I object to Frank Schaeffer's labeling of Republican, technically "Republican leaders," as traitors in "Open Letter to the Republican Traitors (From a Former Republican)."
If Lincoln himself did not label even the leaders or soldiers of the Confederate army as traitors, who is anyone to label members of today's GOP or its leaders as such? I am a pragmatic progressive, nearly 40-years old, who has never voted for a Republican except perhaps once for a county level office, and as a teenager growing up in Iowa in a conservative evangelical household I was enamored of and did volunteer work for Jack Kemp and G. H. W. Bush. So, I'm not wholly without credentials similar to Mr. Schaeffer's as a progressive who is nonetheless informed about the religious right and the modern Republican Party. Yet, I absolutely cannot condone labeling Republicans or the leaders of the GOP as traitors. It is a vicious rhetorical tactic progressives suffered under at the hands of Republicans and radical conservatives for the last 8 years. We can do better.
I believe that Mr. Schaeffer's comments are divorced from an appreciation of American history. There have always been in conflict in the United States the anti-imperial and imperial perspectives, the secularism-influenced and Christian State-influenced perspectives, and the pro-regulation and anti-regulation perspectives relative to economic philosophy and the role of the government.
Relating to regulations and economics, consider the rhetorically extremely violent political battles surrounding the Nation Bank during the Jacksonian era and just before. Yet, we don't today consider one side of that argument traitorous.
Relating to military adventures overseas or imperial expansion, consider, for instance, that many of the same arguments made against US involvement in the First and Second World Wars were made by those--like myself--opposing G. W. Bush's US-led invasion of Iraq: we should not go abroad looking for dragons to slay (an invocation of President Washington's and in particular President John Q. Adams' warnings). Yet, dare any side of any of those debates be deemed traitorous today? None, except perhaps the pro-Nazi isolationists who were a fringe within the large segment of the American population calling for President Roosevelt and Congress to put "America first."
There is legitimacy to very different, even extreme viewpoints under the wide embrace of the Constitution and American political discourse.
I believe that some elements--very far-right ones--of the Republican Party, who would no doubt call themselves conservatives first and Republicans second, are in their own way nearly as dangerous as militant sectionalists and Southerners in the 1850s and 1860s. (Most of the Religious Right isn't even similarly dangerous; one of the Religious Right's extreme segments, Christian Reconstructionists, are that dangerous but only in intent; they haven't broad enough political support right now.) And I believe that the majority of Republicans are too much reactionary conservatives on economic and social issues, particularly on the thunderously non-harmful initiative of marriage equality for gay Americans. Yet, neither the far-right nor the large swath of the US population that is the too-conservative GOP majority--nor any Republican member of Congress I can think of--are traitors within the context of the American experiment or experience. They are at worst, in the words of Lincoln, "dissatisfied fellow countrymen" and even "friends."
(Photo: Lincoln's first inauguration, 1861. From Lincoln's address that day: We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.)