To the Editor,

Concerning Mr. Jarzen’s Monday article:
I’d like to offer a counter to your argument on liberalism, point by point. First off, it is dangerous business to lump so many ideologies into one category, as some are not related to others and those that are still have differences. More on this later, but by creating a loose chain between these ideologies and then throwing them into a statist category, you are doing something analogous to describing somebody’s personality based on their ancestry, and it’s a poor method of reasoning.

You claim to assault liberal ideology and not “your average liberal,” but continue to talk about liberals only seeking to achieve control and liberals not wanting to help people, which seems to make claims about the behavior of your average liberal. It’s like saying “I’m not racist, but…” Also, you say that liberals don’t want to help people, but then shortly thereafter claim that liberals want control to achieve their ends. Are these ends not to ensure a measure of justice, equal opportunity, and human decency, or in other words to help, everybody?

The creation of the United States of America did not necessarily lay the foundation for freedom and liberty. We denied those things for years to those who didn’t own land, slaves, women, and Native Americans. The spread of our concepts of liberty and freedom have often come at the subjugation and exploitation of others. Your remark on minorities forsaking their freedom for help from liberals is prejudiced and historically inaccurate.

You attack socialism, Marxism, and communism in practice, yet claim that the practice is the same as the doctrine. This is simply untrue; attack practice or philosophy, but don’t confuse the two.

I will now offer my defense of liberalism, and then challenge you to offer your vision for the country. I indeed support using government coercion to provide social security, health care, and welfare for the poor and disabled. I believe that laziness should not be supported, but I’d rather err on the side of supporting laziness than on the side of people being unable to survive. I believe that the coercive force is necessary because so far, the evidence I’ve seen shows that in deregulated capitalism, the successful continue to consolidate wealth and charities go without the resources they need to help people. I believe that the free market leads to the tyranny of the wealthy, and why is that more acceptable than government involvement? You talk about oppression through government programs, but what are your thoughts on oppression through militarism? And how would you like to see government structured instead of the current model, which you find to be too stifling?

Howard Watts III,
Political science


Note: Letters to the editor run unedited.


Tags assigned to this article:
letters