readers discuss david brooks<u+2019>s lament that <u+201c>there is no uplift<u+201d> in the presidential race. to the editor: re <u+201c> the death of idealism <u+201d> (column, sept. 30): david brooks writes that <u+201c>this boomer-versus-boomer campaign has decimated idealism.<u+201d> hillary clinton, as she herself has admitted, is not a natural politician. yes, in her speeches <u+201c>the poetic, aspirational quality is entirely absent<u+201d> and she <u+201c>fails to make an emotional connection.<u+201d> but no, that does not mean that she has lost her idealism. mrs. clinton became a fiery social activist in college, where she led protests to increase african-american admissions to wellesley. as first lady she worked for universal health care; when her idealism hit washington reality she persisted, helping to gain health care coverage for children. as a senator from new york she worked across the aisle, compromising and gaining the respect of her republican colleagues. after being defeated in the 2008 democratic primaries, she worked as secretary of state to extend american ideals around the world. for myself, an older baby boomer, i would like to think that, while i have scaled back my immediate goals as i have become more pragmatic and realistic, i have retained the idealism and humanity that determine my long-term goals. and i would like to think that of hillary clinton. allan d. greenberg scarsdale, n.y. to the editor: david brooks has succumbed to the cynicism and distrust that he decries in his dismissal of the two leading presidential candidates. he apparently listens to hillary clinton<u+2019>s campaign with selective inattentiveness to her appeals to idealistic principles and the common good <u+2014> <u+201c>the higher angels of our nature.<u+201d> and how is it that her extensive, informed familiarity with governmental policy amounts to <u+201c>an arid hodgepodge<u+201d> of uninspiring details, offered merely out of political self-interest? perhaps mr. brooks should turn to the question of why informational substance receives such short shrift in american politics. the visionary <u+201c>uplift<u+201d> of shining cities on hills comes cheap. more deserving of public respect is a foundation of historically steeped, nuts-and-bolts competence in governance on which to construct such a city. a firm insistence by the media that politicians display in-depth knowledge, fact-based realism and astute judgment <u+2014> while eschewing empty sloganism and easy campaign promises <u+2014> would be a real show of idealism. to comment negatively on both contestants, albeit more scathingly on donald trump, is to suggest equivalent undesirability <u+2014> a journalistic disservice given the extreme hazard embodied in the republican nominee. a. ross hill brooklyn to the editor: david brooks<u+2019>s lament about hillary clinton<u+2019>s loss of her 1960s idealism all too easily fits into his conservative worldview. i offered the invocation at the wellesley graduation at which she gave her famous speech in 1969. i knew her well in those days. even then her <u+2019>60s idealism was well tempered by a niebuhrian realism. she has not changed fundamentally since then. on the one hand, in those days she was a devout, churchgoing methodist who believed that we should <u+201c>do all the good you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, for all the people you can.<u+201d> on the other hand, she is firmly convinced, as she was at wellesley, that politics is the art of the possible. at wellesley, she was by no means some head-in-the clouds student radical. she was both idealistic and realistic, and so she remains today, which was and is an ethical complexity that mr. brooks apparently does not take with full seriousness. (rev.) h. paul santmire watertown, mass. to the editor: while i agree with david brooks<u+2019>s assessment of donald trump<u+2019>s dismal character, i find it unfortunate that he falls into the typical, widely identified trap of setting up a moral equivalence between mr. trump and hillary clinton: <u+201c>there is an entire absence, in both campaigns, of any effort to appeal to the higher angels of our nature.<u+201d> really? mrs. clinton<u+2019>s calling for paid sick leave, better health care for children, debt-free college opportunities, and working together as a diverse society is equivalent to mr. trump<u+2019>s race-baiting, calls for stop-and-frisk and law and order, and vilification of immigrants? mr. brooks clearly fails to hear what mrs. clinton is actually saying. he should have found a way to frame his arguments without resorting to the tired and dangerously inaccurate equalization of the two candidates<u+2019> shortcomings. jeffrey schiff brooklyn to the editor: i invite david brooks to picture hillary clinton in the oval office vetoing bill after bill passed by a republican-controlled congress (which is what the polls are projecting) <u+2014> legislation abolishing the environmental protection agency and the consumer financial protection bureau, gutting medicare and social security, abolishing voter rights, abolishing financial controls on wall street, sweeping away women<u+2019>s and gender rights, diluting freedom of choice for women <u+2026> the list is endless. if republicans control the presidency and congress, 70 years of progress will hang from the thin thread of the filibuster rule, which is not constitutionally protected. does anyone care if her veto is inspirational? does anyone care if she smiles? it<u+2019>s her actions, not her speaking style or demeanor, that count. this is not about quibbles over mr. brooks<u+2019>s failure to recognize false equivalencies. americans need to wake up and consider what they might be on the verge of doing. robert millsap woodland, calif. to the editor: l am sick and tired of naysayers like david brooks who are not sufficiently inspired, uplifted or moved by hillary clinton. she is being held to a totally different standard than that applied to any other candidate <u+2014> in this or any other presidential contest. if she articulates specific policies or proposals, she is a <u+201c>policy wonk.<u+201d> if she has the inner strength to admit mistakes (unlike her opponent), she is untrustworthy. the woman has a wealth of experience, sound judgment, international respect and an incredible work ethic. she has articulated a vision of a more fair, just and inclusive society, and has given the specifics of how to achieve it. david brooks and his holier-than-thou ilk are not only unfair in their assessment of her, but they also act as if they are unaware of the consequences of this dismissive, condescending portrayal, which is to actively encourage those who will either sit this election out or vote for a third-party candidate. harriett galvin new york follow the new york times opinion section on facebook and twitter (@nytopinion) , and sign up for the opinion today newsletter . a version of this letter appears in print on october 9, 2016, on page sr10 of the new york edition with the headline: an absence of idealism?. today's paper | subscribe
is idealism missing from the presidential campaign?
noauthor