In defense of Republican opportunity


Last week Mr. Felts of Peachtree City wrote a scathing reply to my previous letter. In that letter I had argued that Republicans should focus on fiscal problems instead of getting bogged down over certain social issues.

His reply could be summed up with one sentence of his letter “If our fathers had lived as such cowards, the Nazis would control all of Europe and the Japanese would own all of the Pacific and Southeast Asia.”

Mr. Felts seems to mistake making an economy, heavily impaired by government, the priority with completely folding on all social issues. While I appreciate the debate over the issues, I feel Mr. Felts completely missed my point. His letter is filled with hyperbole and arguments against points I made that have been so misconstrued that I wasn’t even sure if I was the Mr. Rigsby he was referring to.

When Mr. Felts wrote, “Do honor and honesty no longer hold any value?” I was flabbergasted. I can explain how the economy is in dire straits point by point, and I only suggested that social issues are only going to hinder Republicans in the 2016 elections.

Also, how is having the Republicans write a bill that first secures the border then addresses which illegal immigrants can stay and which cannot be misconstrued as a complete surrender? I am not sure what kind of logic is used in Mr. Felt’s dissection of my article; the only certainty is that he felt strongly about what he said.

He seems unable to grasp the current state of affairs in the economy. I am not making these arguments for “a few more bucks in our pockets.” I am making these arguments to protect the money we have now.

Our government increases taxes but fails to use this money appropriately. We owe around $18 trillion in debt and our expenditures are going to cost more each year, according to the government’s own projections. Considering that these expenditures usually cost more than is projected anyway, we have every reason to focus on fiscal issues as a priority.

On top of these problems we have an inevitable hike in interest rates in our near future, which is not going to help our situation. Perhaps Mr. Felts needs to study the U-6 numbers, the impact of government spending on the economy, and what an interest rate hike means for government debt.

Mr. Felts goes on to infer that I am advocating to “bend to their desires,” referring to any minority group that wants social change. I have to say that is quite an exaggeration of what I said in my article.

I argue that governments, state or federal, should not legislate marriage between two consenting adults. He talks about the NAACP, sharia law, Hollywood, and Washington elites all forcing their political correctness on us, stretching what is stated in my article to fit a definition that in no way represents my views.

I should have been more specific in the social causes I was referring to so that Mr. Felts could respond more rationally instead of dredging up every extreme he could think of.

The one thing we do agree on is that the educational system pushes political correctness, and that it should not limit the views of students. The only factual argument he made is that I wrongly stated that the federal government regulates marriage. It is the state government — you got me there, Mr. Felts.

I appreciate critique but I would encourage Mr. Felts to use more rational arguments when trying to debate serious topics. If I had submitted that paper in a debate my professor would have lectured me for an hour on how to refrain from using straw man and slippery slope arguments.

If Mr. Felts wants to have his opinions taken seriously, he might want to refrain from inferring that those whom he disagrees with are cowards, and his whole warm yellow stream reference was just odd.

So, Mr. Felts, thank you for illustrating my point with your angry reaction. While you may have completely misrepresented my position, you have perfectly highlighted the approach that turns the younger demographic away from the Republican Party.

Josh Rigsby
Fayetteville, Ga.