In response to Jon Lewis’ column, “Could it be any worse?”

I can’t help but feel Mr. Lewis chose an apt title for his March 1 editorial “Could it be any worse?” Over the course of his piece, he happily highlights every flaw in modern political discourse. Rather than choosing to address the issues for which Mr. Santorum stands, he chose instead to ridicule not only the candidate, but those who support and agree with him.

It isn’t wrong for Mr. Lewis to hold an opinion-far from it. It is impressive to hold an opinion to the extent where one would be willing to put one’s name on a piece expressing that opinion in this way. Indeed, it is not his opinion I am faulting. Rather, it is the way he chooses to express it. He uses caustic language to imply the stupidity of not only Santorum, but all social conservatives. He dismisses the entire opposing view as “backward” and states that “nobody could actually believe what he’s said.” 

As I said, it is perfectly acceptable to hold an opinion and to express it. However, what is the benefit in blatantly insulting one’s audience? How is it any way beneficial to Mr. Lewis or his position to dismiss an entire section of American thought based on one man? I think it may be in Mr. Lewis’ best interests to proofread his articles and consider them from an opposing viewpoint rather than assuming everyone understands a reason in his discourse. 

Janneke Parrish

junior, philosophy