A Case for Abolishing Political Parties

Article excerpt

A case for abolishing political parties

Don Buck wrote that there are two issues that are most of our financial and political problems. His solutions are excellent.

First is term limits -- because our Founding Fathers did not intend that politicians make a career of their elected offices.

And his solution for taxation is the proposed fair tax, but there is an issue that has probably created more political problems, and this would be political parties. When our Founding Fathers established our republic they were concerned about factions being a detriment to the republic they gave us. Political parties are the ultimate factions; our Founding Fathers should have banned factions that evolved into political parties.

In a republic, political parties are superfluous entities. In a republic, we elect people to vote on issues according to how the majority of his constituents want him or her to vote.

So, let's just abolish political parties -- an archaic concept -- not necessary in a republic.

Chuck Coletta


Biggest mistake: U.S. delay on WWII

I would like to comment on Richard Cohen's World War II column and the fine response by Mr. Hogan on April 6. First, contending that the Soviet Union won the war seems to me quite an exaggeration of the facts.

True, the Soviets may have done more, but the Allies (as Hogan explained) caused the Germans to keep forces in and around Europe, preventing the axis from sending even more divisions and military equipment into Russia. Even the anticipation of a second front, which Stalin had been arguing for since the beginning, kept the Gemans committed to a large force in Europe. Therefore, without Allied offensives, bombings and supplying equipment to the Soviets, the fighting on the Eastern front may have had a more questionable outcome.

Even the possibility that Stalin would have negotiated a separate peace with Hitler, was something that worried Roosevelt and Churchill.

Secondly, as Hogan stated, the U.S. was "rightfully preoccupied with the Pacific." The question I keep asking myself is why we were not "rightfully preoccupied" in Europe, when the war there first broke out? I understand we were isolationists and didn't want to engage in European affairs. But in 1939 and 1940, when Poland was overrun, France was conquered and London was being bombed on a daily basis, America stood by and did nothing.

Sometimes I wish we were isolationist now. It seems we get involved too easily in wars. And the more history that I read, the more anti-war I become.

But our involvement in World War II should have come much sooner. These were are Allies, these were our friends, and yet we initially turned our backs on them, even as they were being destroyed. In my opinion, it was one of the most costly and insensitive mistakes our great country has ever made.

Don Tuzzo


Third candidate cost mayoral race

Is Robin Meier's campaign be to blame for Wally Frasier's loss in the Mundelein mayoral race?

It's quite possible. They had similar ideas and opinions on the future of Mundelein. I think that Frasier was the stronger candidate and that if Meier was to have dropped out of the race and endorsed Frasier, then he could have easily swept the election, by gaining support from her and her supporters.

Lentz was qualified for the position and took a different stance that separated him from the other two candidates, which led him to less competition to gain his supporters.

I am looking to see Lentz hard at work in the new few weeks, bringing what he promised to the residents of Mundelein -- new streets, a revived downtown, growth in business. …