Bad Reasoning

Joan Morrone's article "We Haven't Learned Much in 5,000 Years," tempts the reader into thinking he will be reading a well thought out philosophical look at the world's political process without the grinding of any ideological ax. The first two paragraphs maintain this illusion of unbiased analysis only to degenerate in the balance of the article into an attack on Republicans in general, President Bush, and Evangelical Christians in particular. Before launching into poorly thought out analogies she excuses the honest contenders who wish to change things - no doubt all Democrats and members of mainstream religions. Republicans and devotees of Pat Robertson are all disciples of Machiavelli.

One of Ms. Morrone's assaults that is most egregious is her reference to religious teaching that she does not agree with as brainwashing, and then accusing President Bush of using the same brainwashing because he admires Pat Robertson's Christianity. While I do not agree with Pat Robertson's religious views, what I am questioning here is the quantum leap in reasoning that links the raising of money for TV evangelical airtime with the Republican Party raising money for TV advertisements in this election campaign. How do the Democrats or those "honest contenders" get money for their TV ads - manna from heaven?

Poor analogies aside, the article suffers from misstatements which are the result of the writer's political proclivity to read the worst motives into anything the president does.

There is room for debate on the wisdom of disposing Saddam Hussein at this time, but I challenge the writer's contention that because of the war, President Bush does not concern himself with domestic problems. This is especially ridiculous when it comes to the threat to Social Security. Which party and which president went out their way to convince Congress that this crisis was real. If the writer had done her homework instead of shooting the article full of inaccuracies with a verbal scattergun, she would realize it is the Democratic Party that has constantly questioned the reality of the impending Social Security crisis.

Without even going into the reasoning behind the administration's proposed solutions presented to Congress, it is necessary to point out that Congress has the responsibility of passing the legislation. The president can only put forth a proposal he cannot make it a law. The same holds true of healthcare and the national debt. The executive branch has no power to spend money that is not there. All monetary issues originate in the House of Representatives and then go to the Senate. That Congress spends too much money is anathema, which is why I am a fiscal conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater. Wherever one may come down on the Republican agenda for solving these problems it is irresponsible to suggest they do not care.

The rest of the article cannot be responded to with reason because accusations of trying to reach "the holy ground of Jerusalem" in trying to solve very real problems in the Middle East, is just the writer's fancy presented in creative melodrama. The assertion that President Bush wants us all to believe bigger and better bombs are the answer to our prayers is not only unsubstantiated, it is slur on his integrity. The conclusion to the article that war must be outlawed raises an interesting question. How would such a law be enforced? Would we have to go to war to force compliance?

Phillip Pluta
Sebring