"What's the matter with America"

It should be seen as a highly unfortunate turn of events that what was once one of the world's most progressive nations should turn to become a bastion of intolerance, xenophobia and fundamentalism.

As someone living in the US for several years, I completely agree with Zafar Sobhan's article on the 2004 US elections and also want to add some of my own thoughts. Tom Frank's best-seller book, What's the Matter with Kansas, exemplifies a well known fact ­ the US electorate is deeply fractured between two groups that couldn't be more different than each other. The first group, the 'East Coast elites' in Mr. Sobhan's article, comprises of people who mostly reside along the west coast and the upper north west section of the country. These sections of the country, which include the large metropolitan cities like New York, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles and Washington, DC (Chicago being an exception), are home to America's best colleges and most prosperous communities. The city of Boston, for example, has more Ivy League colleges than all of the southern states combined. The liberal attitudes and entrepreneurial spirit of the people living in these regions (also known to many as the blue states), has been attracting additional talented people over the years, not only from the United States, but also from other parts of the world. With their superior educational and technical skill sets, these people fuelled and drove America's economic growth to stratospheric levels during President Clinton's second term.

On the other hand, the second group, which comprises of the rest of America's electorate, contributed and received very little from President Clinton's economic boom. Most of these people earn their livelihood in agricultural and manufacturing sectors, which are facing stiff competition from abroad. Unable to compete with their more educated liberal counterparts and foreigners for better jobs and opportunities and fearful of changes taking place overseas, these people were also incensed at President Clinton's moral lapses, which east and west coast liberals were all too happy to overlook in exchange for economic prosperity, and his adherence to the world opinion. In George W. Bush, they found a candidate with diametrically opposed views to Clinton's.

Thanks to the flaws inherent in any democratic process, this group has been blessed with a weapon - the power of a voting majority.

Nipun Rahman US

I have read the rebuttals on Mr. Zaeid Ali's article with more interest than I have read the actual article with. I am amused by how much people reacted to an article whose writer's mental capacity has been compared to that of a "15 year old".

I will criticise the writer on writing an article that was ill in diplomacy and tactfulness, brinking on the point of being slanderous. Otherwise, the article highlights some important points and facts. It tries to point out that the Republicans place exaggerated importance to moral and ethical issues related to changing definitions of family and marriage and their detrimental effect on the social fabric. The point's credibility will be realised by readers who have read the replies to the article. Many repliers even admitted that they preferred the reasons mentioned above over other issues such as international considerations, rising health costs and unemployment. Being of a conservative nature myself, I support President Bush on his policies on gay marriages and stem cell research. However, most people would agree with me that paying more attention to such issues is too much of a price to pay, as the very issue of global stability and peace is at stake under him.

Syed J Quader Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK

"Ohio has failed the world" has drawn wrath of many of your internet readers from the United States. I guess the opinion these readers have expressed make a lot of sense for those who voted for Bush. They did so in full knowledge of their leader and what he stood for and they are the American majority. Kerry lost because he based his campaign on an anti-Bush sentiment without providing any alternative to where he wanted to lead the US.

However, that is not the point that the rest of the world has with Ohio. Ohio carried to power a US leader who does not understand the rest of the world; in fact he does not care for the rest of the world. What Americans who voted for Bush perhaps do not see is what the rest of the world sees; that Bush lied before the world on reasons for invading Iraq; that he has divided just not America but the world and he has driven the Islamic world into despair. A leader who backs the corrupt regimes in the Middle East and invades Islamic countries in the name of fighting terrorism and ends killing thousands of innocent Muslims will in no way be seen as harbinger of peace but as one inclined to start a new crusade against the Muslims.

Mr. Bush has been elected democratically and the world must accept it; what happened in Ohio notwithstanding. What Mr. Bush and America must now do is accept these same democratic rights as far as other nations and countries are concerned. If the Palestinians choose Arafat as their leader democratically, he must be given the same respect as Mr. Bush. Then, when Muslims are fundamentalists, they should be accorded the same respect as those 100 million evangelists who voted Mr. Bush to power, for there is no question that Christian fundamentalism had a big say for the Bush victory. Please practice what you preach and apply the same principles upon which you base your high moral standards upon those that you condemn. If you adopt one principle for all, a lot of our problem with you and your neo-con administration would vanish into thin air and we would have no qualms with which way the people of Ohio voted.

Shahjahan Ahmed Dhanmondi RA, Dhaka

I read Zaied Ali's letter regarding our recent national election. And he's right - we are stupid. But the focus on the state of Ohio is a revealing irony. A place literally and figuratively mid-America. Average that is. And Zaied's criticism is just as average. To the bush Republicans he is a joke who curses the US from the bosom of mid-America. They will say he is taking advantage of the benefits here while he backbites us in Bangladesh. They have no regard for people of differing opinions, and his point of view does nothing but paint him in the same stereotype which they represent but at a polar opposite. We are all stupid. Do we allow Bush (and his handlers) to manipulate us into becoming the very thing for which we find fault in them? He will foment more violence, will manipulate a scenario that calls for more military intervention. He is aided in doing so by simplistically blaming Ohio. How will the residents of Ohio (as they typify our entire nation) respond when asked who they will follow? The one who calls them stupid, or the one who says 'kill those who view you as stupid (read 'evildoers'). Love one another.

Peter Hoodes On e-mail

I'm writing in reply to the purely democratic and open-minded opinions that have been published in November 8 , 2004 -- many of them wanted to teach the " college kid " a lesson by expressing their opinions . Except the first two replies (Paula Bernistein, Thousand Oaks, California, USA and JDH on e-mail), the other three replies by B Pogson , Bruce Irle and Esparza Robert all had one implicit message in common . The dominant and violent tone of their writing could be depicted by a situation where the sadistic husband reminds his thin and calm wife that she's supposed to 'obey' his orders .

Mr Bruce Irle wrote "...businesses in our great nation need all the breaks they can get so they can flourish..." - which was just another proof that macro-economic problems inside a geographical region could be of paramount importance to the problems faced by female Iraqi prison inmates, Vietnamese causalities of war -- victims of minuscule Christian accidents.

Mr Esparza Robert stated that it was essential for us to have "national pride". Achieving greater security by sacrificing the rights of the Muslim and Asian minorities to not to be harassed because of what they are (though a thoughtfully implemented strategy would stick to the principles of true America and respect its melting pot ) and convincing conservatives of their narrow-minded beliefs are much more important than world peace and freedom.

Nayeem Arefin On e-mail