Can we raise the level of discourse?

To the Editor:

Re “The Wizard of Beck,” by David Brooks (column, Oct. 2):

Mr. Brooks is correct about Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and the rest. Democracy requires an informed citizenry in order to thrive, which means that people have to trade ideas and opinions with some objectivity and dispassion.

These demagogues, with their aggressive bitterness and their lies, bring the public discourse into the gutter. They exhort us not to speak (or even think) rationally, and to them the ability to consider opposing views is a sign of weakness.

In a political system designed to be “by the people,” this is the opposite of patriotism. Geoffrey S. Poor

Honeoye Falls, N.Y., Oct. 2, 2009

•

To the Editor:

I was encouraged by David Brooks’s analysis of the current faint power of right-wing talk jocks.

I overlooked his deftly blaming what power they do have on “cynical Democrats,” “lazy pundits” and “slightly educated snobs.” How convenient to put responsibility for the poisoning of public discourse by conservative extremists on the Democrats.

But he lost me when he implied that Rush Limbaugh had never had any real influence, ignoring any role Mr. Limbaugh may have had in neutralizing the Clinton administration or in promoting the Bush election and re-election.

But his final judgment is right: the Republican Party is losing support. That’s because it chooses to be the voice of complaint rather than an agent of accomplishment. William R. Nye

Brooklyn, Oct. 2, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Thank you, David Brooks. I have waited years for evidence and reassurance that Americans were not increasingly just a bunch of “Dittoheads.” This country cannot afford to follow a line of reasoning, whether it be extreme right or left, that is narrowly focused, is self-serving and ignores the facts.

Democracy is under enough assault without voters following a bunch of cynics down their narrow path.

Tim Omaggio

Morris Township, N.Y., Oct. 2, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman’s insightful column about our disappearing sense of community (“Where Did ‘We’ Go?” Sept. 30) raises the question of how Americans can help to restore it.

We can write letters to the editor and to our representatives, boycott companies whose advertising helps keep the hatemongers on television and radio, and make the case wherever possible that a sense of community becomes even more important as the country grows more diverse.

But voters can send the most powerful message in 2010 by turning out of office the politicians whose unrelenting partisanship has helped to make hate a hallmark of our national conversation.

David Kernis

Trumbull, Conn., Sept. 30, 2009

•

To the Editor:

It’s difficult to contradict the principal observations made by Thomas L. Friedman. But, honestly, the same type of demagoguery being perpetrated against President Obama has happened repeatedly over time.

George W. Bush was labeled a liar and an incompetent by his opposition (including leaders in Congress). Bill Clinton was impeached by Congress. Franklin D. Roosevelt was accused of establishing a socialist state. And Abraham Lincoln had the audacity to abolish slavery (he, of course, paid the ultimate price).

What do our elected leaders in Congress do to temper their most aggressive constituencies, be they left or right?

Not enough.

Campaign finance reform (anybody remember this pipe dream?) and term limits (another long shot) would be important steps in driving out the partisans from Congress. Partisans fuel radicalism and violent protest.

Salvatore J. Bommarito

New York, Sept. 30, 2009