What would Democrats do differently?
Ty De Long
University staff member
I'm somewhat suspicious of the plea given by Danny Richter in his Nov. 8 letter, "Republicans, what are you going to do?" I infer from his letter that he really doesn't want answers to the concerns that he expounded upon, but since I really don't know what the motives of his Viewpoint piece were, I won't speculate more than I have already. Here is my response.
I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I have only slight sympathies for the Republican Party, but quite frankly there aren't enough differences between the parties to merit my support for either.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution outlines the limited powers of the federal government. All of them are clearly listed. It might be interesting for the big government proponents of the Republican and Democratic parties to read up on them. They might learn something.
As to Richter's concerns, I don't see what difference a Republican or Democratic administration could make. Let's look at the first concern — global warming. Richter considers global warming a fact. What does that mean? In 2001 the National Academy of Sciences released a report on global warming. One of the 11 scientists, Dr. Richard Lindzen, wrote an article in the June 11, 2001 issue of the Wall Street Journal stating, "The NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long term climate trends and what causes them."
So is global warming a fact? And even if it were, what can be done? It makes no difference what the administration of one country does when so many countries share the planet. And how was the previous administration's stance on global warming different than the current one?
The next concern was water. Again, since nothing concrete was mentioned about water, I'm not entirely sure how to respond. But let me use an interesting fact that I recently happened upon from the book "Showdown" by Los Angeles commentator Larry Elder, "For seven years, 11 months and 28 days in office, Clinton kept the arsenic levels exactly where they had been since 1942 — at 50 parts per billion. In the waning hours of his administration, Clinton reduced the allowable parts from 50 to 10. Bush put it back to 50." Of course, Bush was slammed for this act, but it seems very few people really cared about the truth of the event. Again my question is this: What difference does a Democratic administration make?
As far as the war is concerned, I have mixed feelings. The protection of the United States is one of the few powers granted to the federal government. I'm not totally sure that what the U.S. government is currently doing is truly protecting us, but I don't know that it is not.
It certainly did not stop the attacks on Sept. 11. Perhaps if more resources are available to the federal government for defense, then we will be able to avoid future attacks. If it is protecting us by taking on Iraq, then the government is doing what it was created to do.
Richter also asks how the federal government is supposed to educate its people when it spends so much money on defense. If Richter would go back to the Constitution, he would see that the federal government is not supposed to finance the education of its people. Again, I ask him to go back to Article I, Section 8. He might also look into the billions of dollars that the federal government has put into failing educational programs like Title 1.
The solutions to Richter's concerns won't ever be solved by a Democratic or Republican administration. Unfortunately, the answer to his editorial question is no different than if it read "Democrats, what are you going to do?" Regardless of party, the answer would be the same: Spend more taxpayer money and get little to no results.
Ty De Long
University staff member
Nov. 9
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, November 12, 2002
