Political Philosophy

Would Mayor Bradley consider resigning if a few of his aides or appointees erred? What leader in charge of 8,000-plus people (like Chief Gates) would quit office because a few people under him did wrong in an isolated case? This crescendo of condemnation of Gates for actions he did not condone or commit, points to partisan political philosophy of the most biased kind! Can we now expect to see a new black police chief? (Perhaps a kinder, gentler one?) Dream on, utopians!

Whatever one thinks of his politics, Newt Gingrich has demonstrated a wide-ranging intelligence over the years. But there's nothing intelligent about his recent endorsement of the theory that President Obama's political philosophy is rooted in a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview. Bizarre is more like it. National Review Online reports that the former speaker of the House praised conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza for a "stunning insight" into the president's behavior.

Carlos Castillo Peraza, 53, a political analyst and former president of Mexico's National Action Party. Castillo, known for his acerbic wit, which sometimes got him into trouble--especially when he was running for office--was a member of the International Movement of Intellectual Catholics. He served twice as a deputy in Mexico's lower house of Congress--first in 1979-82, then in 1988-91. He ran for mayor of Mexico City in 1997, losing to Cuauhtemoc Cardenas of the Democratic Revolution Party.

Re "D.C. -- on screen and unfiltered," Opinion, April 13 In his haste to manufacture a line of thought for his column, Jonah Goldberg makes the ridiculous statement that Hollywood has yet to make a great film about our nation's capital. As a former congressional aide and native of the Washington area, I object to this thinking. Goldberg has either forgotten or hasn't seen "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," "The Senator Was Indiscreet," "All the President's Men," "The Contender," "Traffic" and, recently, "Syriana."

Re "D.C. -- on screen and unfiltered," Opinion, April 13 In his haste to manufacture a line of thought for his column, Jonah Goldberg makes the ridiculous statement that Hollywood has yet to make a great film about our nation's capital. As a former congressional aide and native of the Washington area, I object to this thinking. Goldberg has either forgotten or hasn't seen "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," "The Senator Was Indiscreet," "All the President's Men," "The Contender," "Traffic" and, recently, "Syriana."

Your article on Dr. James C. Dobson and his Christian ministry "Focus on the Family" ("Dobson's Influence Based on Family Issues," Religion, April 2) stated that Dobson's ministry was a forum for the "religious right" and "conservative Protestant America." As a baptized Catholic, and a member of both the California Democratic State Central Committee and the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee, I fit into neither of your categories. I regularly listen to "Focus on the Family," and am deeply grateful to Dobson for his continuing fight to bring traditional family values to the forefront of the political arena.

Forty-five years ago I enlisted in the Marine Corps to fight fascism. I left some good buddies in the lagoon at Tarawa and in the jungles of Saipan. Ten thousand miles away it was a different war, but against the same fascism. The dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation above the individual and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Over and over again, Al Gore tells voters what would guide him as president. "I'm for the people, not the powerful," the vice president says. Meanwhile, running mate Joseph I. Lieberman has added something to the standard explanation of what the Democratic ticket stands for: why. Infusing his own political philosophy into his campaign for vice president, Lieberman has sought to envelope Gore's populist pitch with a perspective driven by faith and values.

Since you spelled my name correctly in awarding me one of your "Thanksgiving Turkey Awards" ("To Some, Thanks a Lot; to Others, Thanks for Nothing," Nov. 26, by Randy Lewis), I really shouldn't complain, but I must. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but being a good newspaperman (former writer and publisher), it took me a while to check the facts upon which you based your award. I'm reluctant to tell you but I cannot, in good conscience, accept the honor you have bestowed upon me. I can't because I am honestly not deserving.

Good public policy regarding California's presidential nominating primary should be an open-and-closed case. Our mischievous propensity for addressing complex issues through the initiative process has muddied what ought to be a crystal-clear situation. Richard Hasen (Commentary, Feb. 4) asserts the issue is "whether the primaries belong to the parties or to the people." If the initial selection of presidential candidates truly belongs to the entire electorate, then political parties are superfluous in those elections, and we should use a nonpartisan balloting process.

When Tina Pelletier opened the mail at Town Hall the other day, a check for $100 fell out. Someone from out of state wanted to make reservations at Weare's first hotel. But the bed-and-breakfast envisioned on a remote site at the end of a dirt road is little more than a political activist's pipedream. The eight-acre parcel is still owned -- although seldom occupied -- by U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.

In a series of rapid-fire votes, Democrats who control the Legislature are openly challenging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and handing him tricky decisions that could define the political philosophy of his administration.

Over and over again, Al Gore tells voters what would guide him as president. "I'm for the people, not the powerful," the vice president says. Meanwhile, running mate Joseph I. Lieberman has added something to the standard explanation of what the Democratic ticket stands for: why. Infusing his own political philosophy into his campaign for vice president, Lieberman has sought to envelope Gore's populist pitch with a perspective driven by faith and values.

Carlos Castillo Peraza, 53, a political analyst and former president of Mexico's National Action Party. Castillo, known for his acerbic wit, which sometimes got him into trouble--especially when he was running for office--was a member of the International Movement of Intellectual Catholics. He served twice as a deputy in Mexico's lower house of Congress--first in 1979-82, then in 1988-91. He ran for mayor of Mexico City in 1997, losing to Cuauhtemoc Cardenas of the Democratic Revolution Party.

It would be hard to conjure up a more stark comparison than the divergent moods of the two vice presidential campaigns. With a broad grin, Democrat Joseph I. Lieberman gives pinch-me-am-I-really-here pep talks at nearly every stop and calls Al Gore's selection of him nothing short of "miraculous."

Good public policy regarding California's presidential nominating primary should be an open-and-closed case. Our mischievous propensity for addressing complex issues through the initiative process has muddied what ought to be a crystal-clear situation. Richard Hasen (Commentary, Feb. 4) asserts the issue is "whether the primaries belong to the parties or to the people." If the initial selection of presidential candidates truly belongs to the entire electorate, then political parties are superfluous in those elections, and we should use a nonpartisan balloting process.

On Jan. 25, I picked up a copy of The Times and, turning to Page 3,, found a headline across the top of the page that read: "Study Assails Values of the New Right as 'Cancerous.' " I was curious to discover more about this study and so began to read the article. I was then shocked to discover that it described a book, "Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life," just published by the University of California Press, of which I, together with four colleagues, am the author.

"Uncle Sam's hands are dripping with blood, dripping with the blood of the black man in this country. . . . Expand the civil rights struggle to the level of human rights, take it to the United Nations, where our African brothers can throw their weight on our side.... Let the world see how bloody his hands are."

This used to be a serious country. The United States was inhabited by engaged citizens and governed by authentic leaders who talked about weighty issues. But the current American political spectacle amounts to a decidedly unfunny bad joke. First, we had a presidential sex scandal, a yearlong opera bouffe that paralyzed the entire political establishment, preoccupied the media and culminated in a full-dress impeachment proceeding that called into question our national reputation for common sense.

When I was a graduate student in the '80s, I had a friend who joked that I was so intoxicated by philosophy that my dissertation would be called "The Theory of Theory." He was wrong, of course. Although several weighty tomes bearing variations on that title were produced over the next decade, mine was not one of them. Like many who had been lured to the university by the prospect of wide-ranging inquiry, I became frustrated by its narrowness and parochialism and left.