A Letter to Leonard Pitts

On July 6, 2009, Leonard Pitts, a columnist with the Miami Herald whose work appears regularly in the Austin American-Statesman, wrote an article about Governor Mark Sanford. It moved me to write him this e-mailed letter to him on the same day:

"Dear Mr. Pitts,

"I must start by saying how much I enjoy your work. I look forward to seeing your commentary in my local paper, the Austin American-Statesman, and you are possibly the only commentator whose work I always read when I see it.

"I have to admit, this is partly because I so often agree with you, but I like to think it is also because you are thoughtful, logical, and a good writer.

"I put your commentary on Governor Sanford's infidelity in the same category: thoughtful, logical, and well-written.

"Yes [sic], I was jarred by part of it. So jarred that I felt ocmpelled [sic] to write to you. I know how I feel about what you wrote - that jarring part - but I am as yet unsure what I think about it. So, I'm not saying you should not have written it. I am saying it really jarrred me and I'm very troubled.

"'Next time some politician goes before the cameras with his figurative pants down around his metaphoric ankles and says "I made a mistake," let's form a mob and drag him from the podium. You bring the lanterns, I'll bring the pitchforks.'

"I would have thought you might be more sensitive to the images that get conjured up by the words 'mob,' and 'lanterns and pitchforks,' than the average commentator. For me, those words conjure up some pretty terrible images.

"It is not that I don't think that sort of treatment is exactly what the hypocrites deserve, and I think their behavior says much more about their character and fitness to serve than you managed to mention. I just don't think mobs, lanterns, and pitchforks are the right response.

"Perhaps you will respond that you didn't mean those words literally. To that, I respond that I have heard that said to excuse the crowds at the John McCain rallies calling for the death of Barack Obama. 'We didn't mean to literally kill him.' And to excuse the incendiary rhetoric used by abortion opponents in describing what they thought ought to be done to those who provide reproductive services to women. 'Oh, we didn't mean to literally kill them or burn their clinics.'

"Yet, those words, whether meant literally or not, have an effect. Even if they don't produce the literal result called for, they have an effect on the way people think about each other. To have someone of your credibily and stature say that we ought to form mobs and drag politicians from the podium gives people license to think that's just what we ought to do to another human being. If not that one, then someone else.

"I think the Republicans and conservatives of this nation are consumate hypocrites. Governor Sanford could be exhibit A in the trial of Republicans and conservaties on the vile charge of gross hypocrisy.

"But, lest we be hypocrites ourselves, then we must accept the same standards of restraint on our language that we ask them to accept on theirs. If incendiary language directed against those we support is wrong, then incendiary language directed against those we oppose is just as wrong.

"So, I'm feeling bad - jarred - by your language, and especially so because it came from you, for whom I have such incredible respect. I don't know what I think about it yet. I haven't had time to sort that out, but I feel jarred.

"And, I cannot send this without adding that I still have incredible respect for you. I just feel - maybe - you made a mistake.

"Sincerely,James W. Collins"

I received this response from Mr. Pitts' e-mail address:

"Thanks for your thoughtful letter; I'm replying only because Mr. Pitts will be away for two weeks and I'm afraid he will be overwhelmed trying to get caught up, but I will be sure he sees your email, even if he doesn't have time to respond.

"Judi Smith
"Assistant to Leonard Pitts, Jr."

Mr. Pitts has never responded to my letter personally. If he has responded in his column, I missed it. I'm not sure if Ms. Smith's response was a canned response, but it could have been. I cannot even be sure if Ms. Smith actually exists.

And now we have the opponents of universal health care in America shouting down our elected representatives at their meetings on the topic, screaming at other Americans who are trying to express their opinions in support of universal health care, bringing weapons to the meetings, and even getting into physical conflicts with others at the meetings. We have elected representatives in the United States of America who feel the need to be escorted by armed police from thier own meetings because the crowd seems so close to violence.

And so it begins, Mr. Pitts. And so it begins.

What's in It for Me?

There is a television commercial currently airing advertising "Repower America."

In the commercial, a man says he's been reading about Washington these days, "And, I just gotta ask, what's in it for me?"

He then proceeds to explain what he wants for his children. his wife, and himself.

I just gotta ask, why do we "just gotta ask, what's in it for me?" When do we begin asking, "What's good for America?"

As long as our first question about public policy continues to be self-interested, we are probably not going to continue to succeed at self-governance.

As an aside, I found it an interesting commentary that some sophisticated advertising executive somewhere thought it would be an effective way to "sell" public policy to focus on self-interest to the exclusion of the common good.