WHICH ‘MORALS’?
The outcome of the presidential election leaves me cold and
fearful. It is not just the outcome that I find disturbing but the reasons
people give for voting as they did. The exit polls suggest that the number one
consideration among Republican voters across the red belt was “moral
values.” The incumbent allegedly embodied such values; the challenger, in
their minds, occupied some suspect gray area.
           But what do
we know? We know that the current administration repeatedly misrepresented
intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction in order to rationalize an
unjustified and probably interminable war in Iraq.
We know that they repeatedly misrepresented the non-existent connection between
Al Qaeda and Iraq
for the same purpose. And we know that many Americans and roughly 15,000 Iraqis
have died as a result. Let’s not talk about the maimed and wounded on each
side. Let’s not talk about the long-term security damage the war has done to
the US, either.
           We also know
that when confronted with the reality of such misrepresentations,
both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have either blithely maintained
their views or blamed underlings in the intelligence community. Neither has
acknowledged, let alone taken responsibility for the misrepresentations. We
know too that the principals in the administration who now beat the drums of
war assiduously evaded military service in Viet
Nam. The challenger, of course, volunteered
to serve.
           Since when
are lying, killing, cowardice, and hypocrisy “moral” values? How
about self-righteousness? Such questions get no traction in current
conservative discourse. The reason is clear. For our Republican neighbors, the
phrase “moral values” is little more than code for keeping gays in
the closet and women barefoot and pregnant. My concern is not that Republicans
apparently ignored issues like the war or security or the economy, but that
they turned out and elected Bush and company on the basis of an indefensibly
impoverished understanding of “moral values.” This is a sad day for
Americans.
           Jim Johnson, Bloomfield
GRIEF, SHARED
I have been overcome with grief since the election. I found
out quickly that I was not alone. The enormous sadness of millions of Americans
cannot be denied. As a psychologist, I know that this grief must be dealt with
before healing can begin, before we can move on, and before we can stand again
and fight.
           I propose a
national day of mourning for those millions of us who feel as though we have
lost our country, for those many of us who fear Armageddon as we anticipate the
takeover of the Supreme Court, the destruction of Social Security, and the
iron-clad rule of the coalition between the corporate power structure and the
fanatical right-wing Christians.
           On Wednesday,
the flag at my grandson’s elementary school in Warren,
Vermont, flew at half staff. It didn’t last
long before some bureaucrat took it down, but news of this event moved me like
nothing else has over these last few days. It was a symbol of our collective,
shared grief.
           We need
more symbols. We need more ways to come together and share our pain. Only then
can we rise from the ashes.
           Maryanne G. Hamilton, East Avenue, Rochester
BRAWN OVER BRAINS
Bush is the most hated president we’ve had in my lifetime,
both within our country and (especially) without, and yet over half of the
people in this country voted him back into office. This millionaire was able to
convince millions that he’s “the common man.” This C-minus student
responsible for the inane “No Child Left Behind” act has managed to
convince millions that he cares about education.
           He misled
us — and continues to mislead us — about our reasons for attacking Iraq.
And yet he has convinced millions that showing strength is more important than
showing intelligence. Look strong. Don’t back down. Go it alone. He twisted
Kerry’s words in obvious ways in the debates, and people just ate it up. Why?
           The only
reason I can come up with (beyond the fact that Kerry was hardly an ideal
alternative) is mind-numbing fear. Terrorism is a scary thing. Bush is
perceived as being the most likely to protect us from terrorism because he’s
attacking other countries, which is historically how we protect ourselves.
           Most of the
rest of the world disagrees with our tactics, and we don’t care. We are
spoonfed the idea that the rest of the world exists to serve us, and it doesn’t
matter what we do as long as we protect ourselves. Yeah, we’ve got troops on
your soil. Oops, we killed some of your civilians. Deal with it.
           Of course
we have the right to protect ourselves, but is our cowboy president really
doing anything that will help us? And even if he is, how many of our troops are
pursuing these efforts, and how many are just fighting for oil?
           Tim “Shoebox” Crist, North Chili
ART, VALUED
“Desiring the Everyday” (October 27) was a thoughtful and
touching critique of fine art vs. mercenary art as it relates to ceramics and Convergence of Temperament. Although the
art world may “seem to value the contemplative above the useful,” there is
little evidence that “our culture” shares that sentiment.
           Mark Mason Oxford Street, Rochester
WRITING TO CITY
We welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication.
Send them to: themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250
North Goodman Street, Rochester14607.
           Our
guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and we ask that you include
your street name and city/town/village. We don’t publish letters that have been
sent to other media. While we don’t restrict length, letters of under 350 words have a greater chance of being published. We
do edit letters for clarity and brevity. And in general we don’t publish
letters (or longer “op-ed” pieces) from the same writer more often than about
once every two months.
This article appears in Nov 10-16, 2004.
