A recent letter to the editor claimed that the upcoming election is not about the candidates, but about two systems of economy and government, the “libertarian/capitalist” model vs. the “socialist/anti-traditional” one, each hurtling us towards a utopian or dystopian future, depending on your point of view.
I beg to differ. I see the American system since the mid-20th century as a mixture of these two, each adapted to a specific set of circumstances, neither perfect, but better than either taken in isolation.
There are some things that capitalism does well (e.g. providing an immense variety of consumer goods) and others poorly (e.g providing affordable housing). Government programs likewise built the interstate highway system, provided disaster relief and affordable health insurance, but also over-regulated airfares.
Good governance requires practical reasoning, deciding which approach best fits a given situation, weighing plusses and minuses. Sadly, the pressures of political campaigning move us away from such an approach towards embracing extreme positions, alternatively snookering us into wishful thinking or scaring us into apocalyptic outcomes — all to the detriment of our country.
Given the lack of such practical reasoning on either side, there remains, after all, the character of the candidates, as measured by such yardsticks as integrity, honesty and truthfulness.
DAVID LINDENFELD?
Baton Rouge