Your View: Sims Editorial is Inaccurate, Offensive, Wrong

Editor, The Auburn Plainsman

I'm writing in response to Andrew Sims' article about fear in the Sept. 3 Plainsman. Specifically, I wish to do two things: to turn the notion that liberals represent the pinnacle of tolerance on its head, and to illustrate that the tired, old comparison of conservatives to Nazis doesn't hold water (or even small pebbles).

As a conservative, even I bought into the idea that liberals epitomize tolerance until I thought about it.

Now, I don't accuse them of being hostile towards people different from themselves, but rather ideas different from their own. So, I certainly don't accuse Mr. Sims of being intolerant toward any group of people, but he did make my case for me, and better than I could have, I might add.

The first such example is his description of citizens who loudly oppose so-called Obamacare as "roadblocks to progress." Sounds like he's not very interested in their ideas.

Well, maybe he's just decrying their disruption of useful, necessary discussion-- he just wants everyone to be heard, not drowned out by the "roadblocks."

That's reasonable, however, I suggest this was instead a glimpse into a favorite tactic of liberals: discrediting those with different ideas, usually by accusing them of being intolerant - be the first to accuse and no one will suspect you. Just watch MSNBC if you don't believe me.

I don't think it's so much a scheme as an assumption they naturally make, that anyone who disagrees must be intolerant. If your definition of tolerance is liberalism, then anything un-liberal is necessarily intolerant.

Next, Mr. Sims asserts that conservatism is about "ignorance and a refusal to move." Now we're certain that he's not interested in other ideas.

Now, for the piece de resistance of my argument, all credit due to Mr. Sims. (Sorry for sounding like a total jerk.)

In his own words, "Liberal[ism] is not a political party, but a mindset that we all should adopt that allows us to remain open minded to anything." Not quite a paradox, but wow!

I hope that jumped off the page at you. Liberalism may not be a party, but it is characterized by certain beliefs, just like conservatism, socialism, fascism, etc.

If it didn't have any precepts of its own it wouldn't end in -ism.

The only conclusion to be made then is that we should all think the same way in order to ensure diversity of ideas.

If you are not liberal, you are intolerant. Sounds like what I said a few sentences back, doesn't it?

So, moving on, who came up with the notion that conservatives are like Nazis, anyway? Maybe it's because conservatives favor a strongmilitary, as Hitler did.

Or maybe it has to do with the brutal conflict between the Soviets and the Nazis; perhaps because many liberal ideas resemble those of the Soviet Union, someone concluded that conservatives must be like Nazis.

"Nazi" is actually the German acronym for the National Socialist party; socialism is definitely not conservative.

In fact, the Nazis favored a heavily regulated economy, the suppression of alternative ideas, and gun control (Hitler bragged about how safe the streets of Berlin would be).

In light of the above paragraph, who does that sound like?

Furthermore, in his article, Mr. Sims asserts that the Holocaust was motivated by fear of change. The aim of the Holocaust wasn't to prevent an influx of Jews, Slavs, gypsies, and other minorities, it was to eliminate those already living in Europe; change was the goal of the Holocaust.

It wasn't my intention to show that conservatives are more open-minded - although a study came out a few months ago showing that conservatives read articles that challenge their own beliefs more often than liberals - it was merely to refute the idea that liberals are our society's bastion of acceptance and open-mindedness.

Michael LaPointe

senior, mechanical engineering