Column: The qualities of a president
(04/14/03 4:00am)
Dear Presidential Selection Committee,
Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Chronicle's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
6 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Dear Presidential Selection Committee,
It should go without saying at this point, that the left is wrong about the war. Saddam Hussein is not morally equivalent to George W. Bush, nor are American forces on par with the Iraqi militants who have, in the last week, tortured and executed American POW's as well as fired on their fellow, noncompliant citizens. This war is not about the expropriation of oil resources, nor is it a ploy to get Bush elected for another term. It is being conducted as a legal response to 12 years of weapons violations, the extent of which now gravely threatens populations of both the Middle East and, perhaps, the U.S. directly. The latter threat appears increasingly genuine as more information comes to light regarding Iraq's role in sheltering and aiding al Qaeda terrorists. Bush and Tony Blair are acting with integrity and in the best interests of their countries, which they have sworn to protect. Both hope that this military intervention will prevent much greater catastrophes down the line. Coalition forces are waging one of the most humanitarian-minded military campaigns in history and going to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian causalities. Iraq will have a brighter future after Saddam is deposed, though many Iraqis and Americans will lose their lives in this cause and not by their own choice. One problem, however. These facts, in and of themselves, do not make the war just. I will return to this troubling thought, but first a digression.
I know how convicted terrorist Laura Whitehorn feels. I, too, feel misunderstood. Granted we are misunderstood for different reasons. I even doubt that we could understand each other. However, regardless of how we are misunderstood, the fact remains: People just don't understand what we are about.
John Rawls, the eminent Harvard philosopher, died last week at the age of 81. He was, perhaps, the most influential ethical apologist for liberal democracy of the last half-century and known primarily for his seminal work A Theory of Justice. His death has occasioned a number of kind reflections on his long and distinguished life-the life of a humble man and a deep thinker. While many pause to pay their respects at the passing of this great figure, it is a perfect time to write a second obituary for Rawls's theory of justice, which should have died long before he did. The most brilliant defense of the liberal state failed, and the time has come to acknowledge that liberalism is dead.
I have previously used this space to suggest some indications of the fragmentary nature of undergraduate life at Duke. This has included commentary on the difficulty of holding certain conversations outside of restricted spheres, the implicit moratorium on politically incorrect speech, the dominance of pre-professional aspirations for which the liberal arts are a decorative afterthought, the hypocrisy of selectively applied diversity platitudes and the adversarial nature of social life priorities played out between students and administrators. The full consequences of such fragmentation merit further exploration.
I like women, I really do. I have come to the important conclusion, however, that I can still care about women and not care at all about "women's issues." I think I am not alone in holding this view; indeed, I imagine many women may share it. When I say women's issues, though, I don't mean things like the 19th amendment and spousal abuse. Those are human issues. All citizens should have the right to vote, and no person should be beaten. Such issues ultimately rest on an appeal to an individual's status as human, not as woman.