Conservatives

I read with interest the column “New meaning for conservatism” by George Donahue (The Capital, Oct. 1). As a senior citizen myself, I could easily identify with the biographical, first half of his column.

In the second half, Donohue “redefined” conservatism, attacked conservatives, and blasted President Donald Trump with a dozen gaslights. He offered no supporting facts and certainly no demonstration of the academic and intellectually insightful expertise one might expect from a George Mason professor emeritus.

What is “gaslighting”? If I tell you (once) that the sky is overcast but you actually see it is not overcast, youmight simply roll your eyes and ignore me. If I repeat that statement enough and even constantly, you might start to doubt your own eyes and even your sanity. That is gaslighting.

Gaslighting is different from reaching a logical, rational conclusion such as “Since the sky is overcast, it might rain.” This would be a valid opinion based on obvious facts. It is not gaslighting. Repetitive gaslighting insults are now all the Democrats have in their quiver, which is why the many unfounded racism attacks on the president are daily events, including newspaper columns that sport a dozen such insults.

At this point, if you think Trump is a racist, you have been gas lighted. If you think he is Putin’s buddy, you have been gaslighted. Donohue provides a dozen crazy, anti-Trump claims, supported only by his biographical claim of being a decadeslong, fair-minded and independent observer. That is nuts.

His many, often repeated Democrat gaslight hits on Trump simply are not true, based on my own observations and assessments and, likely, based on your own experience. No, I will not be breaking out my umbrella. I see none of those Democrat clouds.

Conservatism is alive and well, I think, and worthy of respect.

CHARLES R. JONES

Annapolis