Columnist makes unfair attacks on the political values of the
Right

To the Daily:

I hesitate to call Sowmya Krishnamurthy’s most recent
column An Open Letter to America (11/05/04) a waste of
space, as I feel this would dignify her commentary far too much.
The sheer arrogance of her column, the assumption that a majority
of the population didn’t make an informed decision, but
rather sunk into a collective stupor, reflects why Democrats
continually fail to connect with the vast swaths of the electorate
they need to win.

What does Krishnamurthy do to insult voters who supported
President Bush? Blame him for leading the nation into the war with
Iraq. Certainly a terrible crime, one that merits a vote for
change, except that John Kerry supported that same war. Oops.

Unable to pin Bush down on the major policy issue of our day,
Krishnamurthy resorts to the least sophisticated tools of political
discourse: personal attacks. Bush is a former alcoholic who has a
DUI and might have tried cocaine. The operative word there is
“might.” Never mind if the crime is alleged and that
all of these errors in judgment occurred 20 years ago or more; they
should still disqualify Bush from the presidency. The only recent
misdeed that Krishnamurthy can cite is that Bush’s daughters
have gotten into some trouble with underage drinking. If
Krishnamurthy truly believes this should delegitimize Bush’s
presidency, her next open letter should be to the undergraduates
here at the University, telling them that their parents lack family
values and are unfit for high office. If anyone lacks values, it is
Krishnamurthy. Her evident frustration with her inability to win a
policy argument causes her to flail about in desperation and hurl
whatever insults she can throw at Bush in the hopes that something
will stick. Krishnamurthy’s argument quickly degenerates into
the ugliest of personal attacks, reflecting poorly on her
argumentative skills and even more poorly on her own morals.

To justify her own complete lack of scruples Krishnamurthy
argues that Bush’s moral positions are hypocritical and that
“morality has no place in politics” because of its
“intrinsic basis of religion.” Let’s handle the
latter assertion first. If morality has no place in politics, what
should guide our leaders’ decisions? Political expediency?
That certainly seemed to be the case of the Democratic nominee, who
during the whole campaign failed to put together a coherent
position on Iraq, but rather shifted whatever way the political
winds were blowing. If Bush goes too far in attempting to impose a
set values system on the whole country, we may justly criticize
him, but the sweeping judgment that morals should not inform
political positions is completely ridiculous. Krishnamurthy’s
attack is based on her own morals. She doesn’t like the
president’s values because they are based on a
Judeo-Christian value system. Sorry, not good enough.

As for the assertion that Bush is a hypocrite who cannot
honestly promote family values, if Krishnamurthy really wants to
drag up 20-year mistakes and alleged misdeeds, she can be my guest.
See how many take her seriously when she shows the journalistic
integrity of a tabloid columnist. I know many good, intelligent,
thoughtful, moral people who supported Bush in his re-election
effort. If they did so because of “moral values,” it
was because they saw him as a man who kept to his word, who
possessed the strength of will to defend Western liberalism against
Islamist fundamentalism, who would not suffer accommodation with a
radical, totalitarian ideology that cannot coexist with our way of
life. Those are values that any decent American can support.
Krishnamurthy’s casual dismissal of this possibility
demonstrates the hubris that has led to two straight Democratic
presidential losses against an opponent that should have been easy
to beat. Rather than confront inconvenient facts or assemble a
thoughtful argument against Bush’s policies, Krishnamurthy
tries to prove her position by insulting Bush’s character,
his intelligence, his morals — there is little Krishnamurthy
won’t tear down through her visceral need to attack Bush. As
long as Democrats continue to disregard the fundamental goodness
and intelligence of the millions of people who live between the
coasts and outside of university towns, they will continue to lose
elections.

To the editors of the Daily, I say that I have no problem with
an anti-Bush writer being supported by University funds. What I do
resent is the use of those funds for a writer with such a complete
lack of intellectual honesty or rhetorical skill. Do your readers a
favor and don’t let junk journalism get past stage one of the
editorial process.