As a free-trade supporter, rational and sometimes pro-war Democrat, I feel obligated to respond to Michael Schrimpf's article "How Republicans Feel" (Nov. 8). His basic premise was that he is not stupid for supporting various ideas, and therefore he is not stupid for voting for President Bush.
He says, jokingly of course, "I'm stupid for believing that the only truly fair trade is free trade. I'm stupid for not thinking that we should have extreme protectionist trade policies like we had in the late 1920s and early 1930s," However, if my memory serves, (and it does,) President Bush has placed tariffs on steel and imposed quotas on textiles from China. That is not what Bush said though, so we must believe him.
Then comes the most shocking faux-ironic statement of all, that he is "[s]tupid for thinking that what I earn is my money and not the government's. I'm stupid for thinking that government isn't the solution; that government is the problem." Last time I checked, government spending was higher under President Bush than under Clinton, adjusting for inflation. This includes discretionary spending - governmental pork that would make Kosher Jews and Muslims scream together (but at least he brought them together on one issue!).
The fiscal policy he suggests - that small-government is good government - is a good policy because it promotes growth, which is in our long-run benefit. Yet, Schrimpf supported the wrong candidate if he wanted to shrink government. The president, despite popular belief, did not cut taxes - he shifted them. He shifted them to the future, because we have to pay our debt sometime, but the President has no need for facts like that. He borrows and spends.
Then Schrimpf tried to hit liberals on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: "I'm stupid for feeling good about liberating an oppressed people from a ruthless dictator. I'm stupid for being proud that during the first Bush term, the world welcomed the addition of two new democracies." Frankly, I supported both wars in theory. Saddam was a bad man, the Taliban needed to go. However, I did not support a complete and utter lack of preparation in Iraq. I did not support sending too few troops to complete the job. I did not support spending money we did not have, while giving a tax cut to the rich. I did not support allowing tons of ammunition to be stolen, and creating a terrorist haven.
Frankly, I did support creating a complete civil war where we could not create democracy, where another Muslim theocracy may be created. Grand ideals are one thing, Mr. Schrimpf, but a desire for near-perfect planning is another. Bush does not have the latter, and in doing so has failed his ideals. Schrimpf failed Mr. Bush's ideals in supporting Bush.
Finally, Schrimpf addresses social issues: "Worst of all, I'm stupid for basing some of my vote on morality. I'm stupid for thinking that two men shouldn't be able to marry each other, despite their obvious anatomical similarities." Well, I cannot even argue this claim rationally. How does that deny their right to marry? How is that morality? What happened to morality being defined as the virtue of social justice, of caring, of humility, of equality, of praying that God have mercy upon people who know not what they do? When did we lose this sense of morality? Mr. Schrimpf, you were not dumb for supporting free trade, smaller government, liberation of countries, and morality. You were stupid for supporting a candidate who embodied none of those principles.
