Recent events reminded me of how medieval alchemists fooled people into believing they could turn lead into gold. Modern progressives are political alchemists who fool people into believing they can turn absurdities into the sensible-lead to gold.
PA early voted 50 days before the senate election with only one debate right before Election Day. Many thousands had voted before seeing John Fetterwoman’s (AXIOS, 9/12/22) very obvious challenges. They also, in a landslide, elected a Democrat who has been deceased since last month (10 Philadelphia, 11/10/22).
In some states, it’s legal to register on Election Day or to cast ballots with no ID, send ballots in with no return address, unmatched addresses or signatures and as long as postmarked by Election Day those ballots could be received a week late. Progressives are fine with states making election laws that benefit their side. Those ballots were like lead turned into political gold.
When the SCOTUS decision on Roe returned authority to states, alchemists went to work to convince us democratically elected legislators should have no control regarding abortion for their own state. Lead into political gold once again.
It’s all lead to gold when Democrats say Republicans controlling Congress spells the end of democracy until we saw Florida tabulated 7.75 million votes on election night while Arizona is still unable to declare winners. Biden thought his executive order to pay off student debt was gold until it was ruled “the largest executive branch overreach in history”(Judge Mark Pittman).
New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oregon, Illinois and California all kept the same progressive governors. If the next two years are similar to the last two, there will be continued exodus from those states making them more dangerous and unlivable. The alchemists will tell us what we see is not to be believed. After all, for some, it worked before.
Ralph Miller
* * *
Mr. Ralph Miller's letter of Nov. 14 was not germane to either Tennessee or Georgia, both Republican states (I do not know where Mr. Miller resides). His criticisms were directed at neither Tennessee nor Georgia issues, but directed at the Democratic voters, voting processes and election results of Democratic states in which he does not reside.
He also criticized Democrats regarding two issues of national interest: abortion and student loan forgiveness. Presently, both have been resolved in favor of Republicans, so Mr. Miller should be pleased, not critical.
To be clear, I support without question Mr. Miller's First Amendment right to free speech. However, I read his letter as only fanning the flames of distrust of, hatred of, and maliciousness toward Democrats when we really need more trust and less hatred and maliciousness.
How were the flames fanned?
(1) By comparing (a) Democratic voters to people fooled by medieval chemists "turning lead into gold" and (b) Democratic leaders as the medieval chemists; both are exceptionally insulting.
Were Republican voters fooled because they believed the "lead" offered by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was "gold"? Her "lead" is clearly (a) her hatred of, not civil disagreement with, all Democrats (especially Rep. Pelosi), (b) her hatred of, not civil disagreement with, policies or laws offered by Democrats even if helping her constituents, (c) her blind allegiance to Donald Trump's hate and divisiveness, (d) placing her obvious national ambitions ahead of representing her District, and (e) her promotion of misinformation and lies, as well as many other negatives. Was Rep. Greene the medieval alchemist turning her "lead" into "gold"?
No, to both questions.
Those voting for Rep. Greene likely based their decision on being represented by an embarrassing Republican instead of a more qualified and well respected Democrat, and not the "lead turned into gold" she offered. They voted for her knowing fully well of her being feckless, her arrogance, and her foibles and other negatives. Similarly, those voting Democratic also likely based their decisions on being represented by a Democrat, and not "lead turned into gold" as Mr. Miller alleges.
(2) By criticizing Democratic governorships with the assumptions that because of the them, those states will become even more dangerous and unlivable because of an exodus of people. While there have been population declines in California, Illinois, Ney York or Pennsylvania, it is insulting to imply (a) only Republicans left the state and solely because of Democratic governors, and (b) the remaining Democratic populace would make states more dangerous and unlivable.
(3) It was also especially insulting to refer to the newly elected senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, as John FetterWOMAN (caps for emphasis only).
Will we ever stop criticizing the other party solely because it's the other party?
Will we ever start offering our opinions and criticisms when based on facts or reasonably supported theses only?
Will we ever stop insulting just because we can?
Joe Warren