Sir, Your leading article (October 21) says: “It is hard to claim that the United States is much more polarised than it was four years ago”, basing this opinion on the fact that the vote was evenly split in 2000. Polarisation, however, denotes a migration to two extremes, not merely the distribution of preferences about the centre.

I have never experienced a political debate that aroused such partisan antagonism; even a dinner party with close friends can become ugly when the conversation turns to politics.

Acquaintances bombard each other with trivial and spiteful invective against the candidates, their wives and families, and certain television shows have turned angry confrontation into an accepted form of debate. In my circle of friends political discussion is now a landmine that we take care to avoid.

You also comment that “the charge of insularity is spectacularly misplaced”. Although the conflict in Iraq has been a leading issue in the campaign, and most Americans could now probably find both Iraq and Afghanistan on a map, the vast majority of the electorate knows next to nothing about the rest of the world and has learnt all that it does know through the red, white and blue lenses of TV news cameras.

Other countries are either good guys (UK, Spain, Israel, etc) or bad guys. When France declined to support the invasion of Iraq, the American people’s reaction was not to ask themselves why, but to call for a boycott of French products, rename “french fries” on menus and other such absurdities.

When you live in the most powerful country in the world, you don’t have to care what anybody else thinks.

Regards,
TIM RICHARDSON,
1404 West 24th Street,
Houston 77008, Texas.
October 22.

Explore Letters

• Feedback