Our post earlier today about the New York Times article by Dean E. Murphy—NYT Wishes for ‘Act of God’ to Remove Bush—has drawn a reply from the author; several readers forwarded the same form letter reply to me.

Thank you for your e-mail about this Sunday’s article in the Week in Review. Given your concerns, I would like to briefly explain how I approached the reporting and writing of the article. I was startled and troubled by the conclusions you reached; I hope with another careful reading of the article, you will see they are not warranted.

The goal of the article was to review some of the history surrounding so-called realigning elections, as many have described President Bush’s victory, and examine clues from the past about how such realignments have come to an end. In a sense, it was meant to look at what tomorrow might bring through the prism of yesterday.

No disrespect for, or ill will toward, the president was intended, and I don’t believe any was conveyed. Assassination was discussed by Professor Wilentz in the context of William McKinley, but the point of the discussion was to highlight the impact of unforeseen events, not advocate violence against the president. Professor Wilentz pointed to the McKinley example because it was an instance in which the electoral map closely resembled the current one. He also mentioned the Civil War in the same vein.

The phrase “act of God,” as the cartoon with the meteor suggests, was meant as shorthand for things beyond anyone’s control that often come with unpredictable consequences. As an example, the story briefly discusses the most recent such act -­ the terror attacks of Sept. 11 -­ and notes that it seems to not have been the sea-change event that some had expected. Conversely, the Civil War during Lincoln’s presidency was one such realigning event as was the Depression for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

As the article states near the beginning, “an act of God” during the Bush presidency could range from “a national calamity, a deep schism in the ruling party, the implosion of a social movement under the excesses of its own agenda or the emergence of an extraordinary political figure.” While assassination would certainly qualify as a national calamity, many other events would as well. Certainly, the article never advocated any of them.

Sincerely,
Dean E. Murphy

The September 11 terror attacks were an “act of God?” Wow.