To the Editor:
In his column "A Message to Conservatives" [The Dartmouth, Feb. 18], Seth Abramson '98 makes too many inaccurate claims to address in one letter. Therefore, I will limit myself to the most egregious among them.
First there is his mysterious reference to the conservative patriarchs of Dartmouth. Apparently these patriarchs were on vacation when a considerably liberal Board of Trustees and Administration were selected. Abramson also states that the conservatives on campus have directed attention to the fringe liberals of the Dartmouth campus instead of to the "level-headed Democrats" like himself.
Of course, that might not happen were those individuals to show their faces or their opinions during any important campus debate. The portrayal of this school as "a play-pen for private school brats with too much beer and spending cash for their own good" that Abramson "damns," is equally difficult to find amidst politically correct campus discourse on par with any college in the country.
Abramson makes other assertions that deal with the world beyond Dartmouth, which are, unfortunately, equally wrong. He offers up a truly original attack on conservatism: that it promotes "being rich, selfish, and lazy [as] perfectly acceptable." First off, for what possible reason would being rich be less acceptable than being poor? As for selfish, that may well be true. But that's not a terrible thing either.
If Abramson wishes to go off to the Peace Corps and devote his life to the less fortunate, then good for him. But if I choose to become an investment banker and retire at 40, then you're damn right that it's "perfectly acceptable." And, with the exception of the tiny percentage of Americans who inherit immense wealth, becoming rich requires hard work. Lazy doesn't factor into the equation.
Another generalization Abramson throws out as gospel truth is that conservatism's basic theme is "Let me do what I want, when I want, regardless of the consequences." This is conservatism's theme in the same way that liberalism's theme is "Give me what I want, when I want, regardless of whether I've earned it." Both interpretations are about as accurate as they are appealing.
Abramson's own definition of liberalism is "the logical outgrowth of human nature." He believes that liberals "patrol the divide between human and animal." Let me be perfectly clear: liberalism encompasses many principles and policies that I support wholeheartedly, but the unthinking self-righteousness of Abramson's declarations do nothing but revolt me.
