Jonah Goldberg’s view of American exceptionalism; assassinating a U.S. citizen; PR for climate scientists

Unclear on U.S. exceptionalism

Re “America, the one and only,” Opinion, Nov. 9

Like Jonah Goldberg and President Obama, I think the United States is a great country.

It was great before we abolished slavery; it was greater afterward. What did conservatives think of that? It was great before women had the right to vote; it was greater afterward. What did conservatives think of that? It was great before workers had the right to join unions; it was greater afterward. What did conservatives think of that? It was great when we had Jim Crow laws; it was greater afterward. What did conservatives think of that?

It is great now; it will be greater when no American has to fear that he may be unable to afford medical care. We know what conservatives think of that.

Whose vision of the United States is more likely to make us greater, Obama’s or his conservative opposition?

James M. Smith

Los Angeles

People who believe they’re part of a great nation represent a problem for those who’d like to tear the house down and start over. Thus the left works tirelessly to persuade other Americans that they’re nothing special — that in fact they’re so bigoted, backward and selfish, only a fundamental restructuring of society can redeem them.

As a vote-getter, this proposition has obvious limitations. Obama skillfully shrouded it in gauzy platitudes during the 2008 campaign, but issues like Guantanamo, civilian trials for accused terrorists and Arizona’s immigration law have since made his government’s ideological distance from the mainstream unmistakable.

Most of us see a good country with flaws. The left sees a flawed country with potential — and the last two years as progress.

Michael Smith

Cynthiana, Ky.

I agree with Goldberg that America is exceptional. Ours is a unique history and, Lord knows, a legitimate source of pride for our people.

But Goldberg isn’t really shilling American exceptionalism. He’s shilling American triumphalism, as the right typically does. It’s the chest-thumping, contemptuous approach to the rest of the world that has given us everything from Abu Ghraib to “freedom fries.” It interprets reconciliation efforts as “apology tours.”

Triumphalism does us no good service. It’s arrogant and unattractive. Not to mention dumb.

Eric Zwemer

Duarte

Goldberg writes, “Ultimately, it is not that liberals don’t believe in American exceptionalism so much as they believe it is holding America back, which might explain why they’re lashing out at the people who want to keep it exceptional.”

Whatever it is Goldberg means by this indecipherable sentence, he attempts to put into play a trick of Rush Limbaugh’s, Sean Hannity’s and Dennis Prager’s: Make up what “liberals are thinking,” and then tell the readers or listeners how very wrong that thinking is.

Russ Woody

Studio City

Assassinating a U.S. citizen

Re “Targeting Awlaki,” Editorial, Nov. 10

The Times has angst over targeting American citizen and Al Qaeda terrorist Anwar Awlaki and seems to pine for the good old days of the American Revolution, when the enemy wore red coats and stood in ranks to fire their guns. Then, we had very “civil” rules of engagement.

Unfortunately, today’s enemy knows no “war zone” or limits to tactics or weapons.

Asymmetrical warfare must be addressed with complementary tactics and the rules of engagement that will defeat the enemy, not conventional rules that will ensure their victory.

Chris Chrisman

Los Angeles

The Times is absolutely correct in saying there is no moral equivalence to be drawn between an alleged terrorist and the U.S. government in its fight against terrorism.

On one hand, we have a man who advocates the indiscriminate killing of American citizens.

On the other hand, we have a country that has started wars in two countries — resulting in more than 100,000 civilian deaths — and conducts (rather indiscriminate) drone bombing campaigns in two others. It has been illegally abducting, detaining and torturing people all around the world for nearly 10 years.

Hooman Sherkat

La Jolla

Why are we having this discussion? We are giving the mark a heads-up.

If the executive is truly bound to protect and defend us, then let’s not have a public discussion about all its tactics. Just do it. By its very nature, an assassination is something done in secret.

If we consider Awlaki an American, we must have a discussion of his constitutional rights. But as an ex-American, he is not entitled to any protections under our Constitution.

Stephany Yablow

North Hollywood

Democracy is not intended to be a self-destruct suicidal pact.

If the principle of being innocent until proved guilty is upheld, Awlaki has confessed to the crime of encouraging the murder of Americans, and if given the opportunity, he would murder us, so therefore he is indeed guilty. Do we have to wait until he shoots us first?

Send in the drones.

Jack Salem

Los Angeles

Women and GOP priorities

Re “Female voters desert Democrats,” Nov. 9

That’s so sad. My mother used to tell me about an experience of hers in childhood.

She and her sister were fighting over an Easter basket. My mother grabbed it, threw it down the stairs, ran down and jumped through the bottom of it, thereby insuring a 100% chance of not having the basket. Had she let her mother arbitrate, she’d have had a 50% chance.

Do those deserting women really think that the GOP will protect their right to choose or care if they or their husbands have jobs or unemployment insurance?

Karen Reisdorf

San Clemente

A lot of hot air

Re “Scientists form a climate PR strategy,” Nov. 8

As a doctoral candidate studying paleoclimatology, I have to deal with climate change deniers every time I give a public talk. They take a kernel of scientific truth and manipulate it, deliberately misrepresent legitimate scientific data, and go for the details and ignore the big picture.

The voices of a few individuals have been able to obscure the mountains of data demonstrating why climate change is a real challenge. These few have been successful because they are loud and effective manipulators of media and public opinion.

I can attest to the fact that scientists are not trained in how to sway the views of the public, just how to do good science. The reality is that the climate change debate has been won in scientific literature.

Now in the media, we need to be discussing how we address the problem as a society.

Sandra Kirtland

Encinitas