The Online Reflector

To the Editor:

In the last issue of The Reflector there was an opinion article about how the Republican Party supposedly blocks all forms of social reform. The author of this piece provides examples that range from civil rights reform and environmental reform of the 60s and 70s to consumer and health care reform in this decade.

Using skewed facts, the author made a very compelling case for the evilness of the Republican Party, and Republicans on the whole. As the Vice President of the UIndy College Republicans, I felt it necessary to write a rebuttal to this slighting and unfair piece against myself and my fellow party members.

I’d like to address the headline of the article reads: “Republicans and their policies have stood in the way of every progressive cause,” this headline made me proud for many reasons. The author is right. We have stood against every progressive cause since Republican President Theodore Roosevelt left office. Roosevelt was an admitted progressive and an irregularity in the party on the whole.

Blocking progressive policies is something the constituency of the party demands, and cannot be dismissed. Progressive causes usually involve infringement of rights and defy the Constitution.

In the original article the author points out that Republicans merely stand against Progressive causes for things like states rights, and individual liberties. In actuality we stand for something bigger, the Constitution, which does not allow for the federal government to infringe on any rights, not just states rights.

When it comes to Civil Rights legislation it is very hard to make Republicans look like blockers of change, yet the author tries to do it in one short paragraph. However, the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 had a higher percentage of Republicans voting for the bill than the Democrats. It took the Republicans to get the bill passed. Of the 34 Republican Senators only six voted against the bill.

The author got his facts wrong. It was not simply the majority of Democrats that passed the bill. Left to their own devices the Democrats could not do it themselves; it took the Republicans to make history.
When it comes to environmental regulation, the author yet again gets his facts wrong. In the article he admits that President Nixon, who was a Republican, signed the Clean-Air Act into law.

While he is certainly not the type of person I like to cite as a Republican, I doubt his Watergate activities invalidate the importance of this law.

Republicans do stand against most environmental legislation brought up by Democrats, and rightfully so. Perhaps the most lethal type of environmental legislation is the Cap and Trade legislation currently being tossed around by the Democrats.

This bill serves no other purpose than to raise oil and gas prices and tax vital industries, all in the name of global warming.
Consumer Regulation is quite simple for a Republican to tackle. First of all, the author is only interested in regulating Wall Street.

This is not protecting any Americans. While many Americans lost a lot of money in the stock market over the past two years, there is an assumed risk when investing. No doubt there was foul play involved with some of the companies that made the downfall even greater, but the Security and Exchange Commission is perfectly equipped to handle such issues.

With that being said, the biggest reason that Republicans are against regulating Wall Street is that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to control the U.S. economy. It is a futile endeavor that is way outside the role of government.

When it comes to Gay Rights the author tries to paint the GOP as anti-gay, yet homosexuals have the same rights as any other American. They are free to vote, go to school, work and do anything else. Gay marriage is a relatively new issue, and as such the slow wheels of government continue to grind on for this issue.

The anti-gay sentiment often seen in politics no doubt reflects the sentiment of voters, many of whom are still wary of gays.
I am a firm believer that the states will lead the charge in the case of gay marriage. While the federal government has no role in regulating marriages, the states do.

When states legalize gay marriage, other states are forced to recognize them.
The Republican stance on taxes is fairly simple; we should lower them. To do this we must shrink the size of our national government so we can lower taxes, without raising budget deficits. Obama has tripled the budget deficit in his first year in office! Lowering taxes makes perfect sense, and it allows Americans to spend their own money creating jobs and employing other Americans.

Decreasing the size of our government will help make people less dependent on the government, and give citizens back their rights by taking the long arm of the government out of their lives.

In the end the Republican party is fairly simple: we aim to preserve our vital rights, lower taxes, grow the economy and keep the government out of our economy. If we are allowed to prosper, we must also be allowed to fail.

Clearly the author does not subscribe to our philosophy, which is fine. However, when he seeks to misrepresent, label and present untruths there is a problem. This type of rhetoric against the GOP is something that happens all of the time, which is why I felt it important to write this response. I hope that it may change a few minds, or at least give readers an insight into the other side.