Editorials / Opinions

In the world of political sloganeering, dress-up, statement-making, and all around histrionics, Democrat progressives run circles around conservatives. They have catchy if not necessarily clever alliterations and rhymes, and they air almost non-stop melodramatic theater (though it does require a good deal of suspension of disbelief). On the conservatives side is Donald Trump, a pretty good showman in his own right, but mostly in the realm of a stand-up comic who spends too much time dealing with hecklers. Beyond that, conservatives just don’t have the stagecraft. They do have well- reasoned arguments, but that’s kind of like watching a documentary on tadpoles versus Die Hard.

Going back to 1980, the left has given us No Nukes, Save the Planet, No Blood for Oil, We Are the 99%, Climate Justice Now, Save the Whales, Hands Up Don’t Shoot, No Justice No Peace, Health Care Is a Human Right, Black Lives Matter, Love is Love, No One Is Illegal, Trans Rights Are Human Rights, Hands Off, No Kings, and so many more. All of these can evoke emotion and even outrage among susceptible people, though it would be difficult for activists to offer any kind of thoughtful explanation. Slogans are intended to elicit passion, not thought.

Similarly, conservatives just aren’t good at conjuring up instant protesters with ready-made signs, taking it to the street, staging “die-ins” and “kneel-ins,” and playacting protests, as with the ladies dressed in Handmaid’s Tale costumes (they make Muslim ladies dressed in their full-body burkas seem liberated). I like Lee Greenwood as much as anyone, but he’s now 83, and God Bless the USA came out in 1983. Compare to Pink (she’s a famous pop star who performed at the 2024 DNC convention), who’s a relatively young 46. The former sold a respectable 3.5 million albums and has a net worth of $7 million, while Pink has sold 135 million records and has a net worth of $250 million. Conservatives just don’t have the hip celebrity vibe.

Nor do conservatives have any version of the progressive performance theater called land acknowledgment statements. I’ll offer a few examples below but first interject that progressivism has overtones of religion. However, while religious faith is sometimes described as believing what you cannot see, progressive religion requires one not to believe what can be seen. And while many religions offer forgiveness based upon avoiding and renouncing sin, land acknowledgment statements are designed to provide absolution without any intention of repentance, i.e. “We sure as heck are not going to give you back the land we occupy.” They are basically inane but pious-sounding words strung together by elite white people to make themselves feel good at the expense of native peoples.

A typical acknowledgment for Tacoma, WA government reads: "We honor and acknowledge the Puyallup Tribe, who have lived on and stewarded these lands since the beginning of time. This is a step toward true allyship, recognizing their enduring relationship with this land."

From Club Wyndham South Pacific (luxury time share condos): “(we) acknowledge the traditional custodians of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them, their culture and to the Elders past, present and emerging.” Incidentally, the annual compensation of the white Wyndham CEO is about $14,000,000.

“Gettysburg College (PA) recognizes the connections Indigenous Peoples have to this land and acknowledges the impact of settler colonialism. We will honor Indigenous pasts and presents to ensure vibrant futures. We commit to deepen our relationships with the land and the human and other relatives with whom it is shared.”

A sentient person might think these statements are both absurd and extremely patronizing. We can ask two questions regarding Land Acknowledgment Statements: who believes they are worthy and even profound, and what kind of person would receive them as such. The former is easy to answer as they involve the usual suspects of the progressive left. Think of affluent retired professional-level government employees with generous incomes including pensions, social security, and investment returns on top of significant material assets. Not surprisingly, they are largely the demographic that attends the Hate Trump rallies for a couple of hours a few times a year and otherwise are driven to maintain the societal status quo from which they have so benefited; it’s unlikely they will transfer the deeds for their houses and property to indigenous people.

Or the person who talks about animals with compassion while eating them; they abhor hunting but ignore the gore of the slaughterhouse (I'm a 20-year vegetarian). Or the privileged nitwit college student majoring in a “studies” program who was raised in a cocoon in which everything he did was fabulous and whose life experience is derived from YouTube and TikTok. Or the white person who informs Native Americans they should be outraged at the use of Indian imagery in sports. Hypocrisy, arrogance, and insulation from reality are the unifying factors.

More difficult to answer is what kind of person would be impressed by these “acknowledgments,” which at best are a bizarre form of consolation prize. My first thought would be an enterprising indigenous person who could exploit white guilt by demanding a well-paying job or position of prestige, perhaps an administrative college gig or an appointment to an influential municipal committee. Next, an indigenous person who believes her or himself to be some kind of a leader who fools gullible followers by claiming, “I got you important concessions from the white man.”

I imagine that white people who see themselves as vicarious victims- empaths for people of all colors- would find great meaning in these statements, especially if they crave the attention associated with victimhood, perhaps the same mental and emotional contortion that compels the male athletes to truly feel pride in beating women and girls. Also, people who are moved by politicians affecting accents depending on the audience: Hillary Clinton talking in her down-home Southern voice, or falling Democrat star Jasmine Crocket, whose default voice is educated and unaccented but tries to put on black dialect which sounds more like white redneck. I suspect that few regular indigenous people are impressed by land acknowledgment statements. Ultimately, they impress only white progressives themselves.

Sincerely,

Reid Fitzsimons, Thompson, PA

We are now at war with Iran. Unquestionably, the Iranian regime engaged in terrorism in the Middle East since its revolution and has killed thousands of US troops. As of mid-March, the American and Israeli military kinetic actions have resulted in over 3000 deaths, including US soldiers killed and injured. American presidents have used our military to go to war without a declaration since Korea. Under the Constitution the president may use the military in response to sudden attacks or emergencies that threaten national security. Due to concerns about potential abuse of this power, the 1973 War Powers Act restricts military engagement to 60 days without congressional authorization.

After 90 strikes on Kharg Island, the President stated that the strikes “totally demolished” most of Kharg Island, and we may hit it again “just for fun”. It would be a violation of the President’s oath of office to use our military just for fun, never mind the message to military families that the lives of our soldiers would be put at risk for frivolous reasons.

This was one day after our Secretary of Defense declared that the US military would offer “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” Offering no quarter is illegal under international law and explicitly prohibited by the Hague Convention. We must never forget that the US military has previously acted under the principle of no quarter. Most notably during the Indian wars of the 17th, through 19th century, murdering defenseless native men, women and children.

Can we forget the 1968 My Lai Massacre when American troops killed over 500 Vietnamese civilians. Initially the Army described it as “a successful search-and-destroy mission.” Army Lt. William Calley claimed his orders were to consider everyone still in the village a Viet Cong insurgent. It was only after investigation by Pulitzer Prize reporter Seymour Hersh that the massacre was revealed. Calley went to prison and no senior military members found responsible were prosecuted.

Not only must we reject Hegseth’s illegal call for no quarter, we must oppose the administration’s attacks on journalism. The administration’s false descriptions of the deaths of American citizens in Minneapolis reveal the importance of independent journalism. Recall the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

Sincerely,

William P. Hayes, MD, Union Dale, PA