On Reagan

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Michael W. Hirschorn attempts to present a credible analysis of the motives of those Harvard students who support President Reagan. Mr. Hirschorn, however, makes some gross misinterpretations of the Reagan supporters whom he considers too unwise to even rationalize their position with factual argument. He seems to think that Reagan supporters are unconcerned with the nuclear threat, the welfare of the poor, and other issues. In reach: many Reagan supporters are too exasperated by the violent. Democratic hostility which precludes explanation. The subtlety of explaining one's political position cannot be undertaken in a short exchange in which one is repeatedly blasted with accusations of being insouciant about the poor, nuclear war, etc. What Mr. Hirschorn fails to realize is that many pro-Reagan voters want the same things from society as Mondale supporters. They merely differ in their suggested means of attaining them.

For example, Reaganites are often accused of being militaristic. Reaganites simply view security problems with the pragmatic realization that the Soviet Union does desire world domination, that the preceding is an integral doctrine of communism, that strength is quite logically an effective deterrent. It is a: unfortunate fact that merely loving peace does not provide sufficient insight to understand foreign policy realities.

Concerning the economy, I doubt that there are huge numbers of Americans who have absolutely no concern for the poor. Many Democrats seem to think that increasing welfare payments is a foolproof method of abetting the poor. Such aid would certainly be an effective short-term solution, but the long-run effects on the economy must also be considered. A weak American economy is not in the best interests of the rich or poor. Again, the noble desire to help the poor does not constitute real economic insight.

I have not attempted to change any opinions in this criticism of Mr. Hirschorn's views, nor have I praised Reagan policies. I merely wish to stress the importance of considering both sides of political issues, which are rarely so obvious and easily explained as Mr. Hirschorn suggests. It is dangerous to blindly loathe one's opponents, as do many Mondale supporters in this election. Harvard students, Mr. Hirschorn, should not be so blinded by utopian idealism that they ignore reality and pragmatism. An intelligent voter should consider the validity of each party's position and make his decision on informed logic, not just noble sentiment. Stephen L. Ascher '88