- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It was a surprising article, so light weight in nature. Perhaps Cass Sunstein's book is intended for first year college students. I was disappointed that he did not mention the correlation of the internet with the proliferation of newspapers a century ago. Then, because newspapers were so abundant, most newspapers adhered to a strident political ideology to make them unique, as web sites do today. Most newspapers catered to a niche market since it was the only market available for a newly formed business; they could be guaranteed a starting income. Eventually, to become more profitable the newspapers had to appeal to a larger audience, thus their political views had to become less stringent and more encompassing. Will this happen with the internet?
Mr. Sunstein should have mentioned President Lincoln’s cabinet when mentioning U.S. presidents who have had a diversity of views surrounding them. Mr. Lincoln brought in people who ran against him, from both major parties, into his cabinet.
The comment that Mr. Sunstein thought George Bush could be a very good president needs to be substantiated by Mr. Sunstein. My analysis of George Bush before his 2000 election victory showed he was not well educated, bailed out of several failing businesses, not caring about people outside of his social class, vastly inexperienced in governmental matters (role of Texas governor is somewhat unique in its lack of power), a pawn of powerful oil interests within and without this country, skilled at lying to the public, and completely ignorant of what was awaiting him. Along with that, he was a confessed heavy partier and drinker up to the age of 40, so he had a lot of catching up to acquire the skills and fortitude to run a country of 300 million people. Stopping there, I saw no indication that he could be a very good president, rather he looked like a disaster in the making.
