Letters to the Editor: If Democrats are 'radical socialists,' so were the founders
To the editor: Thanks to Kurt Bardella for calling out one of the biggest obstacles to bipartisanship — the Republicans tarring everything the Democrats support as "radical" and "socialist."
The preamble of the Constitution states the goals of American self-governances. Granted, these goals may have been considered radical at the time they were written, but they certainly can't be considered leftist or socialist today.
Hopefully, we can get back to work on forming a more perfect union. As Bardella suggested, today there are racial, social and environmental considerations toward establishing justice.
After last week's attack on the U.S. Capitol, insuring domestic tranquility seems like it will be a work in progress for the foreseeable future.
Providing for the common defense cannot be just in terms of military strength, diplomacy and intelligence gathering. COVID-19 has shown us that pandemics are a matter of national security as well.
Promoting the general welfare is huge, and it will require pragmatic fiscal policy to improve infrastructure, the environment, healthcare and education.
I understand the Republican mantra of limited government, especially in light of the restraints outlined in the Bill of Rights. But it's not "radical leftist socialism" to want effective, efficient government.
John Eaglesham, Long Beach
..
To the editor: Most Americans don't have a clue about socialism or communism. Additionally, the two are often conflated in many people's minds, along with the "radical left" label.
How many people who use the labels that Bardella decries want their Social Security or Medicare taken away? Note that the former is not called "Capitalist Security."
Barbara Assadi, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Bardella quotes prominent Republicans complaining that Democrats are pushing a "radical socialist agenda" on the unsuspecting American public.
I seriously doubt any of these "patriots" could accurately quote the dictionary definition of socialism, which is, "A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital and land in the community as a whole."
Instead, they casually and irresponsibly label Democrats as "socialists" — and radical at that — which is certainly easier than detailing how the Democrats' agenda might push America away from capitalism and into a collectivist society.
Noel Johnson, Glendale
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
