The Foreign Service Journal, March 2005

L E T T E R S u 8 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A R C H 2 0 0 5 national students, AAICU institutions offer access to U.S. higher education and values for international students who are turned away or simply unwilling to face the harassment of trying to get into a college in the U.S. Richard L. Jackson FSO, retired Thessaloniki, Greece No Views Allowed? I write with some hesitation, because I would not want to see the FSJ become a venue for partisan political commentary. Yet the January letter from Messrs. Burson and Farmer absolutely requires a response, which should be seen as non-partisan (despite my personal political views). The letter claims that there is a “traditional Foreign Service code of neutrality” in an election year. I have never heard of such a “code.” I was not a signatory to the public expression of views concerning how the present administration is con- ducting its foreign policy, but read- ers should bear in mind that all the signatories were retired. (Of course, it would have been, at best, unseem- ly for active-duty individuals to be signatories.) But is it illegal or improper for our retired colleagues to stand up and express their views, either indi- vidually or collectively? Would it have been illegal or improper for our retired colleagues to participate in election campaigns? Isn’t that what our country is all about? Why should a specific, small element of the populace be denied that right? Please bear in mind that the col- lective statement was based on many years of experience in world affairs, reflecting views that should not be discarded as biased. In fact, a num- ber of the signatories had been reg- ular supporters of the party in power. There must have been a sub- stantial impact on their political views to have brought them into an open disagreement with party lead- ers. It is quite clear that the Burson- Farmer letter was politically moti- vated and not just a reflection on Foreign Service “traditions.” Gilbert H. Sheinbaum FSO, retired Vienna, Va. Why Bush Won I was appalled to see that the FSJ printed a baldly pro-Bush/anti-Kerry letter in the January issue (“A Just Election Result”), with no opposing view. Encouraged by the editor’s invitation to share our reactions to what we read each month, I offer a different explanation for Bush’s vic- tory. The Republicans claim that Bush won because of his “values.” I cer- tainly hope this is not true, since Bush’s “values” appear to be deceit, arrogance, intolerance, bigotry and murder. Democratic values, on the other hand, are compassion, toler- ance, inclusion, concern for the poor and the sick, and a reluctance to go to war unless the security of the country is really threatened. Anybody who can’t decide which of those sets of values to support deserves the government he/she gets. There are people in this country who believe that God is more upset over two men loving each other than over killing 100,000 innocent civil- ians in Iraq, or that a frozen embryo is more precious to God than the life of a little girl with diabetes, but sure- ly this kind of benighted thinking cannot explain the Bush victory. Bush’s win can be attributed to the conjunction of the following five factors: 1) The country has never recov- ered from the trauma of 9/11. Bush managed to persuade large numbers of people that he would be tougher on terrorism than his opponent. He did this by constantly reiterating that the war in Iraq was part of the “war on terrorism,” in spite of the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there is no evidence that Saddam had any con- nection whatever with al-Qaida. 2) Bush’s strategy — described as “God, guns and gays” — cynically appealed to the basest instincts of the Christian right on gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion, while at the same time pandering to the NRA and the moneyed interests of this country. Every decision made and every law passed during the first Bush administration favored multi- national corporations, insurance and drug companies at the expense of the environment, labor and the economy. Big business support for Bush produced an unholy alliance between the business community and the Christian right that guaran- teed a slight majority for Bush. 3) Bush campaign managers did not hesitate to use slander and char- acter assassination against Kerry and anyone else who opposed the ad- ministration. Kerry was successfully painted as vacillating, weak on ter- rorism, anti-military, and unfit to serve as commander-in-chief. 4) John Kerry’s campaign was sabotaged by his own state of Massachusetts when it legalized gay marriage. This energized anti-gay sentiment and led to the placing of anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot in 11 states. When all those homophobic voters went to the polls to put gays in their place as sinners, they also voted for Bush. 5) John Kerry, with his patrician background and rather stiff person- ality, just couldn’t connect with the voters in the way that George Bush