IN DISCUSSING SAM FRANCIS, John Cloud missed some salient points (“Angry White Male,” 1/19). I fail to see how Francis et al. can spend any time on how the “neoconservatives” ganged up to get the Washington Times to sack him. Does anyone recall the ethnicity of the guy who owns the Times? Anglo, the Rev. Moon ain’t. In plain language, Francis publicly opined that his boss and all his kin (among others) be forthwith “encouraged” to stop having kids. That may be good or evil, but it ain’t very bright job-securitywise. If his editor hadn’t sacked him, the Rev. Moon would have been entirely justified in sacking them both. (I’m no fan of the Times, but at least they’ve recognized that not everyone in D.C. is a bureaucrat or politico, and that there are people living east of the Anacostia and north of Union Station.)

As far as Francis wanting to take us back to the party of Bob Taft, some of us grew up in a world and a Republican Party that managed to be both religious and suspicious of government intervention at any level. (Add to that, I grew up in Rhode Island, where ethnic politics was a way of life.) For us, neither the neocons nor “paleoconservatives” of Francis’ stripe are conservative enough. Neos yearn for the limited government of the progressives of the 1930s; paleos stick to the rock-ribbed conservatism of the progressives of the ’20s. How encouraging.

True, when I was a little kid in, say, 1947, there were those who believed that the government should dictate how many kids people could have. Perhaps Francis would want to distance himself from such folks, but in 1947 we had a name for them. We called them “Communists.”

Dupont Circle

via the Internet