To the Wesleyan Community,

I appreciate the fact that the Argus is cutting me some slack so that I could vote for George Bush even at Wesleyan, but that is very unlikely to happen as of today. I did attend a Bush event in Connecticut early in the campaign, and my contribution is duly disclosed. Why would I attend such an event and make such a contribution? The Argus story compressed the answer I had supplied, omitting tantalizing hints in the middle of the following sentence: "The motivations are usually complex (philosophy, personal friendship with people raising money, party affiliation, recognition for help of various kinds, wanting to be a player, sending messages, job seeking, which does not apply in my case! etc.), and they change over time as campaigns progress." Disclosure is essential, but it is not fruitful or appropriate to expect clarity or interpret another’s motivation.

I want to go to a much larger issue, so that the Wesleyan community can understand why this election presents a serious dilemma for me as a lifetime Democrat and former member of the Clinton-Gore administration. As the Argus reported, I have spent much of my life working for international cooperation. In my last post in the State Department, I oversaw all aspects of U.S. activity in the United Nations.

While I applaud some aspects of the Clinton-Gore foreign policy, I do not believe the administration is seriously interested in strengthening international cooperation. Instead, the
administration continues to experiment with potentialities of a world where the United States, as the last remaining superpower, can have its own way and go it alone. Our unilateral decision to cut our own dues obligation to the United Nations is one example. Threats to renounce unilaterally the Antiballistic Missile Treaty are another.

I am not a one-issue voter, but the choice as to whether the U.S. leads through cooperation or by fiat has profound implications for the world in which we will live. I am pressing for a presidential candidate (a) to say something serious about foreign policy, and (b) to address my question about in-your-face unilateralism vs. cooperation. Then I’ll decide how to vote, and probably not announce my decision to the campus.

By the way, contributions are not, as the Argus opined, "arguably the most meaningful form of political action." Action is the most meaningful form of political action, like going to
Washington to protest peacefully about global inequities, or working very hard for your candidate, or thinking seriously about public issues, holding office, or voting. I hope all
Wesleyan students who are eligible are registered to vote.