To the Editors.

Right & Left together

David Beckmann's account (December 15, 2000) of how debt relief for the world's poorest countries captured the attention of both the White House and the Congress is fascinating reading. In over four decades in Washington, I have never seen the like of this kind of alliance for the poor.

Beckmann begins with an account of an October 2 meeting in the White House. That this bipartisan meeting was held at all is astounding. It came, after all, at the height of a campaign for president in which neither George W. Bush nor Al Gore had addressed debt relief as an issue.

What is not clear from Beckmann's account is who played the roles of planner, organizer, convenor, catalyst, and puppet master that brought together for common action the political and religious Right and Left. It is conceivable that Beckmann himself and his Bread for the World staff did.

I have not observed Beckmann closely since he took on the presidency of BFW. But I was very familiar with his work at the World Bank. In every major effort to move a recalcitrant bank closer to poverty alleviation Beckmann was at its center. Although he ranked low in the bank's hierarchy, he became, in a low-key way, its moral conscience on poverty.

Whatever the influence of the Lutheran seminary he attended or Harvard's Graduate School, by the time Beckmann came to the bank he understood the wisdom in the adage that one can accomplish a lot in Washington if willing to let someone else take the credit. Whatever the full story on debt relief, it was a remarkable achievement and may the credit for it sprinkle in abundance right and left across the political landscape.

WILLIAM J. NAGLE
Alexandria, Va.

Flag waving

I very much liked both December 2000 issues, especially that of December 17. The editorial "Votes Count" was the better of the two because it called the result of the presidential election before it had occurred and presented the case with clarity and honesty.

On the other hand, the editorial of December 1 ("Limbo") caused anger and hurt by the unnecessary jingoism of the second paragraph. While it is true that the "rest of the world" was "having a good laugh" at America's expense, that fact did not call for the self-congratulatory reminder that America is the "greatest democractic nation in history." This is clearly debatable.

Further, the comment "Let them laugh" demonstrates a mean-spiritedness that clearly indicates the editorial staff was indeed stung by the electoral ineptitude in Florida.

No one debates that America is currently the most powerful country in the world, both militarily and economically, but this doesn't make it the "greatest democracy." There are many other democracies as great or greater depending on how you measure democracy. Commonweal has not hesitated to be critical of the American democratic experience and has frequently advocated needed reform. Clearly the 2000 presidential election has revealed the glaring need for some pretty basic reforms to the electoral process in the United States. I look forward to Commonweal's making amends for its momentary lack of judgment by providing a thoughtful article on how the 2000 debacle can be avoided in future elections.

JOHN BORST
Dryden, Ontario

From the editors: Okay, okay. Canada can be the greatest democracy in the world. May we be second?

The politics of resentment

Many of us realized on November 8 that a Supreme Court majority was likely to intervene in the Florida election dispute to hand the presidency to George W. Bush. Still we were shocked when five judges violated the trust the nation placed in them to halt the hand recount and effectively give Bush the electoral votes he needed. Richard D. Friedman is right (January 12, 2001) that the decision will live in infamy.

Since the days when Richard M. Nixon and John Mitchell borrowed the politics of resentment from George Wallace, the GOP has learned how to fan--and cash in on--anger. Though highly intelligent and well trained, the five majority justices are human beings who can also be manipulated into sharing an almost enraged mindset. The remarks that Justice Antonin Scalia attached to the order halting the recount looked more like a pro-football player's touchdown dance than the sober words of a dispassionate judge.

The judges were not the only people whose conduct was influenced by this long-term strategy of inflaming passions to win political support. The columns of several highly respected Republican pundits read like James Baker's press statements. Most alarming, their treatment of Jesse Jackson's orderly protests seemed to suggest that any time an African American speaks forcefully about civil rights concerns to other blacks a riot has taken place. On the other hand, they uniformly defended the conduct of the congressional staffers and others sent to Florida to stop the recount.

There was something frightening about the bullyboy tactics of the imported demonstrators and the consistent liberties that Baker and his surrogates took with the truth. The politics of resentment created something almost akin to what Adorno called the authoritarian personality. This mindset seemed to legitimize intimidating black voters, doctoring absentee ballot applications in Seneca and Martin Counties, the reckless purging of voter rolls to reduce the number of black voters, and the stone-walling of the Florida secretary of state's office. The GOP chairperson of one Florida county told the New York Times that "our lives" were at stake. In cultural warfare, the stakes seem that great and call for extraordinary exertion that sometimes crosses the bounds of civility and lawfulness.

After Bush became president-elect, Rush Limbaugh angrily dismissed suggestions that Republicans should turn away from an "orgy of hate" to seek conciliation and pursue moderation. He noted that it was anger that finally brought the party control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. These tactics are very effective, but they also damage the fabric of our system.

DON SWIFT
Erie, Pa.