A Defense of Republicans

To the editors:

Whenever there is a reigning majority, a struggling minority fights to makes its case heard. Such is the case with the current political status quo. In response to Nafees A. Syed’s article titled “Republican Shoe-Throwers” (op-ed, Sept. 24), I believe several misleading points were made concerning the image of Republican representation in this country.

Facing a bastion of liberal policy-making in Washington and coping with a lack of charismatic leadership, Republicans are licking their wounds and trying to regroup from last November. Meanwhile, factions of moderate Republicans try to distance themselves from the far-right adherents to Beck and Limbaugh. Where bipartisan collaboration is needed, there are those willing to put their country first and reach across the aisle. But when it comes to simply giving up to a majority without fighting for principle, Republicans keep on truckin’.

Syed’s article claims the Republican Party has resorted to attacks on personal character to deliver its message—something she also claims is not representative of the Democratic Party. Before the American public had time to forget the images propagated by Democrats of George W. Bush in a dunce hat, accusations of racism were being thrown at the GOP. True, racism has been associated within far-right sects of the Republican population, and it should not be tolerated. However, this is not representative of the Republican Party as a whole. Think, for example of the recent murder of abortion protestor James Pouillon of Michigan. Violence, as expected, draws emotional responses. Should the GOP start labeling liberal activists as nothing but estranged murderers? If Republicans should follow precedent from Democrats in terms of generating disrespect against the government, as Syed claims they should, then the results would not be as perfect as liberals want us to think. After 9/11, leftists began instigating claims that the Bush administration was behind the attacks to generate incentive for invading Iraq. Would this be the example of disrespect Syed is alluding we follow? Subversion and breaching the trust to the government that fights to ensure our security and freedom? The Democrats have as just a tainted record of disrespect as any other political institution in this country. Self-proclaimed righteousness has often proved to be a pivotal downfall in their party. Cases in point are Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, and Rod Blagojevich.

So, then, why is “disrespect” so present? The answers are varied and many, but most can be derived from one factor: Republicans are feeling livid and hopeless. Currently, The New York Times reports the federal government is responsible for 26 percent of national spending. Sixty percent of General Motors is now managed by the United States government, and only one out of every 10 mortgages in this country is not financed by the government. Simply put, Republicans are weary of the government’s exponential increase in business management and catering to private life. I affirm that individual greed and lack of government regulation, to an extent, brought us to this economic predicament. But how much longer and further will the government expand? Republicans are reminiscent for the days of a bygone era, an era that supported the self-made man and competition. The idea of the economic frontier is no longer pulsating to the country’s rhythm. Now, Republicans fear America will grow accustomed to looking to the government for all of its solutions. Government management might help bail an economy out of a tight spot. But it does not foster individualism or incentive; it stagnates the spirit of the self-made image this country was founded on. That is why the Republican Party will keep on fighting.

Kevin Sprague ’13

Cambridge, Mass.

October 1, 2009

Kevin Sprague ’13 is a member of the Harvard Republican Club.