In a speech to fellow Republicans in Chicago in December 1856, Mr. Abraham Lincoln said: “Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government, practically just so much. Public opinion, or any subject, always has a ‘central idea,’ from which all its minor thoughts radiate. That ‘central idea’ in our political public opinion, at the beginning was, and until recently has continued to be, ‘the equality of men.’”
For Lincoln, this central idea was the Declaration of Independence and its notion of equality as the basis for republican government — the simple idea that no one has the right by nature to rule over another without the latter’s consent: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Lincoln saw more clearly than his critics that equality is inseparable from democracy. I’m Alaska Native of Tlingit and Haida descent from the Heinyaa Kwaan (Water People) of Southeast Alaska, I am a woman and I’ve been a registered Republican my entire adult life. Often I am asked, “How can you be a Republican?” as if I violated some law by being Native and a Republican.
My response is simple and unscripted. I believe in the founding principals of the Republican Party: equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As a Republican I believe my commitment to our country and countrymen and women is to the dedication to keeping these truths despite public opinion.
When the United States was formed in 1776, slavery was worldwide. However slavery was only part of the world’s reality. Prior to America being founded, all regimes were based on the principle of interest — the interest of the stronger. That principle was articulated by the Greek historian Thucydides: “Questions of justice arise only between equals. As for the rest, the strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must.”
I believe we have to look in the mirror and ask ourselves, as a Republican, am I dedicated to protecting the inalienable rights of all Americans, not just the strong, or popular or rich or poor.
Are we dedicated to the principals of the Republican Party or do we support the radicals who have hijacked our party, those who hold instead that rights are “prescriptive,” i.e. that government determines what constitutes a right and then distributes those rights unequally according to its own preferences.
Prescriptive like: Gay Citizens have limited rights. Native American Citizens cannot govern their land, America does not have to honor the Treaties our forefathers signed. Women Citizens cannot chose what happens to their bodies. Insurance companies will cover what we tell them to based upon our religious preferences.
When you make laws that dictate you are enslaving those citizens. At the Cooper Union Address in 1860, President Lincoln “urged fellow Republicans not to capitulate to Southern demands to recognize slavery as being right, but to “stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively.” I ask fellow Republicans to not capitulate to extreme radical Republicans that hid under a cloak of “God Fearing” “Family Values” “Real Christians” or “Real Americans.”
Don’t allow Rush Limbaugh, a radio talk show host. to call a law student at Georgetown University a [filtered word] or prostitute for advocating health insurance plans to cover the cost of contraception. When we shift federal funds to private schools and our public schools are falling apart we have created and support segregation for the elite. In 2010 when a schoolteacher paid more income tax than GE Corporation we prove to the world that America has fallen prey to the principles of interest — the interest of the stronger.
As citizens of this great country, I believe we must defend the separation of church and state, equal liberty and justice for all. As Dr. Martin Luther King so eloquently said, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”
• Gardner is the CEO of 3R Products and the Managing Member of MGM Properties, LLC. She currently resides in Juneau.
Comments (64)
Add commentYour loyalty is seriously misguided
The republican party of Lincoln and his day isn't a fraction of what the republican party has degenerated into today. Lincoln would barf (using Rick Santorum's recent word) at what the republican party stands for today.
Also Ms. Gardner, the republican party you claimed as your own does not hold a monopoly on "equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Modern day Democrats espouse these virtues MUCH more than modern day republicans (especially the equality and liberty parts).
So I have to wonder why you loyally cling to this party when your letter is an obvious bash at those who have hijacked and control your party. Those who you alluded to above have limited respect for "equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" unless they are the richest 1% who want it for them and them alone!
And if you truly believe in the separation of church and state, this goes against the very core of the republican base who constantly trumpet that this is a Christian nation and needs laws more in line with their judeo-christian beliefs! Abortion laws are the perfect example, because they are constantly under attack by the right-wing, republican radical christian Taliban under the disguise of such warm and sounding names as the America Family Association!
And despite what many like Ann Romney say within your party, Rush Limbaugh is undoubtedly the spokesperson for your party. Whatever he says is regurgitated loyally and mindlessly by his minions and lemmings. Many of your party wouldn't know how to think if they didn't have Rush doing the thinking for them.
So, again, I am totally confused as to why you proudly claim that you are a republican??? Your ideals are MUCH more in line with the current Democratic or Socialist party platform.
You'd do well to reconsider your party loyalty if you truly espouse the virtues you mentioned above. You'd do a disservice to America and your Tlingit/Haida ancestry if you voted for anyone of today's republican elite.
Agree with Seriously Misguided
Many of the qualities you espouse are from the U.S. Constitution, not Republican party values.
Change from within?
If that's your strategy, Myrna, I wish you success.
You might start with your local and state party leadership. Time for new leaders in the party that reflect your values, in deed as well as word.
But Randy Ruedrich is still the party chair, isn't he? And the same good ol' boys (and girls) control the local party.
Thanks for your letter. I hope it inspires others to get involved and take control of their government.
You have to wonder.
Vile remarks such as likening the Republican party to the Taliban only shows an intractable hatred for opposing views. This lack of civility has only become worse under Obama's administration as his supporters have been given a broader license to spew intolerance on such a personal level. Is it any wonder this country cant get it's bearings when it's most vocal citizens spew hatred for ideals?
Vile Remarks Comparing Democrats to Terrorists...
Dear Ken, there are plenty of vile remarks from Republicans as well referring to Democrats & liberals as terrorists, unpatriotic, welfare abusers, as well. Get off your cross and join the rest of the world, your post has proven that you are just one of the haters.
Really?
The rest of the world? Are you really in such large company? I agree vile remarks are coming from both sides. I do not mean to exclude Republicans. These exchanges do nothing but widen the chasms between us. Perhaps you could better articulate how my words could be construed as hatred?
Latitude, nicely said.
While correct, Joe could have been more civil in his response.
Ken - speaking of civility - I'd say that if the lack of civility (which I agree with you on) HAS become worse during President Obama's term, that rests squarely on the shoulders of FOX "news" and people like Mr. Limbaugh - echoed by Republicans in office - who have pulled out all the stops and brought us to shocking new lows in a myopic effort to simply get rid of the current president at all costs.
I listen to a fair amount of FOX, MSNBC, and CNN - probably a couple of hours a day. I try to catch the same stories on all three networks. And if you even for a couple of days use a tickmark chart of 'uncivil' things that are said by the anchors - - there's no contest. FOX 'wins' hands down.
To have a "news" channel even say things like "We've got to get Obama out of the White house" - is simply NOT 'fair and balanced' by any stretch of the imagination.
I think...
I think what Miss Gardner is trying to say, is that she is a republican because of the values on which the party was founded upon, not what it has become. Implying that she is holding on strong and true to those intentions, and that we should all do the same ("all" implying every American, not just Republicans), because they had the right ideas when they started.
This is not necessarily an expression of my own personal beliefs, just what I took from her letter. She was not praising the current Republican party. She nearly denouncing them by saying they have been "hijacked", and she is right. They have veered far from the path they set out to carve, and all political parties need to be reminded of how/why they were started in the first place. It had nothing to do with welfare or gun rights... as there was no welfare when we were founded, and even children had access to firearms.
I hope this stuff is being taught in school, so the next generation can make informed and humane decisions as our next batch of political leaders! Long live "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"!
well said swimmergirl
I, too, listen to varied sources, as well as published mediums. I would not say one could be given a 'hands-down' award as they all have their own agendas. Granted, Rush has hung his hat on defeating Obama and it gets a bit redundant but I hear the same drum beats from the liberal medium for their ideals. It is all a filtering process. In my view none can honestly claim a 'fair and balanced' platform. I believe the cause for less civility is a combination of things. Instant communication is a big part, coupled with anonymity. Ratings is another. But the biggest factor, in my opinion, is the importance this upcoming election will have on our nation and how strongly all sides feel about it. On the other hand, "Jo could have been more civil...". How about it Jo? Would you agree with this statement?
"Jo could be more civil(?)"
Actually Ken, except for the use of the word "Taliban" that you so strongly object to, I thought Jo's response was civil and directly addressed the points the author was making while not "spew(ing) hatred." Maybe you should read it again......without a jaundiced eye. Jo's right, Ms. Gardner, does sound more like a Democrat and, once in the voting booth, ought to pull the lever that more lines up with HER values.
Postscript: After heeding my own advice :-) I don't think it was necessary to say things like, "Whatever he says is regurgitated loyally and mindlessly by his minions and lemmings. Many of your party wouldn't know how to think if they didn't have Rush doing the thinking for them" to make his point.
Paul DeSloover
This article was well thought
This article was well thought out and a expression of one persons feelings of helplessness as her party is high jacked by radicals. It amazes me, the vitriolic comments this produces, and negativity even from those obviously from the Republican party... or perhaps the Tea Party. For a good example of the negativity produced today by politicians one only has to watch the primaries for the Republican presidential candidate. Every dirty trick can be used and obvious lies can be told, and the people reward them with surging after the new front runner until someone pops his bubble.
do you?
I take it you do not object to using "Taliban". I take vocabulary more seriously perhaps. Words are most powerful and the choice of words are meant to convey ideas. If one wants to be persuasive then one should address the targeted audience. On the other hand if one's intent is to simply be combative and hurtful then we can agree "Taliban" has its place in the discourse. I believe Jo used the term to honestly convey how he views religion. That, at least, is what I came away with.
Taliban
Ken, no my comment didn't mean I approved his use of the word "Taliban." But, I also didn't think he was trying to demean religion in this instance. Please see my "postscript" above.
Paul DeSloover
thanx
Thank you for clarifying.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness
These eternal words are from the Declaration of Independence.
The author claims to cling to these words because she falsely believes the republicans invented those concepts, founded their party on them and are, therefore the party of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. She also mentioned equality.
Unfortunately, last I checked, Thomas Jefferson was the main author of the Declaration of Independence. And he was an amazing Democrat. And Democrats have a history of pursuing these ideals more so for America as a whole, instead of the wealthiest 1% as today's current republican party does.
She also mentions equality. Again, the Democratic party was and is the party who defends equality for women, gays, minorities, people with disabilities whereas history has shown that republicans (with the exception of Lincoln) have opposed equal rights for Americans.
So, I was confused as to why she responds "unscripted" to being a republican when that party doesn't represent the things she holds dear.
And yes, my response could have been more civil, but I didn't think it was un-civil. I wasn't attacking her personally, I was pointing out what I believed to be flaws in her concepts of what it truly means to be a republican today.
As for my use of the word "Taliban" to define some (not all) of today's American christians, my term was accurate. I invite you to visit the American Family Association's website:
afa.net
They are total christian Taliban because they are anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-Islam, anti-everything that isn't right-wing christian.
And they are political. They envision a nation of Christian laws in the same way some middle east nations envision their nations under Sharia/Islam laws. They issue action alerts to their followers to get involved in legislation which is a perceived threat to their right-wing mission.
And when you mix government with religion, you get Taliban. This is the mission of the AFA and similar right-wing organizations which are the base for the republican party.
Therefore, my use of the term "Christian Taliban" is very appropriate and totally accurate.
And please stop using the hate card. Seriously. It's an easy card to play. I hate no one.
Hey there!
You might take another look at Sharia law. Stoning, acid attacks, lost ears and nose, etc. Exactly what are you equating Christian law with again, political activism? How about the family executions in America for those who dare date mixed-race boyfriends?
Word are important
I agree with you on that issue, Ken Dunker II. They're so important that we can use them to calm a friend or incite violence in that same person.
I have used the phrase Christian Taliban or American Taliban in trying to capture my feeling about the current trend in our country to impose a fundamentalist christian theology over our secular laws. I don't literally think that American orthodox christians are on the same level as some Islamic factions that are able to use their holy book to justify throwing acid in the faces of girls trying to go to school or honor killings. I do think that fundamentalism of any kind, whether it be religious or nationalistic in origin, is extremely dangerous to the values outlines in the Declaration of Independence. There is no liberty and freedom in an orthodox church of any kind - only incredible social/cultural/sometimes physical pressure to conform to some religious leader's interpretation of their belief system.
In fact, I'd hazard to say that the 300+ women in South Carolina alone who have been jailed because of a law that says their fetuses need protecting from them is a very similar step toward Taliban-type justice. The fact that the law doesn't allow them to be killed, only jailed, doesn't bring me much comfort. Or the woman in Illinois who was charged with murder because her baby was born still-born? Starting to see a pattern?
Words do matter. On that, we can definitely agree.
@ Ken Dunker
First, I find it amusing that you bash me for "vile" comments when your comments could easily be interpreted as such.
You are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of. I find that amusing.
Secondly, my point which you obviously missed is, the right-wing Christian Taliban, which is undoubtedly the base of the republican party, envisions a state sponsored religion; christianity. The United States of Americhrist.
Most mid eastern nations envision a state sponsored religion as well; Islam.
Different religions. Same concept.
And that is dangerous to our democracy.
And your execution statement was incredibly absurd. Seriously absurd.
p.s. Atheists don't bomb abortion clinics. Atheists don't fly planes into buildings.
Ms. Gardner - you seem to be
Ms. Gardner - you seem to be confused about the Republican party platform.
From one of your Empire letters in 2004 you wrote urging a legislator to "support legislation that mandates if a man impregnates over three women and isn't married to her and doesn't pay child support, he should be circumcised."
I don't believe that's a platform of the GOP! And "circumcised"?
Here's a suggestion - switch parties. You're making the rest of us Conservatives ( or would that be a "radical") look real bad with all your incorrect analogies.
And also, study the Constitution a little more. You come off as very uninformed.
Native Corp's Got Murkowski elected
Why is this title to this op-ed even relevant? The Native Corps were the primary funders for Lisa's write-in win. So don't be upset when she voted the anti-woman party line or continues to send our kids to war for over a decade. Congratulations. You wanted her. You got her. All of her.
Sigh
Do you all not see how stupid the whole system is? Well, how it's become and been taken advantage of?
When someone bashes either party, I discount they're post completely. If you have to wonder why, you probably wouldn't understand and you'll never be part of any solution.
This woman does not sound like a democrat or republican to me at all. She recognizes fault in her party but she obviously doesn't see greener grass the other way. She doesn't send any hate. She just says what she thinks and that she's proud of her views and stance. She sounds like an American.
Maybe we need a real war that might actually touch home for us to really become that great country again. When we used to work together and have REAL American pride. This bickering is getting old.
Atheists.
Actually, atheists don't do much of anything. They tend to be a bit narcissistic. Kind of like being an island unto themselves until the tide rises to threaten their sanctum. Then they blame the religious right for setting off the tidal wave.
myrna gardner
I offer my profound respect. You have cause for concern for your chosen party, but, remember, as I am sure you are aware, the tides of political change does not happen in a timely fashion. Your points are well made. I also understand the history of our political parties and I appreciate the points you made. Keep the faith...it will reach fruition.
Ms. McNamara
If Rush Limbaugh is the spokesman for the Republican party, would Bill Maher be the spokesman for the Democratic party? Barak Obama had plenty to say about Rush's comments (they were totally wrong and out of line) about the U of Georgetown student but Mr. Obama didn't say a single word about Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin the 'C' word and a 'dumb twat'. Maybe if he had also condemned Bill Maher's rant he would have felt obliged to return the million dollar donation Maher gave him.
Also, Ms. McNamara - Christians don't fly airplanes into buildings to kill people. Only hate-filled Islamists do that.
@ Charley Lawson
But, do christian radicals bomb abortion clinics? Hmmm? Or do atheists or muslims? (hint: it's usually the first one).
Abortion clinic bombers = planes into buildings = terrorism based on religion however you spin it.
As for the Natives who got Murkowski re-elected, it was because of the "promise them anything" and she promised Natives land for votes, a.k.a. "Sealaska's Land Grab."
It's amazing what an unfulfilled political promise will do to people's party loyalty and votes.
Which only goes to further illustrate my point: The republican party is no friend to Alaska Natives and other minorities.
So I really, really don't understand the author's party loyalty.
charleylarson
When Bill Maher says things, Democrats don't really care. When Rush Limbaugh says things, Republicans care a lot. Now, you tell me which one sounds more like a political party spokesman.
Equating the two is stupid. There is no comparison whatsoever.
I don't think Bill Maher launched a multi-day attack on an individual or demanded to see a sex tape from an individual, either.
But you go ahead and say whatever will make you feel better. Be it accusing liberals of doing the same things as conservatives (false), or believing that "he did it too!" absolves your side of all guilt.
"Atheists don't do much of anything?"
A very short list of self-affirmed atheists:
Thomas Edison
Sigmund Freud
Helen Keller
Susan B. Anthony
Marie Curie
Mark Twain
Yeah, none of those folks amounted to a hill of beans. You should be embarrassed by your ignorant statement but I'm sure you're not. As a religious person, you are forced to live with cognitive dissonance every day. Whenever that is the case, hypocrisy is rarely recognized let alone acknowledged.
one last point jo
The revolution was financially supported by the purported 1%.
spiff
Could you cite your sources?
by the way spiff
I do not recall identifying myself as 'religious'. Perhaps you jumped to that conclusion.