Letters to the Editor

Why is Caitlin Flanagan dismayed that Hillary Clinton is no longer a warm and approachable idealist (“No Girlfriend of Mine,” November Atlantic), when no successful president in living memory has ever been? We are constantly told that candidates for the presidency need the “fire in the belly,” but even more essential to success are a thick skin and a towering ego.

For president, I want someone who advocates the changes that I want to see and knows how to get them done. Considering the situation our country is likely to be in by January 2009, do we really want to send a nice person into that job?

Eugene Ingledue
Laughlintown, Pa.

Caitlin Flanagan replies:

Hillary Clinton has always had “fire in the belly,” and she never was “warm and approachable.” That’s why she was such a dazzling figure: she took the womanly concerns of children’s welfare and family poverty, and she attacked them hammer and tongs, not caring a whit whom she alienated in the process. Now she has sold out those great causes in the name of a new one: her own ambition.

Eugene Ingledue desires a president who “advocates the changes” he wants to see. If I may presume that these changes include overturning the Patriot Act and ending the war in Iraq, might I suggest he select a candidate who didn’t vote for them?

Henry Blodget’s breezy overview of socially responsible investing (“The Conscientious Investor,” October Atlantic) would have us believe that long-term supply and demand applies to products and services, but not to the stocks of companies that provide them. If only 9 percent of fund dollars are now invested according to socially responsible principles, there should be room to keep boosting demand for clean stocks and raising their share prices for decades to come.

When I invest in clean-tech companies, it’s not to make a fast buck. I invest in solar, wind, plug-in hybrid, and organic-produce companies because I like what they’re doing and want them to succeed in the marketplace. I am creating demand for what they do, and so are millions of other Americans.

By the same token, there’s no compelling reason to buy stock in a company whose product, when used as directed, kills its customers and investors. Such a company has to pay fantastically high dividends to continue attracting investors, because its business model is morally repugnant and self-defeating over the long term.

Blodget thinks present interest in sustainability gives a near-term “bump” to certain stocks, necessarily limiting their future returns. But the overarching need to stabilize the global climate will be with us long after this fad and the next are gone. Why not invest now in the start-ups that will be delivering profitable solutions long after tobacco, coal, and oil have breathed their last gasp?

Chris Calwell
Vice President, Policy and Research
Ecos Consulting
Durango, Colo.

Henry Blodget inaccurately states that the movement to divest from Sudan targets “any company doing business with Sudan.” The movement is actually narrowly focused, targeting only about two dozen problem companies aiding the regime in Khartoum. Most of the divestment pressure targets Sudan’s oil industry; oil revenue provides arms and funding for the genocide, rather than development for the Sudanese people.

Eric Cohen Investors Against Genocide
Lexington, Mass.

Someone at The Atlantic has a marvelous sense of humor. Who but a humorist could imagine, let alone publish, an article on socially responsible investing by Henry Blodget, a former Merrill Lynch research analyst barred for life from the securities industry? What should we readers of The Atlantic expect in the future? “How to Raise a Puppy Humanely,” by Michael Vick?

Vince Reardon
San Diego, Calif.

Henry Blodget replies:

It is true that The Atlantic’s editors have a great sense of humor and irony. It is also true, as Eric Cohen states, that Sudan divestment organizations do not advocate divesting in “any” company doing business with Sudan—just a subset of them.

On Chris Calwell’s assertions, two points. First, a lot more than 9 percent of fund dollars are invested in stocks that socially responsible investors approve of; the 9 percent figure just refers to those stocks picked specifically for their social merits rather than their investment potential. So it’s wrong to think that 91 percent of fund dollars are going to pour into SRI stocks once other investors get a clue. Second, you don’t have to be George Soros to see that there are fantastic investment opportunities in solar power, wind power, biofuels, etc. The trouble is that the rest of the world doesn’t have to be George Soros, either. All that demand drives the valuations of those investments up—and reduces their future returns. Meanwhile, cigarette companies trade at fire-sale prices because everyone thinks they’re going to be sued out of existence, but people keep buying cigarettes. So cigarette-company investors earn extraordinary returns (and, one hopes, spend them on solar panels).

The best reason to be a socially responsible investor is the one Chris Calwell alludes to: you get to feel good knowing that your investment dollars are helping make the world a better place.

In his piece “The Great Assimilator” (November Atlantic), Christopher Hitchens states that Henderson of Henderson the Rain King is Saul Bellow’s only non-Jewish central character. Well, not quite so. Albert Corde, the protagonist of The Dean’s December, is also a Gentile.

Peter G. Parker
Houston, Texas

Editors’ Note:

Paul Elie’s article, “A Man for All Reasons” (November Atlantic), incorrectly stated the date of Wilfred McClay’s talk to the Family Research Council. Dr. McClay delivered the lecture in November 2001, not March 2002. The author of a letter in the December Atlantic was incorrectly identified as Sam Bass Warren; he is Sam Bass Warner. We regret the errors.