Dissension in Bush Country
** Notre Dame Magazine has embraced George Bush as a
decisive man and a man of faith who brilliantly turned this country
red in the last election. However, "Bush Country" left out any
mention that the most vulnerable people in America are being disenfranchised
economically, socially and politically and that we are in a vicious
and unexplainable war. By being published in this magazine, what
"Bush Country" really says is that an ideologically and politically
driven right-wing religious agenda trumps Jesus Christ's message
of Christian love and compassion.
Thomas Biglen '68
Big Timber, Montana
** Bruce Dold wrote that we went three years without a terrorist
attack at home but did not include as terrorist our compulsive
military appropriations, our cash outlay for war, the anguish
of military families and the assault on our constitutional rights.
He abuses the word "decisive" and uses it to mean acting for violence,
citing Harry Truman's A-bomb decision as an act of courage. In
truth, what both candidates lacked was a grand idea and the courage
to implement it. That idea requires dealing with the causes of
terrorism without war and without inspiring fear as well as dealing
with the behavior of all parties responsible -- including ourselves.
Donald F. Cuddihee Sr. '54
Greer, South Carolina
** I would like to express my gratitude to Bruce Dold for enlightening
us to the reason for the Bush victory. Dold put into words, so
eloquently, what many of us thought all along.
Julie Tortorelli
Barrington, Illinois
** Bruce Dold incredibly insinuates that except for the big cities
Bush would have won New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Is this
man serious? The major cities are the diverse, cultural, scientific
and, often, educational centers of the state. Why doesn't he conclude
that if it weren't for the mostly rural "bible belt" red states,
Bush would have lost in a landslide. Bush, with good reason, never
campaigned on his record. He exploited gay marriage, abortion,
right-to-die and other religious and personal issues to gain his
advantage.
Erin Murphy '85
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania
Congratulations on a fine spring issue of the magazine. I am
a class of '53 graduate and spent 10 years on the Science Advisory
Council and had one child graduate from Notre Dame.
Much has happened to the university since my day, and its falling
away from the Catholic University I knew, and its hypocrisy and
duplicity in allowing cover for Democrat and other Catholic politicians
has been most disheartening to a place I have loved.
As a result most issues of the magazine have been less than pleasing.
This issue was one of your best and was complete with some very
cogent articles and letters. It was a pleasant surprise to read
the article by Bruce Dold, which was out of character for Notre
Dame these days. For the first time in years I read all the articles.
Once again congratulations and thanks for such a good issue.
Ralph J. Argen, MD '53
Williamsville, New York
As a member of the Sorin Society and as a '63 graduate, I would
like to express my opinion of the spring issue.
On the introduction page you displayed a picture of George Bush
with a mention of his March 4th discussion of Social Security
matters. Since you are an equal opinioned and fair magazine I
believe that you should not demonstrate oneside of an issue with
the president's picture. To be equally fair you should exibit
other opinions such as exhibited by Senator John Kerry.
I suppose that you will also exibit the work of John Bolton who
is an ND grad, even though the Congress is questioning his nomination
to the United Nations as the representative of the United States
and an advocate of nuclear power.
Be an open minded magazine.
Robert F Baer '63
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
Mr. Bush hardly "claimed the country as his own" (Spring 2005).
His margin of victory was embarrassingly small for a sitting president,
and it will take years to address and heal the huge divisions
his policies and decisions have caused across America. America
is not, in fact, "painted red," nor should it described as painted
in any one color. The red, white, and blue of our flag are supposed
to remind us that we are one nation made up of many diverse women,
men and children.
Marie A. Conn '93Ph.D.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Since when has Notre
Dame Magazine become a mouthpiece of George Bush ? Regarding the
article "Bush Country" by R. Bruce Dold, I wasn't sure if I was
reading an article in your magazine or being preached to by someone
trying to shine-up the image of the man who lied and led our country
into a morally unjust war responsible for the deaths of thousands
of innocent children, women and men. The last paragraph says it
all:
"George Bush tapped
into that America. He won an election because he appealed to people
who voted with their head and their heart and, yes, their faith
-- in him, in his priorities and in something greater."
Greater what ? Greater
love and peace in the world? No, sadly, just the opposite!
Lou Pizzini '59Ph.D.
Fort Myers, Florida
R. Bruce Dold writes, "In the first presidential election since
the September 11 terrorist attacks, there's no doubt that many
people considered which candidate would keep them safe and decided
it was Bush. This was an election conducted in a time of war,
and America has never cast out a president during wartime."
Which of those two consecutive sentences are we supposed to believe?
Which does Dold believe? Is there no doubt that people purposefully
chose Bush, or was it the case that, as in every case in the past,
they simply rubber-stamped their ballot for the incumbent?
As a student of the late E.J. Cronin, I can only imagine what
might have happened if one of us had tried that logic in his seminar.
In fact, the thought gives me a bit of a chuckle. I'd have enjoyed
that moment very much indeed.
Pete Peterson '71
Queensbury, New York
"How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" Intelligence is normally
distributed (statistically speaking) across the population. By
definition, half the population is of below average intelligence.
Bush has found his audience.
Thanks to R. Bruce Dold for accurately shedding light on how
a polarizing president like George W. Bush won re-election, when
domestic and international news appeared overwhelmingly negative.
The reason is simple: George Bush has a clear vision for this
country, while the Democratic Party has none. One doesn't have
to agree with the Bush vision to admit he has one. It was put
best when a frustrated Democrat recently said "the Republican
Party is the party of bad ideas; the Democratic Party is the party
of no ideas."
Democrats also seem to be consumed with hate. In the last few
months, we've heard Howard Dean, on the eve of reaching the top
of the Democratic Party, declare "I hate Republicans and everything
they stand for." Since then, he's characterized Republicans as
both "evil" and "brain dead." And it's Republicans who are accused
of being hateful. It's not at all surprising Democrats have lost
five of the last seven presidential elections and have not held
solid majority in either house of congress in over a decade.
For many reasons -- from imagined attacks on their patriotism,
to their open worship of an America-loathing propagandist, Michael
Moore, to the comments of their party leader -- the Democratic
Party will continue their march into the political darkness, until
they decide to grow up.
This country needs two strong political parties, for it is best
served when two strong parties provide counterbalance and keep
the other from achieving absolute power.
Julian Cangelosi '95MBA
Tulatin, Oregon
After reading Mr. Dold's "Bush Country" it made me feel we were
voting for a Pope instead of a President. Always vote on the issues.
Deficits as far as the eye can see. The mess in Iraq. Loss of
jobs. And as Dold said, "Bush won."
Then the author goes on to say "many people considered which
candidate would keep them safe and decided it was Bush." Hey,
9/11 happened on Bush's watch, not Kerry's.
Finally Dold goes on to say Bush is "likely to enhance his stature
by appealing to the middle" in his second term. No way. More "old
time religion." I go to his lead-in for the article, "how can
59 million people (sic) be so DUMB." I agree.
Paul Stutzke '58
Goodyear, Arizona
I am a bit disturbed about the portion of the article by R.
Bruce Dold where he comments "Say that again?" in response to
Senator Kerry's answer to one of the questions in the second presidential
debate. The question was "Suppose you were speaking with a voter
who believed abortion is murder, and the voter asked for reassurance
that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion,
what would you say to that person?" Bruce might have been better
advised to more fully consider the complexity and implications
of this question to a professed Catholic presidential candidate
and not dismissed his "professional explanation" in such a cavalier
manner. A careful reading of Senator Kerry's actual response might
have drawn readers to a very different conclusion other than the
one Bruce was portraying as a "telling moment". The conclusion
of Senator Kerry's answer cab hardly be characterized as "Now,
I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion."
That is a gross distortion and not up to journalistic standards.
I can't comment on the remainder of Bruce's article but this portion
was very questionable. I think we can expect quite a bit more
in the way of integrity from your contributing writers and particularly
an editorial page editor of the World's Greatest Newspaper.
Ray Bayless '53
Evanston, Illinois
I read Bruce Dold's "Bush Country" article on the moral value
of the administration and how the President has taken the war
on terror to the "enemy's territory". Is this a view espoused
by ND? Does Bruce Dold have any grasp at all of the situation?
Michael W. Herb '58
Edmonds, Washington
Some time ago I was somewhat surprised that the University had
invited George W. Bush, the president of the United States, to
use the Joyce Center on March 4th for him to speak in support
of his program to destroy Social Security by an arrangement to
divert, at individual options, up to one third of a person's otherwise
payment of payroll taxes for Social Security to private funds.
I would like to raise the question as to whether the University
will invite opponents of the Bush plan to speak at a comparable
forum in support of Social Security and the need to reform current
funding of the program to assure that we and our children will
see the benefits of the program. So far I have heard nothing to
show any intent by the University to offer such forum for speakers
in support of Social Security who oppose the President on this
issue. Unless the President's plan is shelved, we are far better
off at this time leaving the system as it is until political agreement
can be reached on changes to truly improve the system from the
revenue standpoint, instead of creating an additional revenue
drain on the system.
I was even more surprised to receive earlier this week the Spring
2005 edition of Notre Dame Magazine and find a 4 page
article entitled "Bush Country" by the Editorial Page Editor of
the Chicago Tribune, the theme of which is that the last
presidential election was in the end determined by "moral values"
of the President, which makes a mockery of the very words. Immediately
before the vote on the resolution of the Congress authorizing
the president to use military force and invade Iraq if he determined
it to be a threat to the security of the United States, the administration
gave to members of Congress whose vote was in doubt a copy of
a forged Export License of Niger authorizing the export of tons
of weapons grade uranium to Iraq. The forgery was confirmed by
the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. Also the President
had his Secretary of State tel the U.N. Security Council and the
world that they knew the locations where weapons of mass destruction
were, even though the security agencies of our Government stated
they had no evidence of the existence of such weapons in that
country. This was then the rationale for the invasion and occupation
of Iraq (which the Vatican has declared an unjust war), resulting
so far in over 1,700 American deaths and the deaths of over 100,000
people in Iraq.
While all this was going on, we have arrived at a situation never
experienced in my life time where we as a nation are despised
in almost every country in the world. So much for moral values.
Here at home we hear such things as the President saying to the
world, as part of his propaganda to support privatization of Social
Security, that the full faith and credit of the United States
on its bonds funded by surplus Social Security revenues is worthless
as the funds were spent on other things and the Government will
ignore its obligations, thus rendering the Social Security surplus
reserves worthless. No wonder that the Dollar is at all time lows
and foreign central banks are getting rid of Dollar dominated
reserves. Again, we are telling the world what our moral values
are ad I don't think they have much respect for them no matter
how many times we repeat the words. Once more, will Notre
Dame Magazine present articles stating the other side of
the coin?
I am sorry to have to go into these details, but I have devoted
a good part of my life to further the interest of the University
to the extent of my capability and have had great respect for
what it has stood for over the years as the leading Catholic university
of which I have been proud to be an alumnus. I am currently a
member of the Board of Directors, and have served as a past President,
of the Notre Dame Club of Long Island. I have worked hard over
the years to develop the Club to what it is today, and I am sure
the Alumni Office records will confirm this. So please when you
plan a forum, or a magazine article, no national or world wide
issues, in all fairness consider both sides of the issues and
let them be recognized.
Joseph A. Mannion '43
Plainview, New York
It was with increasing fury that I read R. Bruce Dold''s article
"Bush Country" in the spring issue. This subtle and clever panegyric
of the corrupt Bush administration tied in with the corrupted
Catholicism and seeming acceptance, nay, promotion, by many Catholics
of the evil of the war in Iraq cannot be left unchallenged.
I have long held a number of personal views that differ with
the Catholic Church and its policies. Don't get me wrong, I like
most Catholics. Why, I even married one. Nevertheless, I have
always at least been able to admire the Church's moral consistency
on certain issues. The Fifth Commandment, for example, says "Thou
shalt not kill." Therefore, no taking of life, no abortion (given
the dubious assumption that "life" begins at conception), no capital
punishment (so popular among the "Christian" right), no stem-cell
research, and no unjust wars.
Whooooa, hold up on that last one for a minute. NO UNJUST WARS?!
This one seems to have been conveniently ignored or forgotten
by the official Catholic Church and many, many Catholics in this
country. This evil insanity that President Bush has perpetrated
in Iraq fails every single criterion set for the waging of a just
war that have evolved over centuries of Catholic theology, with
one possibly arguable exception.
Bush's personal, dirty little war is immoral, illegal and patently
unjust.
I defy any Catholic, clergy, scholar or laity, to mount an honest
and compelling defense of the morality of this war. Or is "Thou
shalt not kill" just the Reader's Digest condensed version
of the Commandment? Are there some sub-clauses in there I've not
been privy to?
The official Catholic Church in this country seems to be viewing
the old Fifth like Polyphemus the Cyclops: With only one eye.
Or at least with one eye closed or winking.
Absolutely nothing related in any way to abortion is permitted.
Bishops pontificate that Catholic politicians who do not actively
oppose the state sanction of legal abortion should not be given
communion or, at the very least, those base sinners should voluntarily
deny themselves communion with the Church. They incite the malleable
Catholic populace from the pulpit. Where are the bishops and theologians
thundering against the evil and sinfulness of this war? Bishops
proudly and self-righteously flaunt their allegiance to the pope's
directives on abortion, but deafening silence prevails about his
teaching and guidance on the Iraq War.
If, as Mr. Dold asserts, that 52 percent of Catholics uncharacteristically
voted for Republican Bush, then the Catholic Church and 52 percent
of Catholics have aided and abetted great sin. To date, about
1,550 U.S. soldiers and an estimated 1 million Iraqis, mostly
women, children and civilians, are already dead as a result of
this war. And the beat goes on.
I have thought a lot about these facts and, as an experimental
scientist, have formulated a working hypothesis as to why the
Church has supported this war. I will use the acronym CCC to designate
the Current Catholic Church and because three C's can explain
it, as they clearly did in Vietnam: Complicity. Active support
of a militaristic central government that has not, at least yet,
brought its sights to bear on Catholics. Cowardice. It's pretty
easy to take on a poor, unmarried, pregnant teen, but it''s another
whole matter to do battle with a powerful government. Crusades.
Maybe this time we'll beat them Muslims. [Remember Vietnam? The
South was heavily Catholic. The North was mostly those evil, godless
whatever they were.]
I note, with some degree of irony, that the "Domer's Index" article
in this same issue lists a total of 58 chapels on the ND campus.
Seems to me that there must be a lot of chapels ineffectively
or improperly used. And only three undergraduates at ND identify
themselves as Muslims. In addition, another article indicates
that the renowned Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan has had to resign
the teaching position offered him at ND because his visa was revoked,
not just denied but revoked, allegedly for unspecified matters
of "national security." The Department of Homeland Security could
probably have told Notre Dame officials why, but then they'd have
to kill them for reasons of national security.
I will sleep much better now, knowing that there will be neither
a Ramadan nor a Ramadan on my alma mater's campus in the near
future.
It comes as little surprise to me that the editorial page editor
of the Chicago Tribune would pen this "Catholic Pabulum"
for our consumption. The Tribune was a fascist newsletter
in the 1960s -- complete with full-color editorial cartoon smack
dab in the middle of the front page and its parent company's slogan
on the masthead, "American Papers for Americans." A lot has changed
in four decades. The cartoon and slogan are no longer there. But
many things unfortunately remain the same. The Tribune's
perspective is unchanged. I suggest randomly reading some of the
editorials posted on its Web site. An unjust, divisive war was
being perpetrated by our government then; one goes on now and
both with the hearty support of the Catholic Church.
Dold opines that Americans voted for Bush because they felt he
was "a leader," so necessary in time of war, with the obvious
slant that this was somehow good. Well, I choose not to argue
the "leader" appellation right now but would like to enumerate
some other great national "leaders," both past and present. How
about Genghis Kahn? Now there was truly a great wartime leader.
Don't forget Hitler, Mao Tse-tung and Idi Amin. Fantastic . .
. in the leadership category. And right on our southeastern doorstep,
that jovial, bearded, cigar-smoking, swarthy imp -- Fidel Castro!
Apparently underappreciated in our country and by our government,
but a leader, a leader of his people.
But leaders can make "mistakes," Dold says. I guess we'll have
to ignore Idi's cannibalism and Adolph's mass-murder tendencies
as "youthful indiscretions."
Mr. Dold seems to ignore the fact that one can be both a great
"leader" and also be evil incarnate.
P.S. I haven't even touched on Commandments other than the 5th
that President Bush and his band of administration fascisti have
shattered or ignored.
How about that pesky one on "bearing false witness"? They lie
all the time. They lie every time they open their collective mouth.
They distort facts and truth to fit their pre-conceived agenda.
They lie about things that they don't even have to lie about.
Is it allowable to lie persistently if it's in the "national interest"?
Is that one of them Commandment clauses I haven't read? If I heard
one of them say that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, I would
immediately begin preparing to live the rest of my life in darkness.
And that one that frowns on stealing? To date nearly $170 billion
stolen from current taxpayers and from future generations to fund
the Iraq debacle. Praise Jesus they didn't raise taxes now! At
least they took care of me. I will have been long croaked before
most of the bill is due.
Dr. James E. O'Reilly '67
Department of Chemistry
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
More letters to the editor
