To the Editor:
The column by Kenji Hosokawa ["Why Dole Should Win," The Dartmouth, Oct. 14] deserves to be replied to. It is human nature for one to be interested in promoting one's own well being, but economic welfare is only one aspect of it. History has taught us that societies have been able to advance post-materialistic goals only after it has established sufficient economic security to fuel this progress. Our nation has always sought to improve the lives of its citizens because that is the proper function of government.
As for his example of America once knowing "the virtue of sacrifice for the betterment of the world" by aiding countries impoverished by WW II, America's reconstruction was an integral part of the so called selfish motives of America, for, as we learned from the rise of Hitler in post-WW I Germany, nations crippled with economic depressions often see the rise of dictators who begin major wars.
The philosopher that Hosokawa quoted was in a nation much different from ours. The Germany that Nietzsche lived in was the so called "First Reich" under the monarchy of Wilhelm I during the unification and imperialistic expansion of Germany by means of militarism. The Germany that Nietzsche lived in practiced the sedition of free speech and the persecution of citizens who were not Lutheran Protestants.
If living in a "liberal democracy" means allowing human beings to practice their rights to free speech, to freedom of religion, to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then I don't mind losing my "innate desire to overcome others through war."
That is why Hosokawa labeled Americans' right to form political action committees and lobby in Congress as "nagging" because the type of society he promotes would never allow anyone to voice their opinions if they were contrary to those in power.
As for his claim that Dole and Clinton do not differ on economic issues, I ask if Hosokawa knows the difference between supply-side and Keneysian economic theory? If Hosokawa is such a vehement advocate of U.S. involvement in international affairs for the "betterment" of the world, then why is he opposed to the United Nations, an organization that has established virtual peace with respect to massive bloody wars in the post World War II and Cold War years?
As for Hosokawa's criticism of U.S. policy toward Karadzic, it is true that the former President of the Serbian Democratic Party is unpopular in the international community, but he would be supported by the entire Serbian nation and army should the U.N., NATO or the U.S. itself attempt to arrest him. Is Karadzic worth the economic and human cost of sending troops to invade Serbia? After all, as long as he is out of political power what harm can he do now?
Most people in our world today only dream of being able to vote, to speak their opinions, and to be a part of a "liberal democracy."
I have only this last question for Hosokawa: Why doesn't he tell the Bosnians, the Khurdish refugees, the Somalians or the Afghans how wonderful "the innate desire to overcome others in war" is? There is no problem with people voicing their opinions, even if they are against other people's right to do so, as long as they are responsible about the consequences of what they say.
