To the Editor:
I read with interest Professor Dale Herspring’s July 27 column dealing with U.S. foreign relations issues, and specifically what he calls America’s need for a genuine leader.
His weekly columns in the Mercury bring insight to a field for which he is distinguished, and Manhattan is fortunate to have his contributions.
However, I object strongly to Professor Herspring bringing his own political bias to his presentation — specifically, his bashing of President Obama, which is simply in lockstep with the empty rhetoric of others speaking these days for the Republican Party. His opposing remarks are riddled with meaningless exaggeration and unsupported follow-through. For example, Professor Herspring writes:
“It is hard to understand President Barack Obama’s seeming failure to exert even a modicum of leadership.” “He often acts as if he does not understand an issue or its long-term implications, or is simply not interested in it.” “Obama is pushing leftist policies, which has led the opposition to push toward the right, giving us the gridlock we have in Washing-ton.” “There are signs that his left-wing orientation sometimes gets in the way of his decision-making.”
What does Professor Her-spring gain by making such inflammatory and empty statements without providing one bit of justification for these claims? The professor, I suggest, will serve his readers better if he sticks to what he knows (very well) and leaves the empty rhetoric to the others. The Republican Party already has the brilliance of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sara Palin, Sam Brownback and more of that ilk speaking for it.
Is not Professor Herspring above their rank?