I received some Republican Party literature in the mail, appealing for money and giving the reasons why. It surprised me to learn that they dared describe the President of the United States of America in such a disrespectful and even disgraceful way! Growing up, I learned that Americans respect the presidency and president even if there are disagreements as to policy. He is the head of the most democratic nation on earth; how we behave ourselves within our democracy speaks volumes as to the moral character of our people and our system of government.
In the Republican literature I received, they referred to the president as radical and left-wing, an unwarranted exaggeration at best and an outright fabrication at worst. Let us see what these words mean, shall we?
Anyone familiar with politics knows that there is a spectrum of views in our nation (and in the world) that can be described as moderate, left-wing, or right-wing. “Left-wing” has always meant that part of the political spectrum occupied by the communists and socialists. For them, reforms under capitalism may be helpful to the working class but such reforms do not go far enough; fundamental change to an exploitative economic system is required. By definition, the Left believes socialism can and should replace capitalism and that the capitalist class is a largely unnecessary and parasitic class. Private property involving great wealth should be reduced or eliminated.
Furthermore, instead of a free market system, the socialist economy depends on government-controlled industries with pre-determined production quotas. Instead of a two-party system, one party suffices; instead of a plurality of religions, there is an ideological attack on all religions as a bulwark of reactionary social institutions, along with efforts to replace religious belief with scientific and atheistic thinking. These summaries are based on both left-wing theory in the abstract as well as actual historical situations.
That is left-wing politicking in a nutshell. The Russian Revolution of 1917 ushered in the first socialist revolution of the 20th century, followed by others. In America, there have been several socialist parties (Communist Party USA, Socialist Workers Party, etc.) and these parties comprise the left-wing of the political spectrum in the U.S. Neither of the two major political parties, Republican or Democrat, is identified with them in the slightest.
There are, of course, differences among these various left-wing parties. They are not all the same and indeed may have serious ideological differences between them, as well as internal divisions of opinion. Yet in general, all left-wing ideologies involve the above concepts in one form or another.
The president, on the other hand, has stated repeatedly his belief in capitalism, the free market system, and competition. All of his statements and actions bear out the sincerity of these beliefs. For the Republican Party literary pundits to attack him as “left-wing” is nothing short of scurrilous and slanderous in the extreme. What a paucity of ideas must exist in this party’s own platform if its leaders must stoop to such deplorable tactics as “The Big Lie”: the bigger the lie, the more often it is repeated, the better the chances of fooling people into believing it—a piece of Nazi propaganda created during Hitler’s reign of terror as undisputed “fuhrer” of Nazi Germany.
This is the same Republican Party which, actively or passively, tolerated the ignorance and bias of individuals who repeatedly questioned whether the president was even an American or Christian. It has long been established beyond all doubt that the president was born in Hawaii and therefore an American citizen by birth, but certain Republicans still tried to cast doubt on that fact. The president produced his birth certificate and even that wasn’t good enough! Why? Because it was the “short form”!
Yet any American citizen who needs a birth certificate to acquire a passport, (as the author did) immediately learns that the short form became official a number of years ago. And what of the ignorance of this change on the part of Republicans? Do Congressmen and Senators not know of rules governing official birth certificates? As elected representatives and law-makers, are they not expected to keep up with the laws they themselves have passed?
Although the point was never in doubt regarding the legality of the short form birth certificate, nevertheless the unwarranted mean-spirited sniping continued unabated. Ultimately, the older “long form” of the president’s birth certificate was also made public, again confirming every detail! (along with newspaper accounts of his birth, interviews with nurses and doctors in the hospital where he was born, etc.)
That pretty much quieted “the big lie” down for awhile although now and again a belated, pitiful, insipid, whiny little noise is heard as some idiotic conscienceless charlatan tries to reinvigorate the slander once more, to no avail. Think of the state of politics in America! There was never any validity to this false accusation in the first place and yet look how far some Republicans were willing to go to try and make something out of nothing!
None of this showed a modicum of political honesty and fair-dealing, nor did it show the respect due the president as the leader of the Free World. Likewise, individuals within the Republican Party accused the president of being a Muslim even though they knew that was a lie as well! His father was from Kenya where there are Muslims but his father was never an active part of the president’s life. The president was raised by his mother, along with support from her parents, and he attended Christian churches throughout his life, as he still does.
We should recognize the real reason why certain Republicans wished to push this falsehood; it was so they could gain political capital from associating the president with Islam. Not only is it an outrageous lie but we as Americans should resist such blatant fear-mongering efforts to define all Muslims as “evil terrorists”. Most Muslims are peaceful law-abiding citizens and have the same right of religious freedom as everyone else in this country. Note, too, that it would be no violation of the Constitution even if a president were elected who was not a Christian; the Constitution specifically states that no such religious requirement shall be imposed in these words:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” (Article VI, emphasis added).
In short, a president could be a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, or even have no religious faith at all. But as it so happens, since the president does have a faith and he is Christian, the accusation by the Republican Party to the contrary is simply another unscrupulous example of a complete falsehood of the grossest kind. It is pandering to fear and the “big lie” technique once more, that same approach used by the German fascists during World War II.
It was against this very Nazi tyranny that Americans fought with such bravery and determination. What an insult to America for today’s Republicans to adopt the “big lie technique” and scapegoating strategies of the fascist enemy!
Whenever any party stoops so low as to employ the dirtiest tricks once practiced by the fascist powers, there is something wrong with that party’s grip on reality and its commitment to American democracy. Our democracy thrives on honest and open debate, not deception and hypocrisy! Since we know for a fact that the president was born an American citizen and raised as a Christian, it must give us great pause to wonder why Republicans continue to engage in such distortion and slander! Have they no shame?
That is not all. In that same Republican Party campaign literature, there was yet another slander to go with these first few examples. The pamphlet accused the president of acting unconstitutionally, which referred to the president’s use of his authority to sign executive orders.
This is a power the president has by right of holding office, and presidents before him have used it frequently, especially his predecessor, George Bush II. While one may disagree with the substance of the order signed, it is not unconstitutional for a president to make use of such authority.
It is a power and right that resides within the office of the presidency itself and does not depend upon congressional approval. It is not an absolute or unlimited power but it does give the president a certain degree of latitude to enact legal changes in areas within his purview. If the holder of that office, Republican or Democrat, should ever abuse or expand such authority beyond its legitimate purview, then Congress in turn would have the right and the duty to take the appropriate corrective action, up to and including the drawing up a list of articles for impeachment proceedings.
There are limits on every power granted in the Constitution to each branch of government by the countervailing power of the other two branches. President Nixon, for example, exceeded his authority by approving of and covering up the criminal actions of the Watergate burglars. Congress had started impeachment proceedings when the president chose to resign, preferring that disgrace to the even greater one of being the first president impeached and removed from office.
There are restraints upon the power of every elected representative of government, including the president, although within reason he is free to exercise his right to issue Executive Orders as he deems necessary.
What is most curious here, however, is that this Republican literature fails to cite a specific example of where the president is alleged to have abused this authority; instead, the campaign flyer relied on the broadest paint brush strokes imaginable, relying on innuendo and subterfuge. If there were even one such grievous instance, why not cite it at once? Or is the accusation so flimsy they cannot find a single example to offer? To state the president has acted unconstitutionally suggests nothing less than grounds for impeachment, does it not?
I’m sure many Republican Party members would shout for joy if they could find a substantial impeachable offense with which to malign the character of the president. If they had discovered a substantial violation of the Constitution they would most certainly and boldly cite it, but they do not. Why is that? It seems all they mean is when a Democratic president pursues a policy not to the liking of the Republicans, that’s the foundation for their baseless accusations.
What can be said of a political party that now gives us a new breed of men and women who fail to respect the president as representing the United States of America, who falsely accuse the president of not being born in America, who distort his religious beliefs, and who claim he has acted unconstitutionally but cannot back such claims with specific examples that would justify the commencement of congressional impeachment action?
Granted public figures must stand many verbal attacks from the bigoted and ignorant, but such nonsense coming from one of America’s two major political parties? We might expect such assertions from sensation-seeking tabloids and bigotry-espousing extremists from the far fringes, but from the Republican Party itself?
It is unconscionable that they should stoop so low! We have all heard of the “double standard” but now we see a party behaving as though it has no moral standards whatsoever!
Regarding the American political spectrum, we know that most political scientists as well as ordinary people think of the spectrum as having a center which is identified as “moderate”, with different groups and individuals holding views to the left and to the right of this moderate or middle-of-the-road center.
There are multiple gradations of viewpoints along such a spectrum, of course–nor should we overlook the fact that a single individual may hold liberal or conservative views on different issues. It does not follow that each person always remains in one place along the political spectrum on all issues, but rather he or she is free to stay in the center or move toward the left or right as mood, and issue, may dictate.
These are necessarily broad generalizations but most people do recognize the notion of a political spectrum, with the center representing moderation.
Some of the basic moral principles normally agreed upon most people, of whatever political stripe, come about from simply living in America: respect for the law is fundamental to our nation’s commitment to individual liberties, elected government, and peaceful change. Sometimes extremists may be found at either end of the spectrum who are no longer committed to these views but for most Americans, it is understood that we are a nation of laws.
Further, even when Americans disagree with a law, we understand that there is a right way–a legal and peaceful way–to amend or repeal that law. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, we understand that the court has decided a constitutional principle. We may be glad and proud when our own thinking and the Court’s opinion agree; we may be sad or frustrated when our beliefs and the Court’s diverge. In one person’s lifetime, it is likely that there will be many cases decided in accordance with his or her preferences as well as numerous other decisions that are contrary to their hopes. In either instance, responsible Americans still recognize their duty as citizens to respect laws passed by Congress and rulings issued by the Supreme Court.
To cite a personal example: some years back the Court agreed to hear a case on flag-burning and whether such action was covered by the First Amendment. As a young man, I would have said “yes” but later in life I found scenes of the burning of the flag to be quite upsetting to my patriotism. I took the view that it was appropriate to pass a law that made flag-burning a crime and I hoped the Supreme Court would conclude the same. I was initially disappointed when the Court rejected that argument and reached the opposite conclusion: that freedom of speech includes symbolic speech and thus flag-burning was protected by the Constitution.
After reading the Court’s opinion carefully–the precedents and reasoning behind the ruling– I concluded the Justices made a wise decision. The Court reminded us all that in this country we interpret the freedoms of the First Amendment as broadly as possible; we tolerate no restrictions on our basic right of expression save for a clear and compelling reason.
The point, however, is not what I believed prior to the decision; the point is that as an American citizen I fully understood that it is my duty to obey the laws of my country, including the constitutional rulings of the Supreme Court. Respect for the law demands nothing less.
This principle, once associated with members of the Republican Party, is now frequently flaunted by them, as though it is a principle of no importance to their party or to American democracy. The very opposite of this bedrock principle–a callous disregarding of established laws in a manner contrary to our democratic tradition–is now more closely associated with the party.
Two examples will illustrate the point:
1) In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that women had a right to a medical abortion (Roe v. Wade); and 2) The Supreme Court twice upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional.
In both instances, the “Rebel Republicans” have chosen to ignore or denigrate these two laws, both of which were constitutionally upheld by the highest court in the land, as though the Court’s rulings do not become part of the established law of the land. However much the Republicans may be opposed to such decisions, they do far greater harm to the country by destroying popular respect for laws passed by Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Again and again, we find the Rebel Republicans acting in strange and unpredictable ways that run completely contrary to our democratic heritage. GOP lip-service to platitudes is no substitute for genuine democratic practices based on mutual trust and reasonable dialogue.
So in the end, we must ask ourselves, why do Republicans in their campaign literature throw sand in the eyes of the American public by calling ordinary Democrats “left-wingers”? Besides the need to cover up the inadequate nature of their own platform, there can be only one other reason, which is to confuse people about who is where on the political spectrum and to hide from the American people just how far to the extreme Right the Republicans have strayed.
They wish to make themselves “palatable” knowing that most Americans have a great distaste for extreme Right-wing thinking; the GOP leaders use various subterfuges to dress this hypocrisy up as something other than reactionary politics.
The Republican Party campaign literature included one lie after another, and did so knowingly. They appealed to bias, fear, and ignorance. The president is not a radical left-winger; he is the elected head of our government chosen by a majority of the American people. He was born in America and is an American citizen. He was raised as a Christian and remains one today. He has exercised his presidential authority when issuing executive orders in a proper and constitutional manner. There are so many examples of deceit and hypocrisy contained in the Republican Party mailing! If the Party cannot be honest, what does that say of their hidden agenda?
So how does the right-wing make itself palatable? One technique is to claim that the Democratic Party is left-wing. If they succeed here, the whole political spectrum shifts in their favor. If what once was a “moderate center” occupied by “moderate” Democrats can somehow be falsely portrayed as “left-wing”, then the Republican Party will not appear quite so far to the right as it actually is.
Why such deceptions, exaggerations, and falsehoods? Why engage in carefully-crafted campaigns of lies about the president? These are “trial balloons” as part of their efforts to find a path, a jingoistic method, to move still farther to the Right: to replace democratic thought and popular participation with right-wing dogma and elitist control. They have become the party of billionaires and their focus is on protecting the wealth, status, and power of the richest “one percent” of the population rather than representing the interests of the American people as a whole.
When one of America’s two main parties must stoop to lies and falsifications, then let it serve as a warning to freedom-loving, democratic-minded Americans everywhere to buckle up and prepare for a bumpy ride–and take heed once more of the wise words of Thomas Jefferson:
“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”
