To the Editor:
Recently, someone wrote that "the last four years of telling conservatives they were stupid and uneducated caused" the people to "rise up" (in support of Trump? To take over the Capitol building?).
Another wrote, "It seems there is contempt for the conservative point of view by the Democratic Party and their far-left minions." Those are but two of the many that claim that somehow Republicans and conservatives are being picked on.
Unfortunately, I, as an independent who scatter shoots media, don't see that. Of course, it would help if those writers would actually define who they mean by "conservatives."
One of the best ways to define any term is to provide examples. I don't see anyone expressing contempt for the likes of Rich Lowry, Mitt Romney, Neal Cavuto, Pat Toomey, Brad Raffensperger, or any of a range of thoughtful, principled conservatives.
The people who are being criticized in the media, and rightly so, in my mind, are the Steve Bannons, the Proud Boys, Ted Cruzes, Wayne Lapierre, QAnon and its multiple copiers, science deniers, as well as just downright angry people, which was evidenced in the recent takeover of the Capitol building.
So, my feeling is that the writers are confusing a proper condemnation of those elements on the right with genuine conservatives (who seem to be an increasingly disappearing breed, unfortunately).
So, I think that it would be wise for true conservatives to waltz away from that disreputable crew. As my mamma said, you are judged by the company you keep.
A classic example of this whole cauldron of confusion is the Van Drew situation. Right now, he is being criticized, but not because he is moderately conservative. He always said he was a conservative Democrat.
When he acted and voted his mind and principles (which, to my mind, is the proper way), he received almost no criticism and was regularly re-elected. I voted for him a few times and didn't care that he switched parties, although he got some flak from Democratic tribal members for that.
The real problem came recently when he violated his oath to uphold the constitution by voting to reject votes approved by the Republican-controlled legislatures of several states.
He claimed it was due to 'irregularities' in the voting procedures of those states, but in doing so, he set himself above the third branch of government, the judiciary, which after 59 cases, found no such violations.
Was he aware of that? Well, if he didn't understand the simple language used in both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Supreme Court of the U.S. in the Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar case, then he had no right to even step foot in Maryland, let alone Washington, and should resign immediately.
If he did know it (which, in all probability, he did) but so voted anyway, then he is no longer a true conservative, but has morphed into a simple party hack and should apologize to the people of the Second District, then resign.
Either way, though, conservatism has nothing to do with the criticism of him, nor does most of what I've read over the years. Conservatism is a complicated, important subject that deserves lots of discussions.
Start with separating conservative lifestyles, conservative social policies, conservative economic and political policies, etc.
Then reflect on the fact that older people tend to be more conservative; rural populations are and have always been, more conservative than urban populations, the religious more conservative than the less religious, etc.