Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 541 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Hating Richard Nixon
[Read the article: Nixon knows best]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hated Richard Nixon. It got personal when he bombed Cambodia for reasons that remain a mystery. The sangfroid mixed with his sweating face made an impact that was hard to beat.
I see his value from an intellectual perspective, however: he was a classic old school politician who used his every resource to stay in charge. He need not be remembered for his final lines, yet one suspects in generations to come it will enter the national character and define "us."
The current debacle, led by the force of ideology, rather than rank opportunism lends itself to the current revival. Better tricky Dick than Bobbo the clown and his gang of hangmen. I'll give Nixon each and every one of his liberal achievements, thank him for it, but still ask: If you were so smart, why the hell couldn't you play the game like everybody else?
The problem is finding someone with the motivation for the job who has neither too much conscience or too little. I'll bet I know where most Americans think Nixon stands on that--regardless of anything else.
-
To FUNME2:
[Read the article: Nixon knows best]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nixon "got us out of Vietnam" because it was politically expedient for him to do so at the time. That was the nature of the beast. That he did so by "slashing and burning," his way out before the eventual collapse is what I think makes him anathema today to both the right and the left.
A lot of what goes on under the "watch" so to speak of a president doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the policies and decisions of that president. That's what makes these early attempts at revisionist history suspect. I don't pretend to be an expert on the presidency, but that and time are what it really takes to sort these matters out.
The fact so many writers are interested in Nixon has nothing to do with his being "dull" as much as he was so villainous--and there is nothing like a villain to attract readers. Why else would Elisabeth Drew write about him? He was the president many Americans loved to hate. Take a look at these responses if you don't believe me. A story without a bad guy is boring, but it can also be educational.
Lastly, if I told you the presidents I think had too much conscience during my lifetime, I'm not sure it wouldn't lead to a debate that would simply drain energy from the real issues on the table at present...
But I do believe it was true of Carter and of Clinton. Yeah, a couple of Democrats. In my view, both men have proven as much since they left office as when they were in. We remain a nation where the battle is essentially between a ruling class that has proven they will do anything to remain in power, and a rudimentary populist sentiment that occasionally holds them in check.
-
Before It's Too Late
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton always comes prepared]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Finally, an article about HRC in Salon that doesn't short change or outright trash her (Glenn Greenwald NOT excepted), and allows her to demonstrate her intelligence--and that she genuinely appears to be a person who has LEARNED from her experience in addition to the fact that she is in another league than her Democratic opponents in this regard.
It sort of catches up with the latest dumb cliches, i.e. the name and oligarchy nonsense, but fails to bring up the real issues: Can a woman win in this country? What does Hillary think about that? Can the spouse of a former president with Clinton's baggage win? Is this country really ready to try peace again? What does she think about that?
If the media doesn't start to talk about these issues now, when do they intend to do so--when it's too late? I don't think it's necessary to "dumb down" interviews at this point--it's time to take some initiative to get substantive in terms that matter. (I'm not sure pretending this is another country is going to work.)
It is also stirring to see the responses are for the most part positive, and what has mostly been a critical approach has left some good minds undeterred. After '00 and '04 any authentic Democrat, Liberal, or "Independant" who doesn't take this election seriously, and realize it's time to get out of the clouds to remove Rove's reactionary coalition from power is a fool or lying.
-
The Inevitable Collapse
[Read the article: "Endgame": A gloomy forecast for the so-called surge]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The recent discussion of Nixon brings up another horrible "endgame" association with Viet Nam. Namely, that the president in office at the time (after the election, Bush will die before admitting his own incompetence) will be forced for political purposes to "thrust and withdraw."
In a way, it's happening now. The surge is clearly one more political strategy to save face--just like the bombing of Cambodia--a sort of "you can't scare us," military minded solution that is no solution at all in the long run.
Will another president allow themselves to be scapegoated by repeating the "Fall of Saigon?" Clearly, the Republicans won't let it happen and have the coalition they need to support them to stay at war.
A Dem is simply going to have to be smart enough to plan ahead AND LEAVE ENOUGH AMERICAN FORCES IN THE COUNTRY TO PREVENT THE WORST OF THE INEVITABLE COLLAPSE. Both in terms of the blow to the simple minded militarists "losing" another war, and to the humanitarians sick of the bloodshed.
The next question for moderates who have lost faith with the GOP is: what Dem is the first and most clear they won't let this happen?
The candidates have a choice. They can say that is what they are going to do beforehand, and hope enough Americans get the picture, or they can wait it out, make up whatever sells--get into office--and then do what they damn well please.
Given this scenerio, AND THE ISSUE which candidate will the most voters respect if the media doesn't convince them the color of their hair and feet are more significant?