Commie tree-huggers too much for some writers

By Lauren Balliet
Collegian Staff
February 7, 2007

I’m certain that the Collegian staff, loyal readers and bored cafeteria workers alike have all noticed the natural phenomenon that, once in a great while, people have opinions. Very coincidentally, many of these opinions make their way into this publication, which is all right and fine with me because that’s why we have a newspaper in the first place. My problem is with the gross imbalance of political opinions that I’ve recently seen betwixt these pages.

In the “Pro vs. Con” that ran Jan. 24, as you might recall, writers dealt with President Bush’s new strategy for the conflict in Iraq. I decided to give it the once-over and was amazed by the blatant Democratic propaganda in the “No” section. Half of the article by self-proclaimed “leftist ideologue” Joseph Gauger dealt not with the new plan, but his belief that Bush should be impeached and tried for war crimes. He also added that the Democratic Party is going to save each and every one of us. Of course, the obligatory “the rich are stealing money from the poor” argument was artfully woven into the whole spiel.

According to any dictionary, by the way, an ideologue is not an especially good thing to be.

In the same paper, Jesse Hamilton only thinly veiled his own left-wing tendencies in his criticism of Bush’s State of the Union address, which also stated that the Democratic Party is going to save each and every one of us. (In case you didn’t catch the Bush-bashing on Jan. 24, Hamilton so kindly published the same article under a different title this last week.)

One’s party affiliation has no business being mentioned when you’re explaining your stance on Bush, the administration, the new strategy, the Iraqi conflict or whatever. Furthermore, the vast majority of the readers probably don’t care. They’re reading to learn something new, not because they genuinely desire to witness somebody prattling on and on about the supposed virtues of such-and-such a party and the supposed evils of another. Even the Philadelphia Inquirer and FOX News know more subtlety.

College Republicans’ President Dan Sandiford omitted any Republican Party propaganda in his article on Barack Obama in the Jan. 24 issue. Why can’t members of the Young Democrats put on the same mental filter?

Yet it continues. Last week, Francesca Lo Basso – who is extraordinarily liberal, if you didn’t catch it the first 487 times – taught us proper etiquette for protesting against Bush and his evil capitalist Nazi empire at rallies with thousands of other nonconformists. Unfortunately, her etiquette article was addressed only to communists, pacifists and other such groups. You pro-lifers will just have to figure out how to protest on your own, even if you do enjoy free-range chicken, organic veggies, immigration and Birkenstocks.

We’re being bludgeoned to death with the “Impeach Bush” sign of the La Salle liberal voice.

It’s not just that these articles scream radical politics at us – propaganda aside, the authors really aren’t telling us anything at all. We the readers want to be imparted with information that we can chew on ourselves, so we can come up with our own conclusions. We want strong, worthwhile arguments rather than wasted ink. I relish it when the “Pro vs. Con” section raises valid points from both sides, leaving me to ponder and thus strengthen my own politics.

Responsibility for this slant in our Collegian does not lie solely on the shoulders of the irritatingly vocal writers. We need more informed and diverse writers contributing to the paper, and not just disgruntled moderate independents like myself complaining about the lack thereof. La Salle offers a political science major, so I know you guys are out there lurking somewhere. It only takes a couple hours to write an article, and you’ll be giving a few students something to mull over.

But for the love of St. Jean Baptist de La Salle, keep your party agenda to yourself.

ballietl1@lasalle.edu