Editorial? Who's kidding whom?
That self-proclaimed "People's Voice," which is nothing more than the mouthpiece of the more left-wing elements of the conglomeration that now makes up the Rally for Democracy recently ran an article denouncing Eutopia's right as "returning to old style politics." We at the Times decided to do a little digging on the subject.
First, they claim that the Free Republicans are willing to decry anyone "left of Attila the Hun" as "extremist." However, from our examination, the FR has not used "extremist" in reference to the RD, they have used it in regards to the Socialists the RD wishes to align themselves. But the FR itself, as this ill-thought article admits, is center-right, and thus far from reactionary. Thus, this poorly worded and trite expression seems little more than the typical demogoguery expected from the left--and indeed, a hypocritical return to the "old style politics" they themselves decried.
The RD itself admits it offers a home to "moderate socialists." Even the propaganda article in question does not deny this. They then attack the FR for "wondering where the compass is" when they seek to ally with the centrist Eutopia Reform Party. A party which the Voice declares has a platform "close" to the RD.
Truth- It was the RD that turned its back on a centrist grand coalition and instead turned left to the Socailists to form a coalition. This forced the FR to look for coalition partners of its own. Our sources report that the FR is very close to concluding a strategic alliance with the ERP. Perhaps what we hear at this point is sour grapes from a party that has allowed itself to be outmaneuvered by the upstarts who have looked to the center first in a coalition, as the RD should have. What is clear is that the ERP has decided the party it aligns itself more decidedly is the Free Republicans, much to the chagrin of the RD.
The Voice claims that the RD labeled the Royalist Party as "ultra-leftist." Truth- this is another inexactitude. The letter the FR sent to the Royalists was an inquiry regarding their platform, which seemed to lack a coherent center of thought in the mind of FR founder Sean Galloglaigh. The RD letter referred to CERTAIN POLICIES of the Royalists as leftist, and they were. They also referred to another as reactionary (which, as any politically knowledgable individual is aware, refers to ultra-RIGHT). So once again, the Voice has indulged in a painful inexactitude that undermines the veracity of the article in question.
The Voice refers to this as "fear mongering." But how correspondence between two political parties for the purpose of understanding what their positions are can be considered such is dubious. Indeed, it seems, once again, that the RD-sponsored "Voice" is the one indulging in "old-style politics." Here treating private correspondence between parties as policy. And then misquoting portions of that letter to accuse those it disagrees with of "spreading fear." Once again, hypocritical "old-style" leftist politics.
The Voice then wonders at the "lukewarm reception" the FR gave to a labor union that has openly promoted "revoulutionary" behavior. One might actually wonder how serious the RD takes it's "centrist" commitments when it is willing to align itself with parties willing to destroy the economy to make their case.
The Voice then condemns the FR for dealing with the CA, a business advocacy group. Apparently the RD thinks that every party that one dialogues with is one of perfect agreement? Obviously not, unless they really are as socialist as the Socialist party, but then their protests regarding "false labeling" as leftists truly rings false, does it not? The FR supports Chicago-style economics. Certainly the RD does not. Which one is the CA more likely to find a friend? The FR never pleaded "total agreement." Rather the FR is hard at work forming a coalition of groups, both in and out of government, that can support its overarching agenda, in line with it's openly "inclusive" party statement. The FR never said to any party it is speaking with that they "fully agree" with said group. Rather the FR has conducted itself in a manner consistent with coalition politics.
A concept that the RDers seem to have forgotten. So in truth, perhaps little has changed. The Left still has no enemies on the left. And instead of negotiating to create a vibrant center to Eutopian politics, they made the first move, and moved left. We can only be grateful the FR has not been so narrow-minded, and instead operated with a big-tent philosophy consistent with its policy principles. The RD seems to be suffering a case of red-faced shame for having been deftly outmaneuvered in the opening phase. We can only hope that if the RD continues on its current path, the FR continues to press its advantage.
Editors- Times
