To the Editor:

I am not sure that “feminization” is the most felicitous term to apply to what James Nuechterlein [“The Feminization of the American Left,” November 1987] says has happened to the political Left—sentimentalization might perhaps be closer—but he does present a meaningful analysis, and does it admirably. As he developed his thesis, however, I could not help thinking that the vastly increased influence of sentimentality on political policy-making is a phenomenon not really characteristic of the Left alone. . . . Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of international affairs.

Here, Mr. Nuechterlein writes, “The feminine reluctance concerning the use of power—which is today the single most distinctive characteristic of left-wing doctrine in foreign policy—hobbles the pursuit of justice and stable order in world politics. The instinctive hesitation of the Left to employ force or the threat of force in foreign affairs goes well beyond the prudential caution that a nuclear age requires. . . .” But in the minds of many, perhaps most, Americans, the use of power abroad has for some time been considered both dangerous and immoral. Paying with, or even risking, the lives of our men to achieve a national purpose has not been considered a viable option. Hence our national paralysis when our embassy in Iran was ravaged and our citizens held hostage, lest their lives be put at risk. Hence our later supply of weapons to Iran, in the hope that a few Americans held hostage in Lebanon might be released, and this concession by a supposedly “macho” President! Hence the widespread opposition to Reagan’s policy in Nicaragua, lest it culminate in the direct involvement of our own military and the loss of American lives. Hence many other renunciations of the use of economic and/or military power, or the threat of them, since the Vietnam war, in situations where a realistic assessment of our national interests and future security clearly warranted them. To repeat, this “feminine” attitude is not confined to the political Left. It has become, to our serious cost, a generalized American phenomenon, cutting across the political Left, Right, and Center.

Why, one may wonder, do we maintain armed forces some two million strong, and spend some $300 billion to equip and field them, if we fear to put lives at risk, many or few, where the vital interests of our nation are at stake? Are the members of the armed forces, and their families, not aware that they are engaged in a hazardous occupation? Are not the rest of us aware that the prime purpose of our armed forces is to safeguard not only our own soil but our vital interests and fellow Americans throughout the world, whether in the Persian Gulf, Western Europe, or elsewhere? Must we not all stand ready to risk lives, as well as treasure, to defend our ideals, our values, our future security, our honor? Can we permit a sentimental concept of the sanctity of life at all costs to outweigh ignominy, shame, dishonor, terror, subservience, or slavery? . . .

Louis J. Walinsky
Washington, D.C.

_____________