To the Editor:
Last week, there was an op-ed in The Southern by Leonard Pitts bemoaning the fact that "America is once again a house divided." I bemoan it, too, but would like to remind Mr. Pitts that although there have always been divided opinions, this current division actually took root during Obama's presidency.
You may recall that of all the senators prior to 2008, he was seen as the one farthest to the left — not a happy choice for conservatives. But, we put up with him for eight years, often complaining, but usually being polite (true, not always) and praying that he wouldn't make irreversible mistakes.
Not surprisingly, Pitts places the blame for division on President Trump — and on those of us who voted for him. Yet Pitts says that he (and the left) "place a premium on inclusion, compassion, and decency." What kind of "inclusion" is it when he "draws an inviolable line" between himself and those of us who support the president? Sounds pretty "exclusive" to me.
Pitts goes on to write of qualities that Americans value, one of which is "the intelligence of the electorate." Yet he accuses 50 percent of us as being xenophobic and fearful (and thus presumably ignorant) for supporting a man who has "not a molecule of honesty in him." That is a serious charge. The left has always claimed to be "tolerant" but it could not be more evident that they are intolerant of anyone who differs from them. And many of them are not being very polite about it either.
To affirm "inclusion" while excluding half of one's fellow citizens betrays a reverse definition of the word, and/or an inability or unwillingness to practice what is preached. To affirm the value of the "intelligence of the electorate" while calling us dumb is belittling (hardly compassionate). To affirm "decency" while accusing the president of 100 percent dishonesty is shameful, and presumes omniscience. Presuming omniscience, belittling other voters, and redefining such words as inclusion and decency is characteristic of the left, and Mr. Pitts has clearly shown — embraced and affirmed — the illogicality of their position.
I suppose Mr. Pitts views himself as "open-minded," yet he has said that any conversation with those of us who differ from him is closed. Period. But hopefully my fellow Southern Illinoisans, both liberal and conservative (and I do have friends on both sides) will be willing to converse — and hopefully with Websterian definitions and plain logic.