ask the Tribune-Herald to suppress Cal Thomas. I enjoy the writings of Robert Reich, but would never advocate to silence Dana Milbank.
We don’t always get what we want, and that’s especially true with newspapers. If you have a specific gripe with a specific point, then please bring it to light in this forum.
Broad-based claims of “fake news” discredit your position.