U.S.: ‘Opponent of Revolution?’
I would like to comment on Anderson’s article.
On most levels it is pure fantasy, and only approaches the truth on one point. Anderson points out that the greatest flaw in U.S. foreign policy is our knee-jerk support of any anti-Communist dictatorship.
However, people like Anderson seem to have the same kind of knee-jerk response to the word “revolution.” They automatically parallel contemporary revolutionaries with the Founding Fathers. If one cares to examine the facts (something Anderson obviously isn’t willing to do) this parallel is pretty hard to maintain. Very few (none?) 20th-Century revolutions have brought democratic rule to their nations. They generally usher in a new and more violent form of repression. Iran and Vietnam are perfect examples of 20th-Century revolutionaries in action.
I don’t expect Anderson to understand this--anyone who compares the Vietnamese Communists and the Ayatollah Khomeini with Thomas Jefferson has got to have a moral screw loose somewhere. But more thoughtful and compassionate people should take a look at the facts of a situation before they call for a revolutionary blood bath.
LEE E. ECKHARDT
Van Nuys
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
