A Reality Check from My Readers

"War is not nice. War cannot be prosecuted by either polls or pacifists. Judging by the 2004 election a majority of voters agreed with the direction of the Administration. Does that mean Americans like torture and domestic spying? Of course not. There are many aspects of the human condition that are distasteful but necessary to it's continuance."

Tom Burke writes from Riverhead, N.Y.: "I'm from a Blue State and, from what I've observed from my red state-type friends, I'd have to agree (with a proviso). Yes, they do want someone who will 'win' the war on terror for them (especially, if they don't have to sacrifice or fight!). They want to win more than they cherish their freedoms for two reasons:

"1. They have been terrified by the Bush/Rove/Rep propaganda and think that, for instance, Old Forge, NY, in the middle of a forest, is a terror target, just like every town, village and hamlet across the country.

"2. For a variety of reasons, they don't understand, or don't know, what loosing the freedoms they have really means. They don't see the danger in unfettered government wiretapping, in the damage done by the war to social service budgets, or what an imperial presidency really means."

JMdeNM writes: "I have several co-workers who are simple, straightforward right-wing nutcases. They always support Bush or whoever is his proxy at the moment, no matter the issue. For years now, they inevitably bring up 'Monica' and 'Hillary' to attack Democrats instead of actually debating anything.

"The common thread running though these folks is a crazed sense of vulnerability since 9/11. One of them is convinced terrorists are going to target his little town an hour west of Albuquerque, and nothing I can say (or chortle) will disabuse him of this fear. Somehow it just makes sense to him that Al Qaida operatives would want to nuke his sleepy little roadstop."

sneyland writes: "In my state (Louisiana), solidarity with Bush has less to do with actually agreeing with him that it does with personal identity. That is, if you're with Bush, you're not a 'librul'. I continually hear colleagues assert unwavering support for Bush simply because he is a Republican and is 'their' president. . . .

"Despite Bush's strong hold over the mostly white, middle-to-upper class voters here, he is vulnerable due to the debacle of Katrina. Even the staunchest supporter is at a loss to defend this administration's lack of focus, support, creativity, and determination to help the people of Louisiana."

Jake C. writes: "The 'unpleasant reality' of post 9-11 is another possible attack. And I'm sure Bush's worst nightmare as Prez and every American would be failing to stop another one. . . . So, I find it hard to blame Bush for his strong man leadership style. . . . At some point in the future we'll have time to judge Bush as President but not now and not today. Is that 'Red' enough?"

hcovitz writes: "An intelligent co-worker of mine, who was proud of voting for Bush and with whom I debated extensively, finally stated after a lengthy discussion, that we'd be better off with a King. He was one of those who was very cynical about the possibility of government ever getting anything done right, and would love to bring up examples of government waste. Democracy is very, very frustrating if you want quick results. And the farther we get from 1776, I think it is inevitable to lose sight of the benefits of such a system. We, as a nation, have done a poor job of teaching our children (and reminding ourselves) of why Democracy is better than alternatives. Very superficially, we have extolled how great Democracy is, when, out of any context, it is in reality a very frustrating principle."

jv54 writes: "Here in Tennessee there's plenty of people with steam coming out their ears over Bush's power grabs. Maybe if he could make the trains run on time people would be happier with it, but, really, he looks more and more like a bumbling fool who can't reliably get his pants on each morning. Is that really the dictator of choice for anybody, red state or blue?"

rlkinny writes: "A few months ago, I mentioned to a co-worker how upset I was at the actions of the Bush administration. My co-worker informed me that she was among the people who believed that we elect a President every 4 years and that we need to let them do their job. That it's not right for us to second guess the President's actions or believe that we understand the situation better than he does. I was speechless. I had no idea that there were people who had so much blind faith in an elected leader, and who, to me, had so little understanding of our individual responsibilities for living in a democracy."