Letters to the Editor.

Zinn's Broad Strokes

I have known, read, worked with, and very often been persuaded to follow Howard Zinn. But in his article "Delusion 2000: How the Candidates View the World" (March issue), I am unpersuaded by his charge that there has been "utter silence" from the Presidential candidates on foreign and military policy and that there are no differences among those candidates on foreign or domestic issues. I disagree even more with his conclusion that we can act effectively only outside the party system.

In his charges, Zinn paints with broad strokes and ignores nuances and qualifications that led me to support Bill Bradley on March 7. A few illustrations: In October, The New York Times reported that, in his Senate career, "[Bradley] proposed an increase in the capital gains tax, advocated abolition of a variety of tax shelters, and urged banks to take substantial losses on their loans to struggling economies." In November, The Times stated that "Bill Bradley sketched out a vision of foreign policy today, declaring that he would try to resolve global conflicts with trade and diplomacy instead of force, reduce the threat of a new arms race, and set clearer limits on American military intervention in the world's many ethnic wars." The publication of the Council for a Livable World ran a November 1 headline: "Bradley: Lone White House 2000er against more military $$."

On "sitting out" party politics and the 2000 election, I fear Zinn may contribute to the further disaffection with and alienation from voting. I believe in voting for the most progressive party with a chance at winning and/or the most progressive nominees. Our lives will be profoundly affected by the differences in direction as well as in policy choices in military budgets, tax policy, health care, abortion, and--in ways most crucial--judicial appointments.

Paul Deats, Muelder Professor of Social Ethics Emeritus Boston University West Newton, Massachusetts 

I wish to congratulate The Progressive for Howard Zinn's outstanding article in the March issue. Zinn has hit all the right buttons, and has expressed the vacuity of the candidates' policies. And I agree that they've hardly uttered any words on serious problems facing the world. It is the silence that speaks louder than a thousand platitudes!

Gordon Legg South Pasadena, California 

Public Financing Is No Answer

I am disappointed that progressives around the country including the editors of this magazine, are obsessed with campaign finance reform as the primary objective necessary to make our political system fair ("The Day for Clean Money," Comment, March issue).

I simply don't buy it. I do not think that the initiated proposals will do much to halt the gross inequality between rich and poor in the arena of political power.

For instance, how would public financing of campaigns halt the monopoly held by the two major political parties? Wouldn't public financing of campaigns make it easier for established national parties to run their existing leaders?

Furthermore, I am not convinced that public financing would keep dirty money from politics. While those who might give large sums directly to candidates or through national political parties might no longer be able to do so, they will still be able to sway the populous with their money and power.

Let's say some oil tycoon wants to support George W. Bush. I doubt any campaign finance law can stop this person from printing and distributing pro-Bush bumper stickers or funding a large campaign rally. In fact, it seems that the wave of the future is to see more issue ads by "disinterested third parties" like the Christian Coalition than by the candidates themselves. In other words, public financing of campaigns can limit only the amount of money the actual candidate and parties spend; it can't limit the amount spent on behalf of the election of a certain candidate.

While there should be some benefits to society if soft money and corporate donations to campaigns are halted, I think the attention of progressives should be on increasing opportunities for low income and middle income people to get involved in the process. This can be done most effectively by increasing wages through establishing a national living wage that decreases the number of hours one must work to earn a decent living, making health insurance affordable to all people, and providing all children with viable educational opportunities.

As long as most Americans are stuck spending most of their time struggling to make a living, we will increasingly have less time to deal with politics. In other words, as long as only the rich have time to get involved in politics, only the rich will have an effect upon it.

Adam Marker Baltimore, Maryland 

Weeding Out Free Thinkers

In her March article about drug testing, Barbara Ehrenreich, as usual, makes many perceptive observations and thought-provoking points ("Your Urine, Please"). I'd just like to point out two theories of my own on the issue.

First, I believe one of the main reasons employers test for drug use is that they want to weed out free thinkers and nonconformists. Free thinkers are more likely to challenge the corporate structure and/or be more inclined to unionization. This would pose a risk to the power structure. Therefore, the risk management science, employed by most companies today in their hiring practices, would label that individual a risk. If you ever have any doubt about the lengths corporations go to in order to hire the "right people," just go to the web and check out the numerous sites for risk management companies.

My second theory is that there is an effort by society to further marginalize people who use drugs--even those who use them recreationally and live productive lives. What better way to keep these people out of the middle and upper echelons of society than by preventing them from obtaining a decent job?

Joseph D. Bastrimovich West Deptford, New Jersey

More Content, Please

In the March Editor's Note, you boast of the redesigned magazine with "larger type, wider margins, more white space." Yet you overlooked mentioning that with the same number of pages you have drastically reduced content.

When I compared full text pages, I found an average of seventy lines in the February issue and fifty-five in March.

A random sample word count yielded 1,470 per page in February and 962 in March.

We subscribe for information and ideas, not for larger type and white space.

Norman and Kathleen Gesner Sanford, Florida 

Inspiring Environmentalists

I appreciated the fact that The Progressive gave space to spread the word about the environmentalists from the Peasant Ecologist Organization who were thrown in jail for trying to protect their native land from transnationalists trying to rape Mother Earth for an extra buck ("Mexican Environmentalists behind Bars," March issue).

Protesting logging should not be a crime. Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera have sacrificed much. These two men should serve as inspiration to American environmentalists.

Andrew Griffin Alexandria, Louisiana

Just a Cheap Shot

You have a rather strange sense of humor. The "No Comment" article entitled "Look Out Below!" described an obviously painful injury to a man's penis that occurred in a Starbucks restroom (March issue).

If you think that's funny, wait until you hear the one about the woman whose breast was amputated by the mammogram machine.

To me, the "No Comment" wasn't humor. It was just cheap-shot male-bashing. I have great respect for your magazine. I know you can do better.

Stu White Hoquiam, Washington

The editors welcome correspondence from readers on all topics, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on material previously published in The Progressive. All letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Letters may be e-mailed to: [e-mail]. Please include your city and state.