The mores and lesses of political parties

In response to a letter sent to the La Conner Weekly News Sept. 1, it occurs to me that our political positions may have become too staunch. (Defined - loyal and committed in attitude.)

Reading Mr. Hageman’s letter one can see he places himself and the editor of the paper squarely at opposite poles. A committed Republican vs. a committed Democrat. I would suggest that neither is true.

For each of James Dobson’s remarks one could attribute the words following “more” to a staunch Democrat and, likewise, the words following “less” to a staunch Republican. Re-read that letter and see if that might not apply to either party.

For the record, we are a country that dabbles in socialism, thanks to the Democrats and FDR. I’m just guessing here, but I rather doubt anyone would give up their social security when eligible to receive it. As for Afghanistan, look back to the start of that debacle and you’ll find two men named Bush, along with two Democrats in the White House along the way, not counting the current one whose burden was to find a way out.

Checks and balances have been with us for many reasons and we, the people, have the country’s forefathers on both sides to thank. So we deal with that. Having a loyalty to either side is not a fault unless it is unbendable.

To quote a Danish philosopher: “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” – Soren Kierkegaard

My two cents worth,

M.J. Craig

Shelter Bay