Jason Garthoffner
Note from the author: As Daily Forty-Niner policy does not permit responses to criticisms, I would like to make clear that contrary to what my detractors say, facts stated in my writings are thoroughly researched and checked, and I stand by them..
Opinions by nature are one sided. Especially when given by someone who believes in either the conservative or liberal political ideologies. People from both sides of the spectrum often defend everything about their side, even the indefensible, just so as to never admit they could possibly be wrong.
I have been accused of towing the Republican Party line in the past. This actually is not true, and there are many things I disagree with Republicans about.
First off, however horrible it is, the pro-life wing of the party needs to move on from the abortion issue. Not because of some imagined constitutional right to have them, but because the technology is available, and it’s here to stay. There is even a pill women can take now, what do pro-life Republicans suggest we do with all this stuff? Ban it?
That’s a very sound suggestion considering the resounding success the government had with alcohol in the 1920s. Anyone who thinks this wouldn’t create back alley abortions obviously doesn’t remember the black market and organized crime that was born out of prohibition.
Next would be the recent Medicare “reform” signed into law by President Bush. I am a strong believer that the federal government should not be assuming powers and responsibilities that go outside the scope of the Constitution. I get really annoyed when I see Republican legislators and President Bush smile and wink as they push for policies that are not consistent with what they tell us they believe.
Real reform would be doing away with such programs entirely, as there is not a section of our Constitution that calls for federal funds being used to pay for medical care (or education, and welfare, and social security, and a whole host of other issues that Republicans pretend to oppose). Notwithstanding they are unconstitutional, there are plenty of good reasons and alternatives to why the government shouldn’t spend money on these social programs. Instead of legitimately working to convince the people why the federal government shouldn’t be paying for these things, Republicans disingenuously offer watered down versions of Democratic policies.
A few years back the Republican Party supported the move to give China most- favored trade status. This sounds great considering the potential benefits that can come from trading with the world’s most populous nation. It is also hypocritical when considering the embargo we insist on maintaining with Cuba because of its oppressive government.
Some may argue that keeping economic relations with the communist nation is the only way peace between China and the U.S. can exist. However, the conservative movement’s champion Ronald Reagan had a much more hard line approach to trade with the communist Soviet Union. Many credit his uncompromising stances to the fall of the “evil empire.” Nearly a decade after he left office Reagan’s party flip flopped on the issue with another communist nation, which can arguably be seen as a form of appeasement from the party that complains only Democrats pursue such policies.
So there you go, the things about Republican Party in which I am in disagreement. It’s not so bad really, unconditional agreement should never be required to belong to a political party.
There is a saying, “give me someone I disagree with 20 percent of the time, and I’ll give you someone I agree with 80 percent of the time.” With anything in life, disagreement can be healthy, especially when weighed against the positives of each situation. Meaning, in the end I find myself in agreement much more with the Republican Party than any other alternative.
So what if I have a couple of issues with the Republicans doing things I don’t like. What am I going to do? Vote Democrat?
Jason Garthoffner is an art major at Cal State Long Beach and can be reached at JasD1899@aol.com.
