I have written to the editor recently and the responses have been in some case, angry and they confuse me. I realize that though we are using the same words, we ascribe to them different meanings. So, I would like to clarify some of my meaning. Hopefully this will calm things down a bit.
Let me start with the idea that there are really only two sorts of government any where or at any time. The most common is “top down” in its structure. Call it a dictatorship, monarchy or aristocracy, or whatever; in this form of government, the folks of the top class hold the power and decide what will happen. They have the sovereign right to rule others and to maneuver the people of their state in ways that benefit the most important unit, the state.
The alternative is the “bottom up” government called a democratically elected republic. In this government, the sovereign rule belongs to the individuals. There are no formal class designations because all persons are created equal and each person has inborn rights that can’t be taken away. Among these rights that belong to each person is the right to free thought and speech, free assembly, free expressions of faith, freedom to own property that can not be taken from them, the right to vote for their temporary leaders and free use of the market places. The first example of these extended republics is the USA.
Until “progressives” like Woodrow Wilson and FDR entered our political life, we had such a republic and everyone was glad to live in it. Wilson was an elite racist who thought the state should control the individual, the Constitution was out of date, and pushed for Jim Crow law in the federal government. FDR changed the definition of “liberal “ from “belief in personal liberty “ to the current synonym for “progressive.” This belief in the importance of the group/ state is actually a regression to the old thinking of the monarchy/ dictatorship.
Very interesting to me. I value the individual over the state or the group. I think you have a choice. Either you favor the freedom and equality of each individual person OR you value the security if the top dog telling you what you should do and think, pretending to take care of you and all you need. Those are the only two options. Power comes from the people or power comes from the state over the people. So, which side are you on?
If you want source material, might I suggest “First Principles” by Thomas E. Ricks and “Common Sense Nation” by Robert Curry.
Holly Geddes
Kent County Republican Central Committee member
Patti Hegland says
I am for a democracy that values and encourages the votes of all of its citizens and doesn’t try to suppress votes to gain an democratically achieved advantage.
Joseph Fick says
Well written and right on!
Joseph Fick says
Well written and right on!
I’m for the individual. Don’t need somebody telling me how to think, act or speak.
Ben Tilghman says
“Until “progressives” like Woodrow Wilson and FDR entered our political life, we had such a republic and everyone was glad to live in it.”
Um, everyone? Are you sure you want to stick with that claim?
Also, I assume from this letter that you support statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, which would allow 4,000,000 Americans to fully exercise their sovereign right to government.
The problem this country has pretty much always had is not the risk of tyranny but the intractable fact of oligarchy, which is top-down but can often look like it’s bottom-up. Both parties are soaked in it, though the Republican party seems especially to be under its sway right now.
But what saddens me about this letter is that it seems not to recognize that reasonable people can believe in the “bottom-up” model of government and still respectfully disagree about how that works in practice. Majority groups might be mistaken about what constitutes a sovereign right. Eleven states once fought a war to protect their “freedom to own property that cannot be taken from them,” specifically the enslaved people they falsely believed to be their property. I hope the letter writer recognizes that just because a person believes in bottom-up governance, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are right in all their other political beliefs.
Holly Geddes says
Let me address your points one by one.
1. 100% everyone. There is no such thing in a republic. But the general consensus was that the individual was more important than the head of government or the state.
2. The issues of statehood have well established procedures to follow. I am not sure everyone in Puerto Rico want to become a state. I doubt it. But we, the people have laws that describe who is a state and who can be a state. I think they should be followed as agreed upon.
3. Persons can disagree on how the “bottom up” model should work in its details. But that is why we have state legislatures and the federal legislature. The point is to break power into as many parts as possible so that no one part can bully the other. Those states who took freedom from persons to make a more perfect class structure were wrong. That issue was resolved with a war and 3 amendments, the 13th, 14th and 16th I believe.
4. No group, no person is correct in all beliefs, especially political beliefs. But we have a governmental frame work that gives us power to make changes as the times change. We are not just a federal system because most of the power should belong to the states. The elite progressives have beliefs that don’t hold up to scrutiny as much as the liberty loving conservatives. Just because you do not like the opinion another may hold, doesn’t mean you are right or are wrong. It just means you have points to discuss and a procedure to resolve the discussion.
Ben Tilghman says
Rather than respond to all your responses, I’ll just note that you asserted that “100% everyone” was glad to be living in the American republic from 1776 (or’89, if you prefer) to 1913 (when Wilson was elected). For the majority of that time, slavery was legal and voting was restricted to white males. That is, until those progressive abolitionists and suffragists started rioting.
Harvey R Shadbolt says
Eloquent and to the point. Isn’t it strange that people who wish to lord over us all are the ones crying that there rights are being violated by everyone else.
Holly Geddes says
Yes
Gren Whitman says
Here’s my question to Holly Geddes and her fellow Republicans: When will GOP leaders disavow their party’s deplorable contingents of white supremacists, self-appointed militias, armed demonstrators, QAnon conspiracists, vote suppressors, neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates, misogynists, covid-19-and/or climate-change deniers, prairie populists, America Firsters, Trump-loving bitter-enders, Capitol rioters, anti-immigrant demagogues, and just plain racists?
Deirdre LaMotte says
Those GOP leaders who disavow what you list are former GOP leaders; the present Party is
morally bankrupt. Ronald Reagan would have left the GOP, just as he once left the Democratic
Party.
HollyGeddes says
What? This is either progressive nonsense or just plain nonsense.
HollyGeddes says
As an appointed (to fill a vacancy) member of the Kent County Republican Central Committee, I can assure you that the official Republican Party does now and will always reject and denounce any group that does not believe that all persons are equal . Most of the groups you mentioned consider themselves to be superior to others and therefore the proper ruling class. Bull s**t to that. They are not with us nor do we support them.
However, violent demonstrators come from both parties. We denounce their violent actions. Do you? Or are those who stole or burned property during the BLM riots ok by you?
Deirdre LaMotte says
No one likes a riot but I’ll take the side of BLM any day over a Party who tries to invalidate
a fair election AND continues to pass state laws focusing on voter suppression that target minorities and the poor. On top of that the GOP somehow believes that basic public health
measures will steal one’s “freedom”. What a joke; the GOP has no problem stealing a woman’s
reproduction rights. The party has become a bunch of undemocratic fanatics; I don’t care how many flags they
drape themselves in.
Gren Whitman says
Ms. Geddes, please stop your “what-abouting.”
Face it, what’s left of the GOP is in Trump’s back pocket, and our ex-president has so-far failed to concede that Joe Biden beat him fair and square in the November 3 election and likewise failed to denounce the Capitol Hill rioters on January 6.
Because the GOP senators twice failed to convict Trump of his crimes as president, many Americans look forward to him finally getting his just desserts (and then some) in one or more courts of law.
The more you try to explain the unexplainable, Ms. Geddes, the bigger the hole you dig for yourself. Be honest and just admit the GOP Central Committee is filled with right-wing extremists so we can deal with reality.