Skip to footer

Readers Write: Gingrich isn't the only indecent politician

Letters to the Editor for the weekly issue of January 23, 2011: GOP voters aren't the only 'hypocrites' out there – endorsing Newt Gingrich (with a history of moral failings) over squeaky clean Mitt Romney, while hating family man Obama. Remember Democrats' love of Bill Clinton?

A decency double standard?

In his column in the Jan. 2 & 9 issue, Walter Rodgers asks, "Why aren't GOP voters looking for decency?" Actually, it seems that no one is looking for decency anywhere, and there's none to be found. Everything is advertising, screaming in black and white and in clashing colors and in noise, trying get our attention. So-called reality shows are scripted and catered, spontaneity is rehearsed, news is ignored for selfish comment. And when the buyers turn away, the hype gets even more hyper.

Ann M. Bovbjerg

Iowa City, Iowa

Mr. Rodgers opines that Newt Gingrich's recent rise to the top of opinion polls "revealed a monumental miscalculation on the part of some Republicans." A little farther down Rodgers states that super PAC-funded ads "try to paint Mr. Gingrich's public and private behavior as either hypocritical or lacking in ethics and morals."

And speaking of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller's failed presidential nomination because of a divorce, Rodgers asserts, "That was a moral yardstick at the time – irrelevant, yes, but at least a sign of moral interest on the part of voters." Herman Cain is also mentioned as being forced from the race over moral allegations.

The impression left here is that GOP voters lack the ability to make moral judgments when choosing candidates. I wonder why Rodgers does not recall Democrats' moral judgment failures in the election of Bill Clinton? His moral shortcomings when governor were well known and continued into his presidency, besmirching the office and ultimately leading to his impeachment for lying to a grand jury.

Making righteous moral judgements is a continuous process for everyone. Addressing the importance of considering moral failures or missteps of candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would better serve our country and world.

Don Morris

Golden, Colo.

I see Rodgers's point about the hatred coming from the Republican party. However, it is a bit sanctimonious to imply that only conservatives are mean-spirited. Or that only they have unethical members. It doesn't matter whether the source is liberal or conservative, America is swirling in venom and both sides are responsible.

Read the blogs, websites, op-eds, and comment sections, or listen to talk radio. They are mostly hateful rantings. The extremes dominate both parties, silencing the balanced viewpoints. That is why Republicans and Democrats are at a loss as to how to solve the nation's problems. The Republicans might not be attracting new voters, but neither are the Democrats.

I would have greater respect for Rodgers, as well as other influential people, if he had pointed out the indecent behavior of those who share his political views.

Sonia Kovach

Chicago

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Readers Write: Gingrich isn't the only indecent politician
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Readers-Respond/2012/0123/Readers-Write-Gingrich-isn-t-the-only-indecent-politician
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe