I typically stay away from commenting on my fellow columnist’s thoughts and opinions. I would much rather hear criticisms from students in the forum, but the paper this week has given me too much material to work with. Paul McCauley’s columns this week can be summed up in two sentences: Monday’s column should have just stated, “All Republicans and Tea Party members are fascist nut-jobs.” Wednesday’s column should have stated, “I went too far on Monday, let me light an insincere peace-pipe.”
Show some consistency. McCauley demonstrated once again the fallacy that plagues virtually all media in today’s society. The extremist’s ideas are taken from a small minority and applied to the whole.
Really? You want to compare the Tea Party to Timothy McVeigh. That would be like me saying anti-war protesters are all like Bill Ayers and the Weatherman. But of course, if it was an anti-war rally there would be no problem with it, they are just expressing their right to protest an illegitimate war brought on by the radical conservatives of this country. I do not condone the racism and bigotry that has been displayed with the Tea Party movement, which was not even mentioned by McCauley. But I do not support all they stand for; they have just as much of a right to protest as PETA does. I didn’t make the rules — the framers of the Constitution did.
Speaking of the Constitution, McCauley does a splendid job of oversimplifying the Bill of Rights. If the Bill of Rights and Constitution were so easy to interpret, why do we have a Supreme Court? I would love to hear McCauley’s interpretation of what the Second Amendment says. Everyone has rights embedded in the Constitution; the government’s responsibility is not to regulate these powers, but secure them. If the government’s role is to secure our rights, anything that could potentially infringe on our rights should be stopped.
The War on Terror attempts to deter terrorist acts from occurring. These actions are not infringing upon our Constitutional rights, but protecting them.
McCauley also attempts to associate the Tea Party with an illogical fiscal policy. He is right, a war is not necessarily fiscally responsible, but that is not the purpose of a war. There are other factors that are associated with going to war that tend to trump the others.
These wars were supported by the general public, unlike the health care legislation. The fiscal effects of the wars come a lot sooner then what will come from health care legislation. I hope the health care legislation will somehow reduce the deficit; if it doesn’t, in 10 or 20 years we may be seeing another economic crisis.
I’m not trying to be an advocate for the Tea Party movement, but I do find some of their points valid. For McCauley to ask for consistency within a party is unrealistic. There is a big difference between an extreme and a moderate liberal, but they generally come together in the Democratic Party. How can liberals find morality in abortion, but not in the death penalty, while conservatives are visa-versa?
Its simple: we always find legitimations for our actions and beliefs. I respect Paul’s right to have an opinion, I can almost guarantee that I will not agree with it — just as he has not agreed with mine in the past. Differing opinions are not the issue, though. Polarization, stereotypes and petty name calling are. I find it problematic to call all Tea Party members pistol-packing, fascist militants — it’s just not true.
If someone wants to criticize or disagree with opinions, fine — that is your right. However, it is not your right to spread fallacy and lies. Express your opinions, but allow others to do the same. You might not agree with them, but do not try and generalize on the extremist actions of a select few. Leave the name calling for the play ground — be respectful, and have a clue.