Letter from Harry Levine
Columnist’s Views Are ‘Disingenuous’
You have recently published several political essays by Adjunct Professor (Wilkes University) Francis P. Sempa, most recently last week (“Why We Should Still Revere Washington’s Farewell Address”).
This essay uses Washington’s famous “obstruction of the laws” and “foreign entanglements” passages in selective, partisan ways that downplay and distort their original context and intent.
On obstruction, Washington warned against organized factions seeking to override the “delegated will of the nation” and subvert constitutional processes. Mr. Sempa turns a warning directed more appropriately at recent Trump actions into a criticism of people who are the victims of Trump’s disregard for our constitutional processes.
On foreign policy, the essay quotes Washington’s warnings about “permanent inveterate antipathies” and steering clear of “permanent alliances,” but the essay omits his qualifications: that existing commitments must be honored, that honesty in treaties is essential, and that temporary alliances in emergencies are acceptable.
If Washington were alive today, I could see him shaking his head in disbelief.
Overall, Mr. Sempa takes bits and pieces from a complex argument and repurposes them to support current partisan positions inconsistent with Washington’s broader concerns.
Mr. Sempa’s essays are case studies in dishonest writings. They engender distrust rather than dialogue.
Harry Levine
Springfield
I have been writing about history and foreign policy for 40 years for national and international publications, and many readers have disagreed with my policy views and interpretations of historical events, but until now no reader has ever accused me of “dishonest writings.” Harry Levine claims that I omitted George Washington’s qualifications regarding his warning against permanent alliances. Mr. Levine should read more carefully. Here is what I wrote that Washington said in the Farewell Address: “We should ‘steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,’ while trusting to ‘temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.'” As far as Washington’s commitment to honoring existing commitments with foreign countries, perhaps Mr. Levine is unaware that Washington as president ignored an existing treaty with France in order to stay neutral in France’s war with Great Britain because remaining neutral was putting America First. Finally, Mr. Levine implies that Washington would join with those state and local officials who encourage active obstruction of federal laws passes by Congress regarding illegal immigration and would oppose the Trump administration’s attempts to faithfully execute those laws. Perhaps Mr. Levine should read about how Washington handled the Whiskey Rebellion when citizens sought to resist federal excise taxes between 1791 and 1794. Mr. Levine should do his homework before calling someone “dishonest.”
Francis P. Sempa