The Election: Looking Back, Looking Ahead

Re “We’re Saved. You Lost. Now What?” by Michael Skube, Opinion, Nov. 7: I take issue with Skube’s claim that “today’s conservatives, in calling for an end to abortion, clothe themselves in the ill-fitting garb of abolitionists.”

First, the eye of the storm of controversy over slavery was the recognition of the inherent humanity of blacks. Likewise, the eye of the storm of controversy over abortion is the recognition of the inherent humanity of the unborn. Accordingly, those who clothe themselves in the garments of the likes of such antebellum abolitionists as William Lloyd Garrison find themselves comfortably clothed in righteousness, however garish their wardrobes may appear to those who disagree.

Second, the conservative wing of the electorate is not the only political faction opposed to abortion. In fact, there are many so-called liberals who are equally appalled at the “peculiar institution” that is abortion, but the Democratic National Committee will probably never allow these voices to be heard.

Brent Taylor Stenhouse

Torrance

*

So many Christians, so few lions.

Gerald S. Rellick

Orange

*

The historical model for President Bush is not William McKinley or Andrew Jackson, as recent letters to this page suggest. Fundamentally, the model is Richard Nixon.

Margie M. Nicholson

San Marino

*

I wonder if the media of 200 years ago talked about the polarization in the young country between the Jeffersonian South and the industrial North of John Adams. I wonder if there was a deep rift that was tearing the country apart. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! All I can say in today’s context is, get over it. They did.

Daniel V. DuRoss

Manhattan Beach

*

The article by Jonathan Chait, “Those Who Voted for Bush May Be In for a Big Surprise” (Commentary, Nov. 5), placed under a political cartoon, made me laugh, followed by amazement and then some disbelief that an obviously intelligent man would display such immature emotion at being on the losing side in the presidential election.

His speculation about what the next four years will bring seems to me to be premature, and also can be taken as his opinion at how dumb the voters in Ohio are and those voters who supported Bush in general.

Grow up, Mr. Chait!

Don Wallin

Manhattan Beach

*

David Klinghoffer’s Nov. 8 commentary, “What We Bush Voters Share: In God We Trust,” is a frightening attack on this nation’s founding principles. For the last 2,000 years, competing Christian sects, each claiming proprietorship to the “objective” revelation of God, have fought and killed each other over it. The founders of our nation were aware of and tired of this bloody history.

They wisely decided that, in order to preserve religion and create a better society, separation of church and state was necessary and that government should be based on the Enlightenment principles of informed reason, democracy, freedom and equality. That is why there are no theocratic statements in the most important document in American history, the Constitution. I have faith in the founding principles of America. Klinghoffer does not.

Kenneth C. Hardy

Pasadena

*

As a secular, pro-abortion, right-wing conservative, I resent religionists getting all the credit for reelecting our president. Most voters felt he represents tough, competent leadership here and abroad, considerations that outweigh religious convictions by far. I don’t care if he believes in the tooth fairy as long as he puts America first.

Arthur Hansl

Santa Monica