Dreams and Glory

December 20th, 2003

To the Editor,

With all due respects to Mr. Brooks, (“Dreams and Glory“, 12/16), your columnist’s opinions on the differences between Bush’s and Dean’s world views are as empty as the prevailing mode of thought he glorifies in this column. Mr. Brooks says it himself, “Every time he (Bush) is called upon to utter an unrehearsed thought, he speaks of the war on terror as a conflict between those who seek to advance liberty to realize justice, and those who oppose the advance of liberty…”.

It is a shame that a writer would praise this “sound byte”, Bush’s default program for a inarticulate appeal to the universal logic of a hatred of terrorism. This approach to selling bad foreign policy to the masses simply indicates that any minister, (or used car salesman), can replace statesmanlike reasoning with religious rhetoric and win approval.

Presidents and presidential candidates must place our role in inhibiting terrorism within a context of a world view. To simply take on the problem as some Christian version of a jihad, is to adopt an Orwellian vision of a future in which only an “enemy” binds us together as we sacrifice our individual liberties and economic stability.

Perhaps Mr. Brooks should try analyzing Mr. Bush’s more rehearsed statements so we can introduce some logic into the argument.

Barbara Rubin

Categories: NY Times

Leave a comment

Leave a comment


http://www.armchairactivist.us / Dreams and Glory