Letters to the Editor
rkr327
Published Letters: 43 Editor's Choice: 5
-
The Loss of Kennedy
[Read the article: Still searching for JFK]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is part of something I wrote a while ago.
The political debate in this country has become a badly worn fabric. For the past seventy years our national domestic political discussion has swung between just two poles. On the one side we have had the social safety net federalism of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, while on the other, growing out of furious right wing opposition to the New Deal (in all its manifestations), what might be summed up in terms of its persistent, pervasive (and self serving) sub-text: the government is the great Satan.
By the 1960’s the New Deal had run its course. John Kennedy realized this and was known to privately tweak old line New Deal politicians for being old hat. I seem to recall that no less than Arthur Schlesinger Jr. would then defend Kennedy to Liberals as having made a criticism of style rather than substance. But this was a moment in time when a criticism of style was a criticism of substance. We needed to move on to something new. We sensed it, and in Kennedy, with his youth, grace, energy and wit, we found someone looking to lead us in new directions (the New Frontier), even if neither of us knew just what those directions might be. For a short time he helped kindle within us a belief that we would discover a stance appropriate to, and fruitful in, the second half of the twentieth century. When he was killed, it all went away. Johnson, seemingly, led us back to the 1930’s and, ultimately, we arrived at Reagan and a temporary mooring around the second of our two poles. So, for the last seventy years we have been governed by two mind sets, formed in the 1930’s, and, since the 1960’s, persistently skew to our reality.
The problem for both parties has become how to disenthrall themselves from their fixations
-
The Loss (and promise) of JFK
[Read the article: "Brothers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is part of something I wrote a while ago:
The political debate in this country has become a badly worn fabric. For the past seventy years our national domestic political discussion has swung between just two poles. On the one side we have had the social safety net federalism of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, while on the other, growing out of furious right wing opposition to the New Deal (in all its manifestations), what might be summed up in terms of its persistent, pervasive (and self serving) sub-text: the government is the great Satan.
By the 1960’s the New Deal had run its course. John Kennedy realized this and was known to privately tweak old line New Deal politicians for being old hat. I seem to recall that no less than Arthur Schlesinger Jr. would then defend Kennedy to Liberals as having made a criticism of style rather than substance. But this was a moment in time when a criticism of style was a criticism of substance. We needed to move on to something new. We sensed it, and in Kennedy, with his youth, grace, energy and wit, we found someone looking to lead us in new directions (the New Frontier), even if neither of us knew just what those directions might be. For a short time he helped kindle within us a belief that we would discover a stance appropriate to, and fruitful in, the second half of the twentieth century. When he was killed, it all went away. Johnson, seemingly, led us back to the 1930’s and, ultimately, we arrived at Reagan and a temporary mooring around the second of our two poles. So, for the last seventy years we have been governed by two mind sets, formed in the 1930’s, and, since the 1960’s, persistently skew to our reality.
The problem for both parties has become how to disenthrall themselves from their fixations
-
'Character'
[Read the article: Cheney: "We didn't get elected to be popular"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Our mission is to do everything we can to prevail on what is now, we believe, a global conflict, a fundamental test of the character of the American people, whether or not we're going to be able to prevail against one of the most evil opponents we've ever faced."
A test of 'character'?
Why not a test of sound judgment, of wisdom in courses we choose? The administration, from the very beginning, has sought to frame the challange of Islamic radicalism as one of will, explicilty defined as armed confrontation. Isn't it likely our opposition is just as pleased (and encouraged!)to see us acting recklessly and foolishly? It is long past time we began to engage all of the enormous resources of the developed world, engage on our terms and not simply play the game our foes have chosen for us.
-
American Will
[Read the article: Cheney plays the blame game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]“The vice president says that breaking Americans' will is the key to al-Qaida's strategy. "So if you're going to be a public official advocating withdrawal from Iraq, you, in fact, are also saying that what you're recommending is validating the al-Qaida strategy, . . .”
The administration, from the very beginning, has sought to frame the challenge of Islamic radicalism as one of will, explicitly incarnated in armed confrontation. Where is sound judgment, or wisdom in the courses we choose? Isn't it likely our opposition is just as pleased (and encouraged!) to see us acting recklessly and foolishly, bleeding all the while? It is long past time we began to engage all of the enormous resources of the developed world, engage on our terms, and not simply play the game our foes have chosen for us.