Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
So, SEIU Me New York City Three years ago, very few people anticipated the complete and worldwide collapse of the economy. Our nation lost $17 trillion, a quarter of its wealth, virtually overnight. Every industrialized nation is now faced with impossible choices and deep cuts that slice right to the heart of the hard-won gains, both tangible and social, that progressives and trade unionists have fought for. Max Fraser, in his provocative article "The SEIU Andy Stern Leaves Behind" [July 5], asks many of the right questions but ultimately misses a key point: over the past fifteen years, SEIU accomplished something extraordinary. At a time when the American labor movement was shrinking, SEIU united more than 1.2 million workers in the union, doubling its size and the ability of those workers to make real and, one hopes, lasting gains on the job. Fraser's critique really speaks to the heart of what all working people face as a threat: the collapse of the social welfare system and the failure of capitalism to protect the fundamental security of those who work for a living. And that's why SEIU's executive board spent three days recently addressing the crisis that workers face right now and planning forward. We know that we cannot go it alone, because for all our union's progress in organizing and in politics, today we see the economic crisis destroying not only our jobs and our communities but also the standards we have worked so hard to achieve. Our decisions: § SEIU will continue working with partners in the labor, progressive and religious communities to march with workers through the streets to the doorsteps of very big banks that have been bad actors and have brought about this economic collapse. § SEIU will challenge the CEOs, politicians and even Democratic lobbyists who are helping those deemed "too big to fail" to continue to fail us. § SEIU will keep standing, marching and getting arrested with our coalition partners seeking justice for immigrants while at the same time we end the shadow economy that allows unscrupulous business owners to profit at the expense of all workers. § SEIU will participate in the global efforts to hold multinational corporations like Sodexo accountable for how they treat the women and men who work for them. § And SEIU will continue to fight day and night to see that workers—both in unions and not—are not forced to bear the burden of recovery alone. There is no question that working people would be in much better shape if more workers were in unions, and we will continue our efforts to make sure that all workers who want a voice on the job are able to unite. The easy part is recognizing the obvious: none of us have solved the problem that working people face each and every day. The challenge for us all is not just to imagine but also to realize a future that restores our economy and rewards work. GERRY HUDSON, executive vice president Service Employees International Union Fraser Replies New York City I thank Gerry Hudson for his thoughtful letter and agree with much of what he says about the challenges facing SEIU, the labor movement and working people in today's economy. He is right to note the important work SEIU has done over the past fifteen years to expand its membership while empowering workers in and out of unions. SEIU's accomplishments in both cases have been considerable, and the goals Hudson lays out for the years ahead are ambitious and inspiring. But my article does not question this aspect of SEIU's recent history; nor does it imply that SEIU has not embraced a progressive political agenda that has put it at the forefront of today's struggles for civil rights, comprehensive immigration reform, financial regulation and the like. Rather, it should be read as a warning: if SEIU—and really, the rest of organized labor—hopes to continue to play a role in these and other popular movements, it absolutely must figure out a way to resolve the existential threat posed by declining density in the private-sector economy. If labor's industrial and economic strength continues to diminish in relation to corporate power, so too will whatever remains of the movement's political capital, as we already saw in the legislative battles over the doomed Employee Free Choice Act and, to a lesser extent, the healthcare overhaul. As I argue in my article, SEIU came no closer to resolving this basic challenge under Andy Stern's leadership, despite the 1.2 million new members that Hudson cites. And in some cases, the more misguided and counterproductive strategies Stern embraced during his tenure set the union in the wrong direction. If Gerry Hudson and the SEIU executive board are committed to making sure that "all workers who want a voice on the job are able to unite" in a reinvigorated and progressive labor movement, this transitional moment at SEIU must be one of deep and serious self-criticism, reassessment and bold new thinking. MAX FRASER Public Workers—the Gold Standard Amherst, Mass. I thank Amy Traub for "War on Public Workers" [July 5]. Isn't it remarkable that privatization, deregulation and casino capitalism destroy our economy... and public employees are suddenly to blame? This attack on public employees, their unions and their benefits feels like the final swish down the toilet bowl for the New Deal. Some observations: (1) Traub notes with disappointment that New York's Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo has jumped on the bash-public-employees bandwagon; but he's not the only Democrat to do so. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has honed the fine art of being seen as a progressive while leading the charge against public workers—reopening contracts and demanding concessions from all state employees, from social workers to librarians to college professors—but not asking for any "shared sacrifice" from the wealthy, and then bragging about it. (2) Far from being a parasitic drain, public-sector workers provide critical services for everyone—education, public safety, environmental protection—that private enterprise cannot or will not supply. (3) The public sector sets the standard for quality of employment, and that benchmark serves as a constant reminder of the failure of private corporations to provide adequate compensation and economic security for their workers. Nowhere is the public benchmark clearer than in the case of pensions, and nowhere has the war been more ferocious. Resentment of public-sector pensions masks the important issue of adequate pensions for all working Americans. There is a pension crisis, but it's not the overgenerosity of public-sector pensions. The crisis is that the private pension system is collapsing. Companies that still offer traditional defined-benefit pensions—intended to provide a predictable retirement income for life—have underfunded their accounts. Most companies have ceased to offer pensions altogether or provide meager subsidies to roll the dice in the 401(k) casino. The consequences will be ugly. Many "retirees" will never retire. Or they will have to move in with their children, creating deep stresses, which had been eased by the solid pensions of the Greatest Generation. Reducing public-sector pensions won't solve that problem. Public- and private-sector workers need to look at each other, recognize friends and demand leveling up, not down. The real problem is not public workers' pensions but private employers reducing their commitment to their workers while increasing executive salaries and stockholder dividends. MICHAEL ASH University of Massachusetts Vale, S.D. I am reminded of John D. Rockefeller's response to striking coal miners at Ludlow, Colorado, in 1913. He got the Colorado National Guard to shoot up the tent village of striking miners. This is an example of the private sector calling on the public sector to help the private sector exploit its workers. ALVIN WILLIAM HOLST
Aug 11, 2010 / Our Readers and Max Fraser
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Dismantling the Punishment Industry Eastsound, Wash. In "Is This the End of the War on Crime?" [July 5] Sasha Abramsky rightly gives credit to the Obama administration for shifting antidrug rhetoric away from the "war on drugs" metaphor and toward drug abuse as a public health problem. However, the Obama drug control budget, like Bush's, still devotes nearly twice as many resources to supply-reduction strategies like arrest and incarceration as it does to demand-reduction strategies like treatment and prevention. As a thirty-four-year police veteran and Seattle's chief of police from 1994 to 2000, I know that rhetorical shifts cannot solve the huge problems caused by a national policy of prohibition (versus legalized regulation). The president must end this "war on drugs" instead of merely saying he has (see CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com). NORM STAMPER Las Cruces, N.M. Sasha Abramsky is correct: these economic times are likely to spur penal reform, which is typically preceded by a sociopolitical crisis. For 200-plus years each US penal reform intended to diminish inhumane and unjust practices has resulted in widening the net of the punishment system. Also, benevolent penal reforms produce greater government intrusion into punished people's lives and communities. Not only do they fail to dismantle existing practices and ideologies; they add new punitive dimensions. The outcome has been an ever expanding archipelago of punishments disproportionately targeting the poor, people of color and other marginalized groups. This pattern includes the penitentiary itself, said to be the ultimate deterrent and the definitive crime fix but which became an intractable growth industry; the adult reformatory, designed to institutionalize treatment and "cure" the prisoner but which generated new "scientific" categories of offenders; and parole, intended to shorten prison sentences but which lengthened them while creating conditional, revocable "freedom" and a new layer of supervision and surveillance outside the prison walls. There is no reason to expect "restorative justice" to unfold any differently from past penal reforms. Yet as Abramsky notes, it is compelling, and the time is ripe for a movement aimed at smashing an unjust punishment system. Change is possible. DANA GREENE, Criminal Justice Department New Mexico State University CSP Rebuilds Iraq Arlington, Va. Luke Mogelson's May 31 "Aiding the Insurgency," regarding USAID's Community Stabilization Program (CSP) in Iraq, contains incomplete information and misrepresents facts. These errors reflect a not uncommon—but still unfortunate—misunderstanding of how USAID and implementing organizations such as International Relief and Development (IRD) operate in conflict situations. CSP was designed to mitigate conflict and boost employment through vocational training and job placement, business development, community infrastructure rehabilitation and youth engagement. The community infrastructure rehabilitation component provided Iraqis with immediate income in return for their help in rebuilding their communities. The money and work provided to participants was intended to be an alternative way for them to support their families, rather than relying on the insurgency. IRD worked with many local partners to implement the community infrastructure rehabilitation component and CSP as a whole. Worldwide, we collaborate with the communities we serve because we believe the most effective programs build local capacity. Contracting with Iraqi firms infused much-needed financial resources and practical skills into midlevel businesses and jump-started the middle class, which is critical to stabilizing any economy. This ensured that the rebuilding of Iraq focused on the men and women of Iraq and their priorities. To meet the challenges of implementing CSP and ensuring results in the midst of daily conflict, USAID and IRD established thorough checks and balances, including regular audits and independent evaluations of program activity. IRD rejected numerous payment requests to Iraqi contractors during CSP because of incomplete documentation. In addition, IRD acted immediately on any improvements suggested by the auditors. CSP has been declared a success by many, including beneficiaries and partners in Iraq and government and military leaders in Washington. IRD's efforts were proven to help stabilize communities across Iraq and help move the Iraqi people toward a better future, and IRD is proud to have helped so many Iraqis. This work is controversial to some. We respect those views and encourage informed dialogue on the issue. ARTHUR B. KEYS JR., president and CEO International Relief and Development Mogelson Replies Brooklyn, N.Y. I appreciate Arthur Keys taking the time to respond to my article (for which he declined to be interviewed). However, while claiming it contains "errors" and "misrepresents facts," he does not cite any instances of such. The general background he provides on the intent of IRD and the CSP is certainly informative. Of course, none of this negates or explains the problems I described: the vulnerability of cash-for-work programs to fraud, the overemphasis these programs place on statistical outputs and the fact that USAID hesitated to suspend one such program, implemented by IRD, even when several senior military and civilian officials warned that it was enriching the insurgency. As for Keys's assertion that "CSP has been declared a success by many," the most thorough analysis of the program's effectiveness is the audit conducted in 2007 by USAID's own regional inspector general for Baghdad. It concludes: "The audit was unable to determine if the Community Stabilization Program was achieving its intended result—to help defeat the insurgency by reducing the incentives for participating in it—because we could not rely on one of the major measurements of the program (employment generation)." The inspector general could not rely on this measurement because many of the time sheets in IRD's possession, accounting for the workers it claimed to be employing, were found to be fraudulent. LUKE MOGELSON True GRIT, FeSTiVe—Good News! New York City Ben Ehrenreich's right ["How to Survive the Crisis (Organize!)," Aug. 2/9]. The media that love the Tea Parties ignored the US Social Forum. But credit where it's due: while the money media stayed away, Free Speech TV (FSTV) and The Nation's colleagues at GRITtv were on-site, at the USSF's People's Media Center, packed with media new and old. A miraculous grassroots tech collective (shout-out to May First/People Link) made it possible to distribute up-to-the-minute reports—via print, radio, blog, tweet, even live TV. In a manner barely imaginable just two years ago, FSTV broadcast more than forty hours of live programming on two satellite networks (Dish, channel 9415 and DirecTV channel 348) and online, reaching millions of homes. Our team included progressive journalists and activists Don Rojas, Herb Boyd, Sarah van Gelder, Rosa Clemente and Marc Steiner, along with reporters from the New America Media, Yes magazine, Making Contact and other members of the Media Consortium. You can see Free Speech TV's coverage at fstv-ussf.blogspot.com. LAURA FLANDERS, GRITtv; DON ROJAS, FSTV
Jul 28, 2010 / Our Readers and Luke Mogelson
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Bird Over Jerusalem Salisbury, Md. I thoroughly agree with Kai Bird's "Next Week in Jerusalem?" [June 28]. I stand in both camps, with a son-in-law who is Jewish; a father who was probably Jewish, although he denied it; and a longstanding friend who is a Palestinian Arab with relatives in Palestine. I would go beyond what Bird says and ask the Israelis to release Marwan Barghouti from prison. It strikes me that he could engineer peace talks. I compare him to Nelson Mandela, imprisoned by South African whites and accused of being a communist and a terrorist. Before the second intifada, I heard a Palestinian leader say, "We didn't engage in terrorism for six years, and it got us nowhere." I was encouraged to hear recently that the Saudis have announced a fatwa against terrorists. BETTY L. WHITMORE Drummed in Your Dear Little Ear... Waverly, Va. In "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught" [June 28] Melissa Harris-Lacewell presents us with her hope that people like Arizona and Texas policy-makers "may find that the world has already moved beyond their fearful grasp." I hope she is right. But this optimistic view misses a larger point that calls for pessimism. The civil rights movement of the '60s was primarily a political struggle for justice. Somewhere along the way it turned into a cultural struggle for tolerance. The political struggle disappeared, absorbed by the system and converted into something less threatening. There is no denying the enormous progress of the cultural struggle. But there is also no denying the regress in the fight for justice. The Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama era has been one of ever increasing inequity by way of deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to vital social services, corporate bailouts and increased militarization. We should be grateful for the progress in the "decades-long culture war." But we also need to acknowledge the toll this shift of focus has taken on the political struggle. Cultural progress without political progress is superficial, and it distracts us from the more fundamental problem of injustice. We've been carefully taught indeed. STEPHEN WARREN Divesting From Israel Brooklyn, N.Y. Many thanks to Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss for their thorough June 28 article "The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement." BDS is rapidly becoming one of the defining civil society movements of our time, and the increasing discussion of its tactics and goals, still largely suppressed in most US media, is critically important. Just since the article was published, Jewish Voice for Peace (jvp.org) has announced a campaign to get pension giant TIAA-CREF to divest from the occupation. This takes divestment nationwide. The campaign debuted with a petition from more than 250 people, including Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Michael Ratner, Nadia Hijab, Richard Falk and a dozen rabbis. We secured more than 4,000 signatures in the first thirty-six hours. Clearly, people deeply concerned about Israel's actions are looking for a way to do something, and the BDS movement provides it. REBECCA VILKOMERSON Executive director, Jewish Voice for Peace Washington, D.C. Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss tell a very selective tale about those who support and those who oppose the so-called BDS movement. They speak of a "nod toward the movement" by the Palestinian Authority in terms of the campaign to boycott goods made in settlements. That nod, however, was very much qualified. The article ignored the PA leadership's unequivocal stance that this boycott must not apply to goods made in Israel proper. "We are not boycotting Israel," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the boycott's organizers in Ramallah in May. "We have relations, and we import" products from the Jewish state, he added. The authors mischaracterize Americans for Peace Now's views on boycotting Israel. APN won't endorse a systematic boycott of everything that is Israel. But we have said that it is not illegitimate for the Palestinians to launch a campaign focused on settlements. That is consistent with our position that boycott and divestment efforts shift their focus from Israel to the occupation and the settlements. APN has never called BDS anti-Semitic. We have lamented that anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments may be cloaked in criticism of Israel. At the same time, we have repudiated the tactic of Israel's knee-jerk defenders of jumping to discredit critics of Israeli government policies before taking an honest look at them. DEBRA DeLEE, president and CEO Americans for Peace Now Amherst, Mass. I write to clarify two details in Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss's article, as far as they concern the official role of Hampshire College. In February 2009 Hampshire's trustees most definitely did not vote "to divest from six military companies involved in the occupation." Moreover, the college had had for many years a socially responsible investment policy. The board's investment committee merely reported to the full board on its decision to deploy a different third-party screen more in line with our values, a screen that at the time tagged some of the six companies but not all, and voted to suspend the policy until it could be updated. In November Hampshire's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine did host a BDS conference, but with the clear and stated understanding that SJP, not the college, was hosting the event. RALPH HEXTER President, Hampshire College Emily's 'Epilepsy'—More 'Potted Theory' London James Longenbach in "Ardor and the Abyss" [July 5] properly questions the need for a tidy diagnosis of epilepsy to explain Emily Dickinson's reclusion. In fact, Dickinson's latest biographer, Lyndall Gordon (Lives Like Loaded Guns: Emily Dickinson and Her Family Feuds), made the diagnosis based on a complete misunderstanding of nineteenth-century pharmacotherapy (a field I am well versed in). From an 1874 formula for epilepsy containing chloral hydrate, glycerine and peppermint, Gordon assumed glycerine—which Dickinson took in 1851-54—was the active ingredient. In fact, it was the bitter medicine chloral hydrate, first noted as an anticonvulsant in 1870. To anyone's knowledge Dickinson never took chloral hydrate. Glycerine was a sweet carbohydrate used to disguise the taste of bitter drugs, and as a supposed nutrient for consumption (tuberculosis), which Dickinson's physician may have suspected. In no medical text or pharmacopeia of the time was glycerine ever suggested as an anticonvulsant. Dickinson even recommended the drug to her brother for his cough. There have been too many potted theories to "explain" Dickinson's magnificent poetry and mysterious persona, which trivialize the poet; this is but the latest. NORBERT HIRSCHHORN, MD
Jul 14, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
'Free Gaza' Flotilla Fallout New York City You know, it's funny. Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority are all engaged in this blockade (which I strongly oppose). But if you read The Nation's June 21 editorial, "Free Gaza," you'd have to assume that they are all doing this because it's fun or because they are big meanies or, at best, for no reason at all. There is no notion that any sane person in Israel or Egypt or the West Bank would ever have a problem with anything Hamas has ever done or have any reason for concern if it ruled the country on its borders and had the power to kill whomever it liked by whatever means it liked. You'd never know, either, that it is a regressive, totalitarian, anti-Semitic political movement opposed to liberalism in all its forms, particularly as it relates to women. This editorial, like most Nation editorials, assumes Israel is 100 percent at fault in this conflict and that whoever opposes it is 100 percent correct. It is the mirror image of the right-wing Zionist viewpoint it attacks. As such, it can have no relevance to the views of anyone who takes the complications of the conflict seriously in hopes of finding a solution that might one day be acceptable to the country The Nation consistently demonizes. ERIC ALTERMAN Nation columnist Miami I disagree with every statement and position in your rabid condemnation of the blockade and biased support for the Arabs of Gaza. The gross failure to recognize that the raining of 10,000 rockets onto Israeli homes by Hamas for years and the express assertion of absolute enmity for Israel by Hamas and its commitment to the destruction of Israel certainly entitled Israel to blockade all weapons, just as the importation of rockets into Cuba warranted the US boycott of Cuba. You fail entirely to acknowledge that humanitarian supplies were permitted to enter Gaza, and this brands your diatribe as absolutistic, unreasoned hatred. MILES J. LOURIE New York City It is too bad that the spill of human blood does not elicit the same response as the spill of oil. With oil, there is no question that it must be stopped. With blood, we find reasons it should continue. Only those capable of feeling the pain of others know that blood is thicker than oil. Those are the people who were part of the flotilla, who tried to stop the gushing well of pain in Gaza. These are the people the IDF labels "terrorists." RON MUSICUS Cambridge, Mass. One point has been lost in conversations about the flotilla: Israel continues as a violent and oppressive regime partly because American Jews turn a blind eye to the inhumane acts perpetrated by the Israeli government. Jews who vote Democratic and champion progressive causes are too often the same Jews who support the actions of the State of Israel, implicitly and explicitly, by refusing to acknowledge its failures. If we want a Jerusalem not riddled with mortar shells, we Jews need to acknowledge that we have been oppressors. It is not 1948, and we can no longer use the terrible acts committed against us, or even the grave threats of extremists, to justify the terrible acts of violence we commit. ELI PLENK The Editors Reply The point of the "Free Gaza" editorial was not to analyze Hamas but to explain why the Israeli military's violent attack on a humanitarian flotilla in international waters, and the blockade of Gaza that attack was enforcing, are so damaging not only to basic Palestinian rights but to long-term Israeli and US interests. Israel has certainly allowed humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza, as Lourie claims, but never in even remotely sufficient quantities. According to an Amnesty International report earlier this year, which echoes reports by the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, "by restricting the food, medical supplies, educational equipment, and building materials allowed into Gaza, the Israeli authorities are collectively punishing the entire population of Gaza, the majority of whom are children." The Nation has never been a supporter of Hamas; as Alterman must surely know, three years ago in a lead editorial we said, "We cannot accept Hamas's ideology, and we reject the idea that 'Islam is the solution' to political problems (the common formulation of Hamas and other Muslim Brotherhood–affiliated movements). But the United States and Israel must finally acknowledge that Hamas is a popular movement with deep roots in Palestinian society, and for that reason should be engaged rather than ignored." In 2006 Hamas won elections that were universally acknowledged to be free and fair. For the United States and Israel to attempt to sabotage those elections and isolate Hamas—which they have done from the moment the results were announced—because they didn't like the outcome is not only the height of hypocrisy but deeply damaging to the prospects for a resolution of the conflict. As we pointed out three years ago, "arbitrary exclusion of a major, democratically elected Palestinian constituency in favor of malleable figures with little popular backing is doomed to fail." Furthermore, although Hamas is in many ways deeply reactionary and has carried out appalling acts of terrorism, it is a complex and evolving party and movement, with moderate and hardline factions. Its leaders have stated repeatedly that they will accept a two-state solution; most recently, top leader Khaled Meshal did so in an interview with Charlie Rose. Engaging Hamas, and testing its claim to accept a two-state solution, which the Palestinian people overwhelmingly support, is the best way to reinforce the movement's moderate tendencies. The tragedy aboard the Mavi Marmara was a wake-up call—a call not only for America and Israel to end the inhumane Gaza blockade but to end the counterproductive isolation of the Palestinians' democratically elected leaders. Only then will we be able to work toward a just and lasting resolution of the conflict. THE EDITORS Money & Polling: The Root of All Evil Los Angeles As a longtime Nation fan I prefer writing love letters about what a critical role you play, but I have strong concerns about your "Ten Things You Can Do to Win Political Campaigns" [June 21]. It is a mistake to lead your list with "Raise money" and follow with "Poll smartly." Money often goes into awful and inept TV ads and lousy mailers, which make no difference in electing good candidates. More and more data show that far more important than another bad TV ad (which viewers mute, TiVo or forget) is active engagement. The use of social media or a phone call or e-mail to a neighbor, friend or relative has far more impact than ads. We absolutely must work outside the money machine framework. We will never achieve committed candidates and meaningful progressive change if we are chained to the yoke of money and polls. I'm pleased you called attention to fairelectionsnow.org. We at BNF are pleased to work for fair elections and to help fix the system. ROBERT GREENWALD Brave New Foundation
Jun 30, 2010 / Our Readers and Eric Alterman
Exchange: Robin Shrugged Exchange: Robin Shrugged
Robin Shrugged New York City Corey Robin, in "Garbage and Gravitas" [June 7], quotes some important Ayn Rand passages, but his critique raises ad hominem to a new level: Rand favored some classical composers over others and preferred operetta to opera, so her ideas are invalid. More shocking is this argument: Ayn Rand held that whether you live or die is of fundamental importance to you, and Adolf Hitler held that whether the state "lives" or "dies" is of fundamental importance to you, so Rand and Hitler are the same. We are asked to equate Hitler with the modern era's greatest defender of the individual's right to his own life. Rand, the creator of a morality based on one's life as one's ultimate value and reason as one's only guide is equated with the anti-individual, obedience-demanding, death-worshiping Nazi ideology. How about responding to Rand's arguments, for key Objectivist tenets, notably: reason is man's only means of knowledge, reason is man's means of survival, the choice to think or not is the locus of man's free will, rational thought cannot be coerced, man's life as a rational being is the standard of morality, rationality is man's primary virtue, individual rights are moral principles of social interaction following from the preceding. Robin quotes criticism by Sidney Hook that mistakes Rationalism for Objectivism. Objectivism holds that all knowledge is based, directly or indirectly, on sensory observation. The role of axioms, such as A is A, is not to provide premises for some Rationalist deduction but rather to ground methods of inference and norms of cognition. "Axiomatic concepts are epistemological guidelines" (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). Because A is A, modus ponens is valid. Because contradictions can't exist, we must check our conclusions for consistency: "No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge" (Atlas Shrugged). Rather than rely on dubious anecdotes about Rand's personal life, a serious intellectual would investigate her nonfiction and consult the best of the secondary literature by philosophy professionals. HARRY BINSWANGER Seattle "Far from needing explanation, Rand's success explains itself." So why does Corey Robin, through five pages of sneering vitriol, feel the need to "explain" her to us? This is trying too hard, which makes one wonder what he's trying to hide from us, or himself. I'll pass over the patently silly insinuations of a connection between Rand and fascism; that kind of smear was perfected by Whittaker Chambers (and discredited) long ago. Instead, on to the real issues: Rand's philosophical significance? Notwithstanding the cluelessness of Sidney Hook and Robert Nozick, her importance sure seems evident to the Ayn Rand Society, an affiliated group of the American Philosophical Association. Rand's grasp of Aristotle or her place in the Aristotelian tradition? With Aristotle, Rand holds that: (1) there's a knowable, objective reality; (2) life is sustained by constant internally generated action (an idea the reviewer seems to resent); (3) it is possible to live, flourish and be happy by discovering a moral code of rationally selfish values. She improves on Aristotle by explicitly validating an objective standard of value, "man's life qua man," whereas Aristotle begged the question by looking at qualities displayed in his prior-designated "great-souled" men. Thereupon Rand discusses why the primary virtues are: rationality, honesty, integrity, independence, productiveness and pride. All this is what Robin wants to ridicule? Really? Perhaps it's Rand's worship of achievement that most upsets him, and her agreement with Spinoza that "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare." Or her sui generis status. In ethics alone, how then to explain why she provides the only fundamental account opposing Kant's ethics of duty and self-sacrifice on the one hand, and Nietzsche's blatantly irrational, predatory, cynical egoism on the other? Is Robin seriously objecting to Rand's holding out the possibility that individuals can live together in a mutually beneficial, nonsacrificial social arrangement, i.e., where the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness is consistently upheld? This isn't a worthy inquiry? One other point: Robin has Rand's literary method wrong. Her primary concern is not "the conflict between the creative individual and the hostile mass": she sees the masses (insofar as they are unreflecting) as inconsequential "ballast." In The Fountainhead she portrays what it means to be a first-handed valuer, as in the character of her hero, Howard Roark. Nor is Rand's primary literary concern the conflict between producers and moochers, good or bad: she saw evil moochers as powerless on their own. In Atlas Shrugged the drama centers on how the conflicted premises of heroes like Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden unwittingly aid their would-be destroyers, and how that is resolved. Rather than rely on the soul of malice who penned this screed, or take at face value "biographers" who neither understand nor care to understand her philosophy, readers should read Ayn Rand and decide for themselves what she's all about. TYM PARSONS Robin Replies Brooklyn, N.Y. I'm afraid Harry Binswanger and Tym Parsons haven't read me—or Rand, for that matter—very carefully. I did not claim that Rand's belief in Rachmaninoff's superiority called her ideas into question; I suggested that it called her taste into question. I did not claim or suggest that "Rand and Hitler are the same." I said that there are "similarities between the moral syntax of Randianism and of fascism," which is quite a different point. I did not claim that Rand saw A is A as the premise "for some Rationalist deduction." But Binswanger errs even further when he says that Rand believed A is A was merely one of several "methods of inference and norms of cognition." As Rand wrote in For the New Intellectual: "That there is only one reality, the one which man perceives—that it exists as an objective absolute (which means: independently of the consciousness, the wishes or the feelings of any perceiver)—that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive, not to create, reality—that abstractions are man's method of integrating his sensory material—that man's mind is his only tool of knowledge—that A is A." More than a statement of epistemological best practices, A is A was meant to be taken as the summation, the climax, of Rand's metaphysical credo. As for consulting "the best" literature on Rand, I did read Tara Smith's enormously helpful Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics, which brings me to Parsons. He says Rand is philosophically significant because the Ayn Rand Society, on whose steering committee Smith sits, is an affiliate of the American Philosophical Association. Yet the APA explicitly disavows any such affiliation on its website. Were Parsons to attend a meeting of the APA, however, he would learn of a great many philosophers—Philippa Foot, Alasdair MacIntyre, John Finnis and Rosalind Hursthouse, to name a few—who offer an alternative to Kant and Nietzsche. Parsons also wonders why, if I believe that "Rand's success explains itself," I seek to explain "her to us." The answer, of course, is that there is a difference between Rand's success and her arguments, even if her followers conflate the two. As for Parsons's claim that Rand's concern is not "the conflict between the creative individual and the hostile mass" (a statement I actually challenge in my article), here is Rand herself: "All achievement and progress has been accomplished, not just by men of ability and certainly not by groups of men, but by a struggle between man and mob." Since Parsons seems so interested in my psyche, let me close with a confession. If there is one reaction I have to Rand and her followers, it is a sense of embarrassment for men and women who peddle so much ignorance with such great confidence. COREY ROBIN
Jun 23, 2010 / Our Readers and Corey Robin
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Seize the Radical Moment Brandon, Fla. Re Timothy Patrick McCarthy and John McMillian's "America's Radical Roots" [May 31]: I understand that progressive social programs had their roots in radicalism. However, it is difficult to be overly enthusiastic about what this means in today's America. In the 1930s we had the New Deal and a strong feeling of radicalism and class identity among the working class. The influence of unions and their effect on government was much different. "Socialism" was not a bad word. In the '60s Jim Crow was viewed (at least by the sane) as a system so outdated that radical change had to come. Fast-forward to today. Any radicalism is pre-empted by right-wing media, particularly Fox, corporate-backed network news and AM talk-radio. There is virtually no advocacy or reporting of anything radical or progressive. Combine this with the disproportionate coverage of Tea Party rantings at "town hall" meetings, and public opinion has been swayed rightward. The authors say they wish to "bring about a more charitable perception of radicalism." They provide past examples: the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, public education. But it is difficult for this longtime Nation reader to feel their optimism or to hope that we, as a nation, will be radicalized again anytime soon. Only a monumental event could spark radical action. The "radicalism" of today is this new wave of right-wing Tea Partyers financed by Astroturfers—the wealthy and corporations. They had their monumental event—the election of an African-American president. That rallied their masses. Unfortunately we on the left have not rallied our masses to push this president to take up progressive causes, as radicals did in FDR's time, when they made him promote their agenda. Will we progressives have our monumental event? And will it be enough to rally our masses? I hope our country survives until then. BILL FALCONE Coming Soon to a Shelter Near You Cincinnati Katha Pollitt asks "What Ever Happened to Welfare Mothers?" [May 31]. Nearly uncountable numbers of poor families double or triple up with friends or relatives or are stranded in shelters for homeless families. If the "welfare mothers" have not lost their children to foster care (so are no longer "families"), and if they have "maxed out" the lifetime PRWORA [Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996] benefits that accompanied the low-paid jobs that enabled them to meet the work requirement, homeless shelters are lifesaving. These families are now joined in the shelters by those whose landlords' mortgages have been foreclosed. Tenants typically don't know of the foreclosure until a utility company arrives to cut off service or a bank rep comes to "secure" the property. The low-paid jobs "welfare mothers" may have found in the early days of PRWORA have vanished, many to unemployed workers who move back to parents' basements when their unemployment benefits are exhausted. If things proceed as they did in the 1980s, when the masses of Ronald Reagan's "new poor" exploded, we can next expect the "basement dwellers," followed by people from suburbia with foreclosures of their own. They will compete for precious shelter beds with the post-PRWORA families stranded for lack of affordable housing. The Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing programs funded by the Recovery Act bring promise if—a big if—rents can match the very low wages of post-PRWORA families. ALICE SKIRTZ, casework supervisor Family Shelter Partnership 'Race' to the Top? Chicago I was amused by the letters in the May 31 issue praising Obama for labeling himself "black" on the Census form. I don't care what color he chooses to call himself. What I do care about is that we now have so-called healthcare reform without a public option and, thus, no way to control insurance premiums; financial reform that lacks any means to rein in the "too big to fail" banks and other institutions, like Goldman Sachs; and increasing numbers of troops in Afghanistan. And until the BP oil spill, Obama favored offshore drilling. I don't care what race a president "chooses," but he or she must bring about sorely needed progressive change. CAROL HILLMAN 'Get Over It: Write White' New York City In "Not-Black by Default" [May 10] Patricia J. Williams describes the baroque maneuvers of white colleagues in naming their race on questionnaires. When sophisticated white people use the fact that "racial categories are socially constructed" to avoid listing themselves as "white" on Census and other forms, when they play games with Crayola "buff-beige" self-designations, they are sabotaging the remedies designed to counter our very real privileges as white people. The social construction of race is not an illusion: it is how racism works. Denial does not make it go away. When Williams's colleague explains his refusal to write "white," saying, "We're never going to get past all this, unless we resist the usual categories," he is substituting his wishful good intentions for actions that facilitate change. Liberals and leftists may reject being in the same racial category as the purveyors of slavery and worldwide white supremacy, but we need not identify with white oppressors to recognize that we are daily privileged by the structure of racism. Try flipping Williams's description of the ways that "to be visibly black in this culture is to feel race every day," because "social constructions have walls." We too are labeled every day as white, but we can be blissfully unaware of the process because for us it is benign. As a white Jew I emphatically do not identify with the white Europeans who perpetuate worldwide anti-Semitism and racism, but I recognize that in the world of government forms, racial categories are not a matter of psychological self-identification or individual creativity; they are categories with social consequences. We need to get over it: write "white," and then make sure that the data are used to undermine the privileges that we yearn so deeply to deny. SHERRY GORELICK Sales Alert! Not Chic, St. Francis de Portland, Ore. I don't begrudge puzzlers their fun with the Chic Sale potty humor ["Letters," June 21], but I submit the following as a more probable explanation of the first part of clue 9, Puzzle 1588, "Sales decoration of old." Frank Lewis used "Sales," not "Sale," and "decoration of old" is accounted for more clearly. The heraldic emblem ("decoration of old") of St. Francis de Sales contains a prominent crescent moon, like those used on the classic outhouse door. MARY PRIEM Correction In "Central Europe's Right-Wing Populism," by Paul Hockenos (May 24), a typo gave the Fidesz party's years in power as 1982–2002 rather than 1998–2002. Our apologies to the author.
Jun 9, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Goodbye Oil, Hello Molten Salt Palo Alto, Calif. Your May 24 editorial, "There Will Be Blood," is right: we need a moratorium on new offshore drilling and an end to subsidies for oil, coal and conventional nuclear power. Alternative energy is available: the thorium-based molten salt reactor, which generates the same power as a uranium or coal plant but creates less than 5 percent of the waste, and that waste becomes benign in 500 years. Other advantages: a thorium plant can burn our stockpile of nuclear waste/weapons; it cannot melt down/explode; thorium is four times as abundant as uranium; and the process was tested and proven practical in the 1950s and '60s at Oak Ridge (see thoriumenergyalliance.com and tinyurl.com/25mgqkd).We operated this safe nuclear system more than forty years ago but defunded it because it could not make bomb materials. Now we need it. HERSHEY JULIEN Defuse the Population Bomb Swannanoa, N.C. Can humanity save its climate before climate chaos destroys humanity? Juliet Schor's "Beyond Business as Usual" [May 24] observes, "But New Deal 2.0—expanded federal spending—still relies on climate destabilizing growth...addressing unemployment by unleashing even more climate chaos." Sadly, that's a convincing prophesy. And how can we find the solution until we reverse the rate of world population growth? Catastrophe may be only a matter of how soon climate chaos directly reverses that growth. Forget persuading humans to accept self-restraint to save our climate. We are all deniers. ALLAN DEAN Story Time for Progressives Deering, N.H. Amitai Etzioni, in "Needed: A Progressive Story" [May 24], rightly calls on progressives to formulate a convincing narrative as a counterforce to the Republican story that America was on the right path until Roosevelt, Johnson and the '60s counterculture undermined our traditional values. To me the most convincing narrative would be "recovering community." Such a narrative can plumb the wellsprings of our yearning for community in an increasingly alienating world. But recovering community must move beyond our loyalties to ethnic, class and local groups to the larger American community. We must focus on what is best for all rather than what's in it for me. Community loyalty is quintessentially American and has a long and honorable history. Recovering community would offer an umbrella narrative that can draw on our finest moments of history, our deeply felt concerns and our heartfelt need to invest ourselves in causes that transcend our smaller selves. DONALD JOHNSON South Portland, Me. Amitai Etzioni's essay echoes Bill Moyers's prescription that progressives need "a new story." Stories' roots are in myth (hence Moyers's fascination with mythologist Joseph Campbell), whose purpose is to tell us how to live. Progressives would do well to tap the American creation myth: the tale of those whose opportunity was foreclosed elsewhere—for ill fortune or lack of title or privileged birth—and who found opportunity through shared contribution and/or sacrifice in a community of equals. The story's power lies in the truth that community makes us strong. Stories must explain—but to be compelling, they must inspire. Inspiration is the antithesis of and antidote to fear. And since fear is elemental to most neoconservative platforms, rising above fear must be an inspirational foundation of any progressive story. FRANK O. SMITH Taking The Nation to the Chic Sale We were stumped by "Sales decoration" as "lunette," the answer to clue 9, Puzzle 1588 [June 7]. We turned to our readers—and were not disappointed. —The Puzzle Editors Wellesley, Mass. A down-home, chaw-bacon early (and earthy) twentieth-century humorist known as Chic Sale had quite a following of rustic thigh-slappers for his outhouse humor, syndicated in small-town papers. His book about Lem Putt, a "specialist" in the design and construction of outhouses, claimed he invented the crescent-shaped cutout (a rural "lunette") that was a fixture on their doors. GEORGE BOND Somewhere in Cyberspace Chic Sale was a humorist who wrote a book featuring an outhouse builder. "Chic Sale" or "Chick Sales" was an old euphemism for "outhouse." A lunette is a moon-shaped decorative inset, such as was used on outhouse doors. The moon on the outhouse door has an interesting history. When stagecoach routes were established in England, inns began to provide facilities for travelers. The ladies' privy was marked with a moon; the men's with a sun. But the men preferred the woods, so the inns ended up offering only ladies' facilities. JANET MARTELL Clarification—for the Irony-Impaired In Timothy Patrick McCarthy and John McMillian's "America's Radical Roots" (May 31), the authors refer to Barack Obama's opponents calling attention to his "tenuous associations with an angry black minister, un-American education professor and foreign-born Muslims." The sentence should have read "anti-American" and had quotes around that word as well as around "angry" and "foreign-born" to make clear that these labels are not the authors' but are part of the right-wing smear campaign.
Jun 2, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Love the Smell of Apartheid in the Morning! Germantown, Md. Oh, how I miss those sweet, lovable days of apartheid rule during the terrifying reign of the Afrikaners! Oh, how I miss the days when I was forced to carry an ID book that I had to produce on demand by a white, less-educated policeman! Oh, how I miss Verwoerd, Vorster, Koornhof, Botha and the jackbooted Broederbond! Oh, I miss them so! But never fear, we now have our own version of apartheid, in Arizona, in the land of the free ["Arizona Burning," May 17]. The volk of apartheid South Africa are proud of you, Arizona. You keep the torch burning for all God-fearing whites. You know, the Afrikaners also believed in the superiority of white, a God-given right. VARSI PADAYACHEE Phoenix We Arizonans are frustrated that so many political figures and pundits are reacting to incomplete or misinformation. Read the bill (racial profiling is expressly forbidden). Approved or new citizens should be carrying documentation, just as any driver should carry a license. And attend to the burdens on our medical, educational, welfare and criminal justice systems from dealing with illegal immigrants here. I agree that our law has motivated the federal government to address immigration and border issues. And yes, we need a policy that simplifies and hastens the process for obtaining work visas, then citizenship. MITCH BOYKAN Temple, Tex. This new law is appalling. I am seeing a terrible trend in this country. Groups are being selected—first it was Muslims and now (again) Hispanics—as being "other," not American, not fully human. I know there has always been racism in America. On that I have no illusions. I had hoped that with Obama's election, America could be turning an important corner. But alas, the opposite seems to be happening. Racism has been given credence by the law passed in Arizona. Already other states, including my own, are voicing interest in enacting similar legislation. What's next—people forced to wear a symbol on their clothing to indicate their ethnicity? I strongly urge all Americans to take a stand against this law. Boycott Arizona and its businesses until this law is repealed. BARBARA LOCKWOOD Bethpage, N.Y. If you want to get this awful SB 1070 repealed, boycott Arizona businesses until the legislature and the governor repeal the law. Send the Arizona Chamber of Commerce a letter at democratz.org. Don't get mad, get active! DEN BAER IBGYBG—FYI Douglasville, Ga. Re Christopher Hayes's "Goners" [May 17]: IBGYBG has been around for some time. Business leaders make promises too good to be true, seal the deal and waltz out of the company with their cash, stock options and bonuses before the roughage hits the fan. It's business as usual. KYLE FRENCH Shenandoah, Tex. Regarding IBGYBG: this is similar to a remark made by George W. Bush in the late 1990s as governor of Texas. Told by wiser souls that his tax cuts would be devastating to Texans, he responded, "I'll be gone by then." Not soon enough or far enough. Sign me One Sad Texas Democrat. BARBARA PHILLIPS OMG—NDOP! Flushing, N.Y. Just as Judge Barbara Crabb deserves three cheers for her ruling against a National Day of Prayer, so does Katha Pollitt for her May 17 "Let Us (Not) Pray." She shows how this is purely a Christian ceremony (clue: NDOP may be held "any day but Sunday"). Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and other non-Christians need not pray—this would only confuse God! G.M. CHANDU Brentwood, Tenn. Opposition to a National Day of Prayer is worth considering. Statements concerning the being, or nonbeing, of a deity are at best philosophical speculation and at worst culturally conditioned arrogance. However, it is beneficial for individuals and corporate entities to articulate their most important concerns and objectives. How about a National Day of Attention to That Which Is of Utmost Concern? KEITH DAVIS Our Cosmic Healthcare Bill Somewhere in Cyberspace Some people are way ahead on "Learning to Love the Healthcare Bill" [Katherine S. Newman and Steven Attewell, May 17]. I wrote the following letter to President Obama after the Sunday vote in the Senate: "Dear Mr. President: As it is written, Jesus Christ cured a paralytic on a Sabbath and was denounced by the Pharisees. As we heard in the media recently, Barack Obama enabled the curing of 30 million Americans by a vote on a Sunday and was roundly criticized by the Republicans. I am suggesting that Plutarch, if he were alive today, would welcome the opportunity to write another chapter of Parallel Lives to compare the two.... God has been waiting patiently for 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang for you to accomplish this vote for the American people, and there is joy in Heaven over the victory. What you have done has cosmic import that goes beyond just finishing the work of T.R., F.D.R., H.S.T. and L.B.J." I am 75. I knew the WPA, with its steam shovels and Mack chain-drive trucks, and I worked for FDR on the 1944 election. We need more of the same. Healthcare for all is the crown jewel. If enough people could be convinced of this, Obama could increase his dominance in Congress in November. EMMANUEL P. PAPADAKIS Daddy, Where Do Morals Come From? Appleton, Wis. Interviewer Christine Smallwood, in "Talking With Tony Judt" [May 17], suggests that "people on the left are so embarrassed about the language of morality." As a person on the left, I speak eagerly and confidently about morality, in the language of human rights, civil rights, environmentalism and other ways that the actions of individuals affect other individuals. What embarrasses me are arguments from authority, those uncompromising, pope-like dictums about what God wants, that yield neither to evidence nor reason. I have read too many comments from absolutists who state that without God, my morality must be relative and arbitrary. Morality comes from people learning to live together. An omnipotent God could easily have said, "Thou shalt steal." How arbitrary is that? JAMES OLSKI Indeed... Albany, N.Y. Kai Bird and Victor Navasky's December 1981 special issue of The Nation, which Bird deemed important enough to summarize for readers thirty years later in "The Hebrew Republic" [May 10], is thankfully mistaken on one vital point. He writes, "It made no sense to offer automatic citizenship to any Jew anywhere." He is wrong. The Law of Return provided needed sanctuary to Jews living in the Soviet Union, oppressed under the anti-Semitic yoke of a murderous dictatorship. In the twenty years since Russia opened its doors to mass emigration in 1989, more than 1 million Russians have immigrated to Israel. For those who escaped, it made sense indeed. EDWARD HOROWITZ
May 26, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Shill, Baby, Shill Clinton, Ohio I suspect the irony was not lost on your readers: the cover of the May 10 issue is dripping with oil and headlined with words such as "Oil" and "Corruption." A full-page ad on the back cover shows BP ("beyond petroleum"), posturing as "green," as its oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico at a record rate. ERICA GREER Mt. Tabor, N.J. Can we not consider that running a full back-cover ad from BP is a conflict of your interests and ours? Isn't killing eleven workers and the unprecedented environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico reason enough to yank BP's claim of "opening new offshore areas to oil and gas production"? And shame on you for permitting this unscrupulous corporate giant to hide under a green sunflower. MICHAEL SPECTOR,chair Green Party of New Jersey The Editors Reply We appreciate those who have taken the time to write us about the BP ad. As Nation readers, you are no doubt aware that small journals of opinion like ours are struggling financially. But even when times were better, censoring ads was never in keeping with our advertising policy (see TheNation.com/node/33589), which states: "We accept [advertising] not to further the views of The Nation but to help pay the costs of publishing." Indeed, we often run ads whose values do not match those of our editors or our readers. Our advertisers have included Fox News, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Department of Homeland Security and others. Our publication of the BP ad in no way reflects an endorsement of its content. Running these ads does not inhibit us from publishing articles highly critical of corporate-owned mainstream media, unjust and ineffective drug policies, the Patriot Act—or oil companies. In fact, as readers have pointed out, Johann Hari's hard-hitting critique of the corrupting influence of oil-industry cash on mainstream environmental groups in "The Wrong Kind of Green" [March 22] appeared in the same issue as another BP ad. As longtime readers are aware, a wall between advertising and editorial content has always been a key part of The Nation's tradition of independence—which advertising, regardless of its subject, helps to keep alive. —The Editors Nil, Baby, Nil Blacksburg, Va. Re Jerry A. Coyne's "The Improbability Pump" [May 10]: the germ theory of disease is widely accepted, not only because it is true but because it is rather simple and good for people. The situation is different with the theory of evolution. It is complex, and most people don't have a clear understanding of it. But they are smart enough to know that it robs their lives of meaning—I am no more important than a flea or a tapeworm. Dostoyevsky understood this when he preferred Christianity (although not necessarily true) to nihilism—if there is no God, everything is permitted. If evolution had been accepted centuries ago, would we now have something better than what remains of Christendom and Western civilization? GORDON CARTER Alexandria, Va. There have been advances in physics since Darwin's time, including the concept of block time and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. Time is an illusion, and everything that can possibly exist does and always has. We never even built anything. We found the absurdly improbable universe in which the desired objects always existed. Infinite parallel universes explain the absurd improbability of life better than natural selection. MARK SCOTT OLLER
May 19, 2010 / Our Readers
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Letters published in the May 31, 2010, issue of The Nation.
May 13, 2010 / Our Readers