David Gergen is

I can't bring myself to put "right" in the same title with David Gergen at the moment, but he's right:

Time to face the real issues

By David Gergen

On May 10, 1940, As Britain trembled at Hitler's sweep across Europe, the king summoned a new prime minister to power. The next few days were a turning point, as Winston Churchill rallied his people and they valiantly held off the Nazi onslaught. Central to his leadership, as biographer Martin Gilbert points out, was his decision to form a unity government--one in which political rivals were forced to put aside old hatreds and, together, face the future. Churchill told his fellow citizens: "Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future."

One remembers that as our presidential campaign descends into the muck over who did what to whom during the Vietnam War. John Kerry can be justly proud of his heroism, but we have heard enough from him on the subject. And we are hearing altogether too much from George Bush's supporters as they try to smear Kerry. The president should call off the attack dogs, and both sides should move on.

Good editorial, gets into that which will need resolution, actual issues. Sadly, that has little to do with how Americans choose their leaders.

No, I think the real problem is the way people respond to a leader once they have committed. Maybe it's the particular set of ideas currently wrapped around leadership.

I don't know, something about American leaders and leadership is working my nerves for some reason.

Posted by Prometheus 6 on August 22, 2004 - 4:18pm :: Politics
 
latest article | previous | next
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm not sure that David Gergen's analysis helps to add any clarity to the problem. While it may be true that we have heard quite enough from John Kerry and his supporters about Kerry's service in Vietnam, their over emphasis on this matter grows directly out of a political culture in which, at least since the early 1950s, Democrats have been vilified by Republicans as being weak on natonal defense issues. Since both Democrats and Republicans have labored hard at convincing the American people that we are now engaged in a world wide war against terrorism and terrorists it stands to reason that those who desire to serve as our natonal leaders will work overtime at presenting their wartime bona fides for our review. With respect to Kerry and those who question what he did in Vietnam there is a self-stroking cycle of charges and counter-charges. Kerry can't stop talking about his military service because if he did then he would be perceived as weak on defense issues and not qualified to lead us in this so-called war against global terrorism. And his opponents won't stop questioning his qualifications to do so because it helps to bolster their candidate's chances for reelection. This is the state of American electoral politics today and the political dialogue will probably grow even more shrill as we move forward. Darryl Cox

Posted by  PTCruiser on August 23, 2004 - 5:38am.

Politically, I'll support any argument that stops the discussion because Bush's numbers stop hang-gliding and start parachuting.

Intellectually, I've stopped looking for clarity in public positions for the most part because no one can allow themselves to be argued out of a position. It's seen almost as cowardice. At this point, because I'm well informed enough to do it, I judge the pundit's bald assertion and let it go at that.

Posted by  Prometheus 6 on August 23, 2004 - 6:49am.