Divisive he stands
Sir: Finally, a western European publication questions whether Barack Obama can be re-elected (‘No he can’t’, 21 July). Before Jacob Heilbrunn’s article I have seen nothing save lame re-writings of pieces from the New York and Washington media, which is still in thrall to Obama.
Heilbrunn’s analysis is compelling: the President’s campaign is one of divisiveness, pitting supposedly forlorn and disaffected separate constituencies against ‘capitalism’. Sadly, this has been a traditional tactic of left-wing candidates in the US for a long time (e.g., John Edwards’s ‘Two Americas’) but now it has been turned into a high form by the President’s re-election team. A candidate may honourably lose if voters judge him less than competent, but if he is mean and divisive he deserves to lose.
Leonard Toboroff
Ramatuelle, France
The last grown-up
Sir: Douglas Murray (‘Children’s hour’, 21 July) asks: ‘What public figure would dare say that they like to read Stendhal in their spare hours?’ There is such a figure, at least in the United States, but the case confirms his thesis.
During the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore responded to a request for the title of his favourite book by naming Le Rouge et Le Noir. He was portrayed as so stiff and snobbish as to be scarcely human. George W. Bush was more cautious. Though later reports, after the presidency was safely won, talked of his taste for serious works of history, he championed The Very Hungry Caterpillar.
Benjamin Rockbird
Nottingham
Sir: I applaud Douglas Murray’s indictment of our infantilised culture. Sadly, there will be precious few 32-year-olds possessed of his maturity, intellect and erudition who will even know or care what he is talking about. Try your best, Douglas, though I fear the battle is already lost.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in