Social Justice is "Un-American." Really?

Here in Greenwich, State Senator L. Scott Frantz seems to be competing with Governor Romney for who can make the most astonishing statements about their fundamental views.

“The Democrats: how fundamentally un-American of them to push for concepts such as social justice.”  These are the words used by our State Senator, L. Scott Frantz, to his supporters at the opening of the Greenwich Republican headquarters. 

Perhaps Mr. Franz has a different definition for social justice.  But in the words of a great American, Franklin D. Roosevelt, “we Americans everywhere must and shall choose the path of social justice, ...the path of faith, the path of hope and the path of love toward our fellow man.”

The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States ends with the words, “and justice for all.”  A quick read of its history makes it clear that the author was speaking about justice expansively, to include the equal treatment of citizens, and removing barriers to opportunity.  In other words, “social justice.”

Republicans’ contempt for the welfare of everyday Americans is astounding. From the top of their ticket, with Mitt Romney who believes 47% of Americans take no responsibility for their own well being, all the way down to Senator Frantz who represents Greenwich and Stamford in the CT state legislature.

I am a Democrat and proud to say I stand for social justice, a principle upon which this country was founded.  And I am proud to vote for Democratic candidates who believe it is profoundly American to care about social justice.  That includes Dan Dauplaise, the Democratic candidate for State Senate in the 36^th district running against Senator Frantz.

Threatening American values: flag burning and torture

Which do you think is the greater threat to American values: the protester who burns an American flag, or a President who, by all indications, has consistently and flagrantly violated U.S. laws and international treaties? From the righteous speeches by Republican Senators in support of a constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag, you would think it was the former.

Would that these same “defenders” of our constitution were equally vigorous in protecting us from the excesses of the Bush administration’s grab for unchecked executive power. Whether it involves warrantless domestic spying, secret investigation of Americans’ phone and banking records, claiming (and exercising) the right to imprison anybody, indefinitely, with no right to due process, or condoning torture, the Republican Congress has acquiesced, even defended, President Bush’s desire to do virtually anything he wants in the war on terror, unchecked by Congressional oversight or judicial review.

To me, that is far more sinister than the individual who chooses to burn the American flag, as unseemly as that is. But the Republican Congress is more intent on finding ways to call its opponents unpatriotic – for anybody who dares to disagree with it – than it is on taking President Bush to task for the enormous damage he has done to our country’s values and reputation.

Questioning Bush isn't unpatriotic

There has been a consistent theme running through the Bush campaign that is very disturbing, and should give pause to any voter who is still undecided. Which is: if you disagree with how the Bush administration is prosecuting the war on terror, you are unpatriotic and not supportive of our troops. A cornerstone of American values is the right to challenge our government, enshrined in the first amendment’s right of free speech. While we fight the war on terror to preserve our liberties, Bush is subverting these very values here at home.

I do not question President Bush’s determination to fight the war on terror. But I support John Kerry for president because I believe he has a more sound approach for winning this war – based on the realization that the United States is stronger when it has strong alliances, that we are more likely to succeed when we consider the implications of our actions (planning for the peace, not just the battle), and holding ourselves to the very highest standards of proof and imminent threat when we commit our country to war – which puts our troops in harm’s way and kills innocent civilians.

President Bush has fallen short on all these accounts. There are no weapons of mass destruction – so there was no imminent threat to American security, or the ability to arm terrorists. There is convincing evidence that intelligence was manipulated to make the case for war. Now Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity – and over 1,000 Americans have died as a result. Meanwhile, there is a resurgent and very real threat of Taliban and Al Qaeda activity in Afghanistan, where we have only 10 percent of the number of troops that are tied down in Iraq. No progress has been made on disarming North Korea, a real nuclear threat. Insufficient efforts are being taken to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. These facts do not attest to strong leadership in the war on terror.

We are blessed that we have the right to challenge our leaders in order to make the United States a better, safer country – and I will exercise that right by voting for John Kerry for president.