To the Editor:
Andrew Kaplan’s ’15 and Sam Gilman’s ’15 op-ed piece (“American youth must take a stand on the sequester,” Feb. 28), like their stance, is incoherent. Their only stated political position is debt reduction. The sequester, for all of its other assorted vices and virtues, will cut the debt. I’m against the sequester, but that is objectively what it will do. Their principle and only policy stance is more or less entirely coextensive with the sequester taking place. And yet, they are against it, saying because even though we’re cutting the national debt we’re not doing it the right way. Kaplan and Gilman are being disingenuous with respect to their goals, and it causes me to question their motivations. Why would one be so passionately against expanding the debt, and yet expend so much energy advocating against a policy occurrence that will do the literal opposite? That doesn’t make any sense. On the other hand, I understand how they benefit by winning a prestigious $10,000 national prize and listing on their resumes that they founded and served as co-presidents of a political group that espouses the sort of mushy bipartisan mainstream groupthink advanced by respectable bourgeoisie opinion leaders. Color me skeptical.
Bradley Silverman ’13
ADVERTISEMENT
