• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Bush not fascist, but liberals not communist

Agreed, calling Bush a fascist is both inaccurate and misleading (“Calling Bush a fascist is wrong,” Feb. 23). However, let’s push David Keyes’ criticism just a bit further and look at imprecise language on both sides of the political spectrum. If liberals use the word “fascist” too freely, conservatives are just as guilty of bandying about the word “communist” like an epithet.

The Democratic party has never advocated proletariat revolution or the abolition of private property, yet many conservatives label liberals “communists” as though the McCarthy era was still in full swing. Last I checked, the black lists went out of fashion with Joseph himself.

This imprecision of language does indeed muddle communication and reduce the power of once-strong words.

More than that, though, it increases enmity by applying overly harsh language to parties that don’t deserve it.

This further disrupts the political process by making enemies where bridges could be built.

Calling liberals communists is no more excusable than calling Bush a fascist.

If we’re going to be sticklers about precision of language, let’s be equal-opportunity sticklers.

Lauren Clark Bruin Democrats media relations director

USAC should hear out potential reforms

In response to the behavior of council members of the undergraduate student government regarding efforts to create a senate system of government (“USAC says senate will stymie council,” Feb.24), I am appalled at the efforts of this elected body to suppress the labors of any student concerned enough with the Undergraduate Students Association Council to propose significant reforms to better the quality of our student government.

The students of UCLA are given the right and responsibility to hold our elected leaders responsible. When this council no longer serves the interests of a majority of undergraduates on this campus, we also have the right to enact legislation through a constitutional initiative.

This council should not chastise student leaders who use the very means of government that we allow in order to make sure the desires of general students are met.

That Students First! members complain that the council has better things to do is outrageous. The SF! slate has been complaining for 10 years (coincidentally, the length of time they have controlled the USAC government) that a diversity requirement is necessary.

They have likewise been complaining about the Expected Cumulative Progress requirement since it was adopted four years ago. SF! seems able and willing to waste the time of our council in pursuing policy changes they have long wished for and never been able to enact.

Why should students wait around for important reform to actually happen?

Instead, I applaud the efforts of Brian Neesby and the coalition of students willing to stand up to the self-serving interests of our student government leaders.

With any luck, their success may allow an undergraduate student government to truly represent a diverse set of values and concerns.

Morgan Miller Fourth-year, political science and history