The_Nation_October_9_2017

2 The Nation.

Artistic

Dispatches from

the Frontlines

of Resistance

A new

Nation series

launching

October 2.

TheNation.com/OppArt

PETER KUPER

No More Piecemeal Rights

In her column “How to Win the

Culture War” [Aug. 28/Sept. 4],

Laila Lalami included an unnec-

essary adjective in the sentence

beginning “If Democrats give up

on women’s reproductive rights...”

(emphasis added), and thus in-

advertently allowed right-wing

“Democrats” to set the terms of the

discussion. These Democrats have

always preferred that other people’s

rights be treated piecemeal; it’s a

delaying tactic.

Women’s rights necessarily in-

clude the right to make their own

medical decisions; this is too obvious

for debate. Either you are for wom-

en’s rights, or you’re against them.

If you’re against them, you have

no business in government in the

21st century.

I will tell that to Ben Ray Luján

or Bernie Sanders or any other damn

fool who thinks we should still be

patient, humble, and deferential and

beg for a little bit here and a little

bit there, please, if it wouldn’t be too

much trouble. Those days are gone,

boys. You don’t tell the people what’s

important; we tell you. Or your suc-

cessors, if you haven’t the wit to listen.

Katharine W. Rylaarsdam

baltimore

When Small Is Actually Big

“The Next Big Thing Will Be a Lot

of... Small Things” by David Bollier

[Aug. 28/Sept. 4] was the first arti-

cle I have ever read that completely

articulated my sense of frustration

with the Democratic Party.

After the 2016 election, Barack

Obama was quoted as having said, “I

could have been elected a third time.”

I don’t think so. I certainly would

not have voted for him a third time.

I was completely disappointed by his

inability to rein in the big banks. Re-

member when he allowed Wall Street

bankers to reward themselves with

generous bonuses after they crashed

the world economy?

Although I hold little hope, I’ll be

sending copies of this article to my

senators and congressman in an effort

to get them on board with the vision.

Mary Kay Wiens

monmouth, ore.

When I began to read this refresh-

ingly optimistic article, I had high

hopes for a winning alternative to

the economic status quo that David

Bollier so justifiably rejects. A radi-

cally new system is sorely needed!

But I was disappointed. I would love

to live in a world where everything

that affected me was localized and

transparent, where my needs were

met by the work of my own hands

and by bartering with my neighbors,

where my money was backed by

individuals I personally knew. And I,

too, am uncomfortable with having

most of my well-being controlled by

self-interested and powerful absentee

forces. Does that make me a “liber-

tarian”? Hopefully not.

That said, I don’t wish to turn

over my greenbacks secured by the

cumulative real wealth of our sover-

eign nation in exchange for unsecured

local banknotes—that would be so, so

1890s. But neither do I wish to bail out

“investors” who currently hold $1,

trillion in bank-issued derivatives and

“commercial paper.” If Bollier and

company want to launch a broad-based

radical movement for economic redefi-

nition, I would suggest starting with

“repeal and replace” for the Internal

Revenue Code and then moving on to

adopt a sound monetary policy.

David Bollier might suspect that I

have a plan in mind. He would be cor-

rect, and I’d be willing to share it.

James M. Peterson

richfield, minn.

[email protected]