Regarding Doti Miles' letter (Nov. 7) critiqueing my alleged overuse of the word "we" in my letter (Oct. 24), I say "We never did, we'd do it again, and we're all in this together".
Jesting aside, the writer makes a very valid point, especially in non-hypothetical statements. It is particularly pertinent in today's rhetoric to be aware of speakers using the rallying cry of "we", "we all", or "every American". Even the phrase "united we stand" needs to be thought through. What's the assumptions and intentions? I'm bothered by it somehow.
"Rhetoric is to fool others, sentimentality is to fool ourselves."
At last Saturday's teach-in, one speaker said that much of the current rhetoric replaces terrorism for communism. Another speaker said the following quote about how to sell the public a war: "Why, of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hitler's No. 2 Man, Hermann Goering.
Commented