Letters to the Editor 2/15
Dear Chronicle Editor,
I am writing to express my concern with the recent alignment of the concept of ‘change’ when discussing political issues both on the local and national levels. Specifically, I object to the revisions most recently provided which incorrectly describe change as the ‘action of enforcing one’s opinions onto others.’
I was reminded of this when reading The Chronicle’s interview with members of the political organization Cincinnati Indivisible. “An effort to facilitate change” was used to explain a video asking Senator Rob Portman to address the group at the next town hall meeting. Participants in the video made various assumptions about the senator’s ethical conduct based on nothing more than partisan objections. For the numerous organizations with similar goals to CI, change and antagonism seem to be one and the same.
Despite the “voices of kindness,” their official site features harsh words for anyone not assuming direct opposition to our presidential administration.
There seems to be a disconnect that exists between these students and opinions that may not agree with their own. This distortive propensity exudes Marxist philosophy, which rejects such principles as private property, world history and objective reality, all geared to “change” a society they seemed ruled by a ‘capitalist class.’
Historical records clearly identify that dictatorships such as those in Nazi Germany and within the Soviet Union used the concept of change for the justification of immeasurable atrocities, in large part through pathological manipulation. Hitler himself attributed his success to his peoples’ “volcanic eruptions of human emotions stirred by the torch of the spoken.” The reality of such regimes equated the lives of their citizens to nothing more than cannon fodder for the political elites.
I do not ascribe intent through acting out as a desire for change, rather, I present these examples to illustrate what unrefined transformation can bring as a result. Differences between the intentions and results of an action are vital to our understanding and can better match our goals to create a brighter future.
This understanding can be achieved through showing respect for the objections we receive from those holding different perspectives.
This approach does not guarantee success–every plan has the potential to fail–but what better way to ensure we avoid unnecessary tragedies than by discussing them with the people who believe they will happen? Such a communication makes way for progression favored by all parties involved.
I do have faith that kindness in our actions will prevail–that is, so long as we prioritize using kindness productively and with a clear, benevolent goal in mind.
I greatly enjoy your paper, an hope for your continued success in publication.