Top 10 Letters

*1*
Since The Weekly Standard and Hugh Hewitt are deeply committed to invigorating public discourse (Tough Guy), perhaps you will share with your readers my brief reply, from the April 17 Yale Daily News, to one of the responses my column received. This might help some people who tend to read things ideologically understand better what I was actually arguing in the column itself.

“In 1965, [Yale President] Kingman Brewster, Jr. told my class, ‘To a remarkable extent this place has detected and rejected the very few who have worn the colors of high purpose falsely. This is done not by administrative edit or official regulation [but] by a pervasive ethic of student and faculty loyalty and responsibility and mutual regard which lies deep in our origins and traditions.'”

Writing to support that ethic, I drew a distinction not between right and left but between those who use violence or intimidation (which do require “edicts”) and those who do what Brewster cautioned against: They claim to champion dialogue while serving narrower, often unacknowledged ideological or tribal agendas against perceived enemies whose reputations and words they often distort, sometimes smoothly, sometimes hideously. Campus Stalinists refined this to a high art years ago, deftly invoking liberal pieties and principles to justify one-dimensional politics; so now do some conservative networker-warriors.

A strong Yale will detect and reject them, quietly but firmly placing the burden on progressive and conservative activists to clean their houses. They’ll have to, if the rest of us are brave enough to make it clear that we’re not buying what’s pernicious or nonsensical in their claims and that we won’t be intimidated or guilt-tripped into pretending otherwise.

–Jim Sleeper

Hugh Hewitt responds: There is an old Irish saying: When everyone says you’re drunk, you’d better sit down. Professor Sleeper had better sit down.

Sleeper is quite energetically attempting to persuade readers of both The Weekly Standard and the Yale Daily News that he didn’t write what they thought he wrote. He is attempting to do so at the same time he refuses to apologize to the freshmen for the use of the terms “neo-Stalinist” and “Fedayeen Uncle Sams” in his first article in the Yale Daily News.

One of the great benefits of the Internet is that observers of arguments like this one can instantly read the originals. Sleeper’s first column was linked in my Daily Standard piece, as was the students’ report to Frontpage magazine. Sleeper may want to plead guilty to lousy writing rather than abusive invective, but even the former won’t erase the terms “neo-Stalinist” or “Fedayeen Uncle Sams.” Those are serious charges, far beyond any ordinary charge of incivility. To remind Professor Sleeper: Stalin murdered millions and imprisoned millions more. The Fedayeen have been violating the rules of war in recent weeks, murdering American soldiers and Iraqi citizens. Sleeper was writing about civility in his first article. “Yeah, right,” as the younger people say.

There is a second point in Professor Sleeper’s reply that requires a little more time than his absurd claim that he’s been misunderstood. He uses a curious quote from Kingman Brewster about detecting and rejecting “the very few who have worn the colors of high purpose falsely,” and claims he wrote his first piece in the tradition Brewster praised. He went on to again link “campus Stalinists” with “conservative networker-warriors,” and to urge “a strong Yale” to place the burden on “progressive and conservative activists to clean their houses.” He closed by urging his Yale readers not to “be intimidated or guilt-tripped” into “buying what’s pernicious or nonsensical in their claims.”

I’d like to attend a meeting of the Yale Committee on Protecting the Colors of High Purpose. I’d like to ask where have they been for the past twenty-five years and why, more recently, haven’t they called the promoters of the teach-in to account?

More to the point, the tenured and untenured left in the academy is profoundly unsettled by the arrival of “conservative network-warriors” on their campuses. The abuse of center-right students that has been a constant over the past 30 years can no longer occur in isolation, and alumni with checkbooks have begun to notice these antics. Virulent anti-American rhetoric–“Fedayeen Uncle Sams” is in a class by itself–gets reported upon and Boards of Trustees frown. September 11 did indeed change many things, and it energized many to demand fairness on campuses. Sleeper is trying to claim a privileged ground, upon which no criticisms may be allowed and from which he is entitled to hurl invective of the worst sort at young conservatives.

*2*
I enjoyed Larry Miller’s Ordinary Time article very much. My husband is somewhere in Iraq as I write this. Two of our four kids have birthdays coming up and it seems odd to be planning parties when my husband, their father, is out there. My parents 50th anniversary is this May and I had to give my parents my blessing to plan a huge party because, as they told me, they felt wrong to be celebrating while Dan is fighting a war.

We are live in a military environment. When I take our 8-year-old son for a haircut, we go to the post barber where he asks for “high and tight, skinned.” And he is very proud to look like dad.

–Jeannine Jordan

*3*
I’ve just finished Lee Bockhorn’s A World of Beauty, and I must say, as a young Italian of 28, I’ve found his words a painful, cutting remark. What Bockhorn had the chance to observe during his trip to Italy tells the plain truth about my country, a truth that makes me uneasy each day.

I’m thankful for the wonderful qualities of my country, even though we all should realize that most of the beauty here is something we’ve inherited from a distant past which we no longer belong to. But some sentences in Bockhorn’s article made me feel ashamed of my country and respectful of what Americans can stand for: You have the moral attitude that once made us great in history and faith.

Every American heart has a backbone of strength we’ve lost, or at least forgotten–I don’t know why and how.

But there’s one point I must refute: Maybe Bockhorn was lucky, but I can assure you that anti-Americanism here is alive and well–in leftists and, unfortunately, in many Catholics, too.

I’m grateful for my beautiful country, but much more proud of American values.

–Giulietta Zanichelli

*4*
I am French and I have been reading The Weekly standard in the last few years. Let’s say that I am not very proud to be French at the moment. (Fred Barnes, Taking the French at Their Word) I do not understand French diplomacy except that it is thought out by the same couple (Chirac, de Villepin) who stormed the dissolution of the French parliament in 1997, allowing Jospin to get five years in power. Without the help of le Pen, Chirac would have never surged back in the presidential elections last year because Jospin would have beaten him in the second round. So after nearly killing the French right, they are maiming our diplomacy.

–Pascal Malotti

*5*
Let me try to explain to Andrew Thomson why America is not a “regular place,” and is nothing like Italy, where I live and work as a political theorist and professor of sociology at the University of Padua (The War Against America). America has paid, helped and supported all kinds of terrorism around the globe: Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iraq, and many other places in the world (Italy is among them).

The American lifestyle is economically and ecologically unbearable, and it is based on the underdevelopment of Africa and South America. The United States has used the WTO to exploit foreign people, killing them with economic neoliberalism and patents on AIDS-related products. But I swear Thomson knows all these facts–and maybe he regards them as “liberal crap.” But if you read the definition of a “rogue state” in last year’s National Security Strategy, you will see that the United States matches all of the qualifications except one–the U.S. government does not kill its own people.

Maybe this is the problem: The United States does everything to protect its people–its normal people, with their families, two or three cars, five televisions, etc., etc.–and does not care about others. That wouldn’t be a great problem in itself. But the United States goes around the world saying that it is morally right, that it fights for others and many pieces of crap like this. Normal people around the world, you must understand, hate the United States precisely for the same reason they hate their neighbors, family, and friends: hypocrisy.

–Matteo Bortolini

*6*
The Paige affair is typical Beltway silliness and distraction. (Terry Eastland, Taking a Paige Out of Context) A cabinet head (in this case, an ineffectual, obscure affirmative-action appointment) makes an observation that may or may not be vaguely Christian, and cackling hens of both “parties” engage in recriminations, accusations, and ad hoc constitutional exegesis, as if Paige and his views were of any significance with regard to the actual operation of schools. Like William Bennett, Paige will discover, if he hasn’t already, that the lifestyle left is so deeply entrenched in state and federal education bureaucracies that no amount of speechifying will loosen its grip on the public schools. (Not that I harbor any illusions about this or most any member of the Bush team taking a conservative position on the leftist nonsense wherein American children marinate daily.)

More appalling is the predictable hypocrisy of Rep. Nadler and his colleagues. Let them detect the slightest whiff of Christianity, be it ever so mild or distant, and out comes the “Forcing Their Values On Others” boilerplate that every Democratic aspirant to office must commit to memory. Somehow, the smorgasbord of leftist claptrap in the schools never strikes the Democrats as an imposition of someone’s values.

Hey, weren’t we going to solve this problem by eliminating the Department of Education, and letting communities and parents direct the education of their kids? Oh, right, the Education Department is only bad when Democrats run it. Besides, if parents and local communities could make their own educational decisions, including the hiring of teachers and administrators, how would Rod Paige ever get a job?

–David Gunto

*7*
Joel Engel, is a poor, misguided fool (An Ordinary Citizen Calls a Press Conference). He has deluded himself into believing that his opinion counts as much as George Clooney’s or Susan Sarandon’s. What an idiot. Clooney, Sarandon, and the other very important people he mentions, have spent years studying acting, and no telling how many years reviewing documents, reading learned treatises, and obtaining degrees in government and political science. Why, I would bet my last dollar that every last one of them read the New York Times and WP from front to back every day! Engel probably doesn’t even have a subscription to Daily Variety. And yet, he has the nerve, nay, the unmitigated gall to hold his own press conference and express opinions that are probably held by a mere 70 or 80 percent of ordinary, hard-working Americans. No wonder the mass media failed to show up.

–Mike Webster

*8*
I was stuck in D.C. traffic the other day, thanks to an antiwar protest on the Key Bridge. (Jonathan V. Last, Freedom, at Home and Abroad) The supposed reason for launching the protest was to disrupt the lives of persons working in Washington so that they could realize how the lives of Baghdad’s citizens were being disrupted by the war. If true, that’s fine. But let’s at least play fair. If the goal is to feel what life is like in Iraq, then I say let the police beat the hell out of the protestors to show them what life in Baghdad is like if you protest against the government.

–Sean Pugh

*9*
Rachel DiCarlo’s The Search for the Holy Rail repeats the knee-jerk falsehoods of the anti-transit lobby, with the statistical tricks, factual elisions, and logical head-standings for which the movement is famous. Most readers, of course, won’t catch the effective lie, and would be put to sleep by a recitative of corrections. But here are a few:

Transit is not in decline. Ridership is up–way up. In fact, transit ridership grew by 22 percent from 1995-2001, outpacing the growth in highway use (which was 14.7 percent).

But market share over the past 20 years has indeed declined–because we have spent much more on expanding highway systems than we have on building transit. By building roads at a cost of $750 billion since 1980, while spending only a tiny fraction of that on transit, we have ensured that people will find it not only easier, but necessary, to drive. Worse, our highway-building frenzy has helped empty the cities of jobs and middle-class people, stranding the car-less (mostly the working poor) far away from the jobs that might help get them ahead. Transit provides a choice for riders of all income levels.

Transit systems are no more “money-losing” than highways, which recover only a fraction of their costs, leaving the rest to the taxpayer. And where serious investment has been made, transit and inter-city/regional rail have captured a dominant market share. For example, Amtrak has more than 40 percent of the Washington-New York ticketed market, and is approaching that figure in the newly electrified New York-Boston market.

–James P. RePass, President & CEO, The National Corridors Initiative

*10*
ARTBA, the American Road and Highway Builders Association, has recently come to the conclusion (for the first time in its history) that this country needs to redevelop is passenger rail system because the volume of automobile and truck traffic is accelerating the wear and tear on our existing road, highway, bridge and tunnel infrastructure at an financially unacceptable rate. (Click here to read more on the ARTBA railroad policy.).

Rather than going point for point with Rachel DiCarlo’s twisted examples, arguments and conclusions, I would like to present a few facts not widely known to misinformed average commuters.

First of all, it is not a foregone conclusion that all railroads necessarily require subsidies. Japan Central Railway officials will happily inform you that their private system operates at a profit–in fact, a 10 percent profit. Gee, wouldn’t it be great if our heavily subsidized airline industry could make such a claim. And, since the system is electrically operated, the fares remain stable because the energy costs remain relatively constant. Additionally, their system adds nothing to pollution levels along its rights of way.

One other not-so-insignificant fact: Not one person has been killed in the 40 plus years of Japan’s high speed service. In contrast, we loose 40,000 lives every year in this country due to car-related accidents; with injuries in the hundreds of thousands. What is the true cost of an automobile culture when ones considers all the medical care, the emergency vehicles, the time taken away from criminal investigations by police, the insurance claims, and the mental anguish of survivors and their families? Then there is the issue of all the valuable space required to warehouse our automobiles in parking garages, lots, homes and shopping centers.

So, if rail works so well in Japan and in Europe, why not here in the United States?

The primary reason, according to James Howard Kunstler, author of “Geography of Nowhere,” is America’s policy of cheap oil. This policy fuels suburban sprawl, which in turn erodes urban centers, which in turn reduces mass transit’s viability. Before the automobile began to dominate how we traveled and lived, society had settled much as it had for thousands of years–in pedestrian-accessible enclaves or cities. It is Kunstler’s belief that our present oil-driven economy is unsustainable. His question is not if the oil is going to run out, but when. In light of this, would it not be prudent to start considering restoration of the third leg of our transportation stool now while we have the resources to fund it?

As someone who values a personal mode of transportation, I am not advocating that everyone give up their car. What I am saying is that I do not want to be forced to use my car for every errand because of a lack of efficient mass transit. When I don’t have to haul golf clubs or buy a large load of groceries, I like to walk or take my bike on errands. In my now heavily congested community of Bethesda, Maryland, a car is more often excess baggage than a convenient form of conveyance.

As Andres Duany points out in his book, “Suburban Nation,” the reason property values are high in areas like Alexandria, Georgetown, or Kentlands, Maryland, is because these communities were built to human scale. In fact, one reason the first two are tourist destinations is because people stuck living in sterile suburban developments like the character and feel of these pedestrian-friendly places. What a concept.

The transit solutions cited by DiCarlo were band aids applied to amputations. Transit systems work, but they have to have stops within a mile of where people work and live, fitting into the scale of “walking places.” To be profitable, they need to exist in sufficient number within well-populated communities, connecting places of value, such as homes, work, sporting arenas, restaurant districts, parks, transportation terminals, etc. They need to be quick, clean, and most importantly, offer frequent service.

Duany states, “subsidized automobile use is the single largest violation of the free-market principle in U.S. fiscal policy. Economic inefficiencies in this country due to automotive subsidization are estimated at $700 billion annually, which powerfully undermines America’s ability to compete in the global economy.”

How did we ever get off the track in the first place? Ask General Motors, Standard Oil, or the Firestone Rubber company. Or, better yet, rent the entertaining DVD “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”–you might find the answer.

–Kevin Coates, High Speed Ground Transportation Association

Rachel DiCarlo responds: The choice is not between either having highways or having rail transit. Highways are here to stay. The question is whether rail is an effective alternative for a significant number of people. More to the point, is the significant investment, both initial and long-term, worth continuing to build rail transit when it is not a viable or convenient option for so many commuters?

If you doubt the significance of trip percentages in measuring rail transit success, then simply use your own eyes to look at rail-transit cars. Except in a few cities, with high percentages of downtown workers, like Washington, New York, Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco, most cars are far from full, even during rush hour when traffic volumes cause the congestion which rail transit was intended to relieve.

Highways encouraged the move from the cities to the suburbs in the post-war period. But the real acceleration occurred in the late 1960s and the 1970s when the middle class fled cities in response to city government policies hostile to their legitimate interests. A glance at John Lindsay’s New York should suffice to make this point.

Also rail transit ridership is not up. As I cited in my article, census figures show that between 1960 and 2000, 1,500 new miles of rail transit were built and 64 million new jobs were created. During the same time frame, 71 million more commuters drove to work and 1.7 million fewer rode mass transit.

Amtrak works in a few locations, the northeast corridor being one of them. But Amtrak isn’t limited to the northeast corridor. It still continues to run in many other areas where it loses considerable amounts of money. And just because it works in one location, is not an argument for having it everywhere. Just because the D.C. Metro is heavily used is no reason to build systems in Staunton, Virginia, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, or the 200 other cities clamoring for transit.