A different take on ‘A Sad Day’

A sad day for Don Farrell does not mean “A sad day for America.” After reading his letter dated Nov. 5, 2004, I felt compelled to respond. Without question, Mr. Farrell’s contributions to developing and preserving historical information in the Northern Marianas are of incalculable value. However, it seems Mr. Farrell is far better at examining the past than grasping the present or predicting the future.

Mr. Farrell described the election as “a sad day for America.” On the contrary, this election was the ultimate expression of the democratic process that Mr. Farrell and millions of other Americans have protected for over two centuries. More Americans turned out to vote last week than ever before. The privilege that we so often take for granted is still a distant dream for many around the world. Regardless of who wins, it is always a great day for America when we can experience participatory democracy.

I would like to reflect upon Mr. Farrell’s repeated description of a “white moral majority.” True, 58 percent of “whites” voted for President Bush. But if we look at the traditional Democrat minority base, the numbers are quite revealing. According to cnn.com, President Bush earned 11 percent of the African-American vote. That is a 37-percent increase over the 2000 election. In addition, 44 percent of Latinos, 44 percent of Asians, and 40 percent describing their race as “Other” voted to re-elect George W. Bush. An increasing number of minority voters find that President Bush offers a better vision of the future than Senator Kerry.

Mr. Farrell seems convinced that a second Bush administration will “restrict civil liberties” and “clamp down on any activity or individual he considers to be ‘un-American.’” I can’t quite understand where these opinions are generated. These visions did not materialize during President Bush’s first term. The Constitution and the protections it provides are stronger than any individual sitting in the Oval Office. Fear not, Mr. Farrell, the Bill of Rights will not be stuffed into the White House shredder after the inauguration.

Regarding Mr. Farrell’s comments on military spending, I agree that more money will be spent on defense. During the eight years of President Clinton’s administration, readiness in our armed forces declined to abysmal levels and desperately needed investment. However, using the issue of a draft to intimidate voters offended me greatly during the campaign. The bogeymen from the draft board will not be stealing our children in the night. President Bush has repeatedly affirmed that he has no intention of instituting a draft. In fact, the only proposal to bring back the draft was introduced into Congress this year by Rep. Charles Rangel, a liberal Democrat and African-American. The bill garnered two votes on the House floor, and 402 representatives from all backgrounds voted against it. So much for the “non-whites…forced to bear the burden of war.” Our all-volunteer force is the best trained, most professional military on the planet. Those who enlisted did so voluntarily. For many, it is an opportunity to improve their education and to acquire new skills. For all, it is an opportunity to demonstrate their pride in America. And I have no fear of the riots Mr. Farrell predicts. I am confident that Americans are perfectly capable of being involved in the democratic process without resorting to anarchy, despite the violence directed against the Republican Convention in New York.

Mr. Farrell’s claims that we can kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye, and forget about personal choice, just don’t ring true. Again, the law is the law and George W. Bush cannot change it by fiat. There are procedures in place in the Senate that ensure the minority party has a say in judicial confirmation hearings. The Republican Party has always promoted the ability of Americans to make personal choices, and accept personal accountability. For instance, foreseeing problems with Social Security on the horizon, President Bush has proposed allowing individuals to decide where to invest part of their contribution to their Social Security account.

As far as the federal deficit goes, the surplus Mr. Farrell refers to was not generated by the Clinton administration, but by free enterprise. The American economy, and the entrepreneurs that keep it strong, provide the money that the government receives in taxes. And freedom is not free. Our tax dollars are fighting terrorism at home and abroad. We have not been attacked at home since the tragedies of Sept. 11, 2001. For the first time ever, Afghans (including Afghan women) recently voted in free elections. And despite the problems in Iraq, it is a far better place than it was a short time ago and Iraqis will soon be masters of their own destinies.

Don Farrell has long been recognized as a qualified historian, and describes himself as one in his letter. The American Historical Association, a professional historians’ body, describes historical scholarship in its Standards of Conduct:

“It requires an awareness of one’s own bias and a readiness to follow sound method and analysis wherever they may lead.

When historians make interpretations and judgments, they should be careful not to present them in a way that forecloses discussion of alternative interpretations.

The preeminent value of all intellectual communities is reasoned discourse—the continuous colloquy among historians of diverse points of view. A commitment to such discourse makes possible the fruitful exchange of views, opinions, and knowledge.”

The fear that I do have is that Mr. Farrell’s biases have impaired his ability to present his case without resorting to hyperbole. Senator Kerry demonstrated poise, grace, and professionalism in his concession speech. Although I do not share his views, I am sure the senator will strive to work within the system to improve the nation. My guess is that neither John Kerry nor Ralph Nader sees a “dark future” following a “sad day.” I hope that Don Farrell is still committed to reasoned discourse and can move beyond the cause of his exasperation. And remember—a controversial opinion freely expressed in the newspaper can only happen on “a great day for America.”

Name withheld by request