In response to Liam Watson’s letter to the editor, “Indivisible Georgia Isn’t a Bipartisan Group” (May 2), I, too, am a voter with a conscience. For that reason, I must dispute Watson’s contention that Indivisible Georgia District 10 isn’t bipartisan—or a better word might be nonpartisan. Yes, Indivisible Georgia District 10 opposes the Trump agenda, but then, so do many independents and Republicans, some of whom participate in Indivisible 10’s events and monthly meetings.
This is where conscience guides action regardless of political party.
Let’s begin with why Indivisible opposes the Trump agenda. It’s important, for our purposes, to distinguish between Trump’s personal style and his agenda. His personal style includes attacks against women, people with disabilities, people of color, people of different faiths, people who are poor, immigrants, Gold Star families, the press, people who disagree with him and resistance organizations. He lies, he cheats, he bullies, and he carries out personal vendettas. Unfortunately, in Trump’s case, his personal style, his abrasive personality, his ignorance and his lack of basic empathy drive his agenda. His agenda, blindly supported by members of Congress who ignore their conscience for political gain, includes destroying federal agencies that support basic human and social needs related to education, health care, food security, animal welfare, safety regulations, employment regulations, environmental regulations and Americans with Disabilities Act regulations.
Resistance means applying one’s conscience to discern the most effective policies for doing the most good for the most people. That’s what governments are supposed to do. Trump’s policies always seem to do the most harm to the most people—especially, by design, to disenfranchised people.
As co-chair of Indivisible Georgia District 10, I invited Joe Hunt to speak at our January meeting. Chalis Montgomery and Richard Winfield, Democrats running for Jody Hice’s Congressional seat, had already spoken to the group, and because we consider ourselves nonpartisan, we invited Hunt, a Republican, to have equal time to present his platform. Although his staff initially accepted the invitation, in the end, Hunt declined because his campaign didn’t think his base would appreciate his speaking to an Indivisible group. Fair enough, but the invitation disproves Watson’s contention that our Indivisible group is a partisan group. Our members would have treated Hunt with the respect he deserves, and we were disappointed that he refused to speak to us.
Watson’s letter would have been more honest and impactful if he had sorted out exactly how Joe Hunt’s agenda differs from Trump’s agenda. Otherwise, Hunt comes across as yet another Republican candidate who, if elected to Congress, would blindly rubber stamp Trump’s agenda without searching his conscience to discern what is right to do for the country and what is harmful.
Personally, I have nothing against Hunt. He seems like a decent man, but I would hope that if he ever ends up in Washington, he separates himself from the Republican agenda when he knows in his heart that whatever policy is in question would do more harm than good. The same goes for Democrats elected to Congress. I wouldn’t want them to blindly support a Democrat’s proposed policy if the research, experts, common sense and personal testimony conclude that it would be harmful to specific groups of people, especially those who struggle with basic human and economic challenges on a daily basis.
Watson is correct when he says, “A deep political divide plagues this country, and the cure is compromise.” Indivisible Georgia District 10 reached out to Hunt’s campaign in a nonpartisan effort to listen to other points of view, but as a group we were dismissed because Republican voters might not feel the same way about nonpartisanship as we do. With that rejection, Joe Hunt missed an opportunity to bridge the political divide.