"Residence in Scholar" to the Jefferson Educational Society (JES) in Erie, PA, Dr. Andrew Roth, weighed in on President Biden's inaugural speech recently. As was his norm, he demonstrated overall animus towards conservatives and used the speech that I had earlier sent him from Patrick Buchanan to support his cause. Biden, Dr. Roth argued, was speaking from the center of the American political spectrum and he accused Pat Buchanan of being 'intellectually" and "morally" confused in his analysis of the President's remarks. Finding much in Dr. Roth's own editorial that lacked credence, I concentrated on how it was he, and not Buchanan, who was 'confused.' My letter to the president and publications editor of JES as well as to Dr. Roth follows. I was pleasantly surprised that he almost immediately wrote me back, thanking me for my opinion--despite it being so contrary to his own. In turn, I thanked him for reaching out to me.
I read with great interest Dr. Andrew Roth’s analysis of President Biden’s inaugural speech and enjoyed his paraphrasing the thoughts of several pundits regarding its success. His editorial reminded me of the anecdote often used before juries by renowned defense attorney Clarence Darrow. In describing how some lawyers loved to pontificate before juries because they were addicted to the sound of their own voices, Darrow described how one cross-examination of a key witness by opposing counsel went a little too far. Under relentless questioning by said counsel, the witness admitted that he had not actually seen the accused man bite off the plaintiff’s ear in a fight. “Well, then,” queried the lawyer, “If you didn’t see my client bit off the man’s ear, how can you be so darn sure that he did?” “Well,” the witness calmly replied, “I saw him spit it out.” Like the lawyer who was infatuated by the sound of his own voice, Dr. Roth’s own words prove the fallacy of his argument.
In his diatribe against Patrick Buchanan’s view of Biden’s speech, Dr. Roth accuses the former presidential candidate as “hearing only what he wanted to hear” and being “tone deaf as usual.” He additionally argued that Buchanan was ‘”intellectually and morally confused” when he accused Biden of rejecting “white supremacy and right wing terrorists without also condemning those on the left.” A few paragraphs later, however, readers are confronted with clear evidence that it is Dr. Roth, and not Buchanan, who is ‘confused.’ Dr. Roth “quickly noted” that since Biden’s comments “did not modify his domestic terrorism comment with the adjective right wing,” that the new president left listeners with the impression that he meant to condemn all types of terrorism. Had Dr. Roth left it there, the reader would have been convinced of his wisdom and the correctness of his rant against Buchanan. Unfortunately for Dr. Roth—whose animus against conservatives is evident in all his writings—he continued to quote from Biden’s own words thereby demonstrating beyond doubt that it was Buchanan who is correct. Later in the essay, Dr. Roth quotes President Biden as saying, “we will defeat” this “rise in political extremism, white supremacy, [and] domestic terrorism.”
Dr. Roth seems to have missed the fact that, if Biden meant to be speak to all acts of extremism or terrorism, he would not have seen it proper to only refer to ”white supremacy” in this instance—he would have simply omitted that term altogether in his sentence. Moreover, the qualifiers “extremism” and “domestic terrorism” clearly bracket the term “white supremacy.” Biden’s intentions were clear and Buchanan correctly laid the charge of bias at his feet. Worse for Dr. Roth, his readers are still keenly aware that it was Leftists mobs who last summer set scores of our cities deliberately aflame, caused thousands of businesses to be vandalized and destroyed, resulted in over a dozen persons being killed, and who brutally attacked and sent to hospitals hundreds of police and federal agents. Indeed, exceeding the violence on January 6th, mobs deliberately set fire to the federal courthouse in Portland with federal employees still inside! Candidate Biden was slow in condemning the ongoing violence and when he did, he chose the occasion to attack all acts of terrorism. Nor did our new President have any harsh words for the several prominent Democratic leaders—Including his own Vice President—who excused such BLM and Antifa violence and even posted bail for leftist arsonists and “domestic terrorists.” President Biden’s reluctance to specifically condemn the Left for such un-democratic behaviors—when these persisted over hundreds of days was a grievous error on his part. That he failed to do so again in his inaugural could only be missed by someone who is as “confused” as Dr. Roth.
Still another error on the part of Dr. Roth is his belief that president Biden spoke to and will be guided by ‘centrist’ American principles. Wisdom generally dictates we ought to judge individuals more by their character and their actions than by what they say. Dr. Roth’s perception that President Biden will rule from the center and according to the best traditions of American politics has been proven to be totally wrong in little more than one week! He places great faith in the President’s words. I’ll remind him that we on the Right, who are slightly more skeptical of this president, see in Joe Biden’s predilection to rule by governmental fiat far less democracy and individual rights for citizens.
Sincerely,
Jack Bovee, JES member
Erie, Pa
