To the Editor:
Re “In Pitch to Nation, Biden Says Trump Poses Dire Threat” (front page, March 8):
In the State of the Union address we heard an aggressive and effective Joe Biden present a clear vision of America and his policies for the future.
While he spoke, we saw a vision of Donald Trump’s view of America and its future by watching the facial gestures and body language of Speaker Mike Johnson. At times he appeared anxious and uncertain how to respond. It was if Mr. Trump were talking into his ear.
The country has struggled with whether Mr. Biden has the strength and mental agility to run the country. The Republicans in the chamber gave him an opportunity to demonstrate that he can think and respond powerfully on his feet. In their heckling they looked and acted inept. Mr. Biden was presidential.
The burden is now on Mr. Trump to present himself clearly and address policies. Mr. Biden has set a high bar.
Sidney Weissman
Highland Park, Ill.
To the Editor:
After Thursday night’s speech, can anyone still seriously think the Democrats could have a better or stronger candidate than President Biden?
It would be great if all the commentators who have spent months playing “fantasy Democratic Convention” finally started devoting their commentaries and reporting to discussions and analysis of the candidates’ ideas, actual accomplishments and aspirations for a second term. Bet that won’t happen.
Marvin Ciporen
Brooklyn
To the Editor:
I heard little about the state of the union but instead a bitter, shouted, accusatory litany of grievances against President Biden’s “predecessor” and attacks on the Republican opposition.
There is room for that in debates and campaigning, but a State of the Union address needs to, if not accentuate the positive, then at least maintain a hopeful tone. I heard little of that in President Biden’s address aside from an expected laundry list of accomplishments.
I could have done without both the high-school-level interruptions from the Republican side and Mr. Biden’s prepared responses. All in all, a forced, disappointing speech.
Alexander Goldstein
Brooklyn
To the Editor:
Re “Katie Britt, With Smiles and Menace, Delivers G.O.P. Response to Biden” (nytimes.com, March 8):
The G.O.P. decision to have Senator Katie Britt address the nation from her kitchen was insulting. The Republicans would never have asked a man to do that.
Ms. Britt got the first chance of her professional career to address the entire nation, and the optics went down the drain.
Dominique Browning
New York
To the Editor:
As a public health advocate, I was glad to hear President Biden leverage his annual State of the Union address to discuss the importance of lowering health care costs for millions of Americans and protecting the Affordable Care Act.
However, as a Latina immigrant and a leader in the Latine community, I cannot overlook Mr. Biden’s use of the word “illegal” to describe an undocumented immigrant. Such word choices are laced with racism and serve only to dehumanize immigrants.
Mr. Biden has spent months distinguishing himself from Donald Trump’s and Republicans’ anti-immigrant rhetoric. It’s this distinction that he hopes will drive Latine communities to the polls in November.
His choice of words does not reflect those efforts, and I hope he apologizes to the immigrant community, which we know is vital to the nation.
Seciah Aquino
Los Angeles
The writer is executive director of the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California.
To the Editor:
Re “Surviving the Ugliness of It All,” by David Brooks (column, March 8):
It was so clear to me as I read Mr. Brooks’s column about Churchill, F.D.R. and optimism for the future that Joe Biden did, in his State of the Union speech, just what Mr. Brooks seems to be hoping for. A leader with optimism for the future and a great faith in the American people is what we wish for and will support.
Good luck, Joe. At the moment you seem to be the answer to Mr. Brooks’s vision and my hopes.
Helene Torker
New York
Don’t Forget the Trump Trauma
To the Editor:
Re “The Trauma of the Trump Years Is Being Rewritten,” by Charles M. Blow (column, Feb. 15):
When I read Mr. Blow’s column, I felt my anger rising about Donald Trump’s possible return to power. Until Mr. Trump took office, I had been a sound sleeper almost every night. Then his chaotic administration started. I began a new habit of waking up in the middle of the night and grabbing my iPad to see what Mr. Trump had done now. I was doomscrolling before the term was popularized.
Sorry to say, I rarely made it back to sleep, and even sorrier to say, the habit has remained with me somewhat even with the non-drama of the Biden years.
Please, America, don’t forget what those Trump years were like.
Janet Robertson
Delray Beach, Fla.
National Guard Troops in the Subway Threaten Civil Liberties
To the Editor:
Re “Hochul Deploys National Guard and State Police to Patrol City Subways” (news article, March 7):
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding Gov. Kathy Hochul’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to protect riders in the New York City subway system. While the aim may be to enhance public safety, the presence of armed soldiers in public spaces raises troubling questions about the balance between security and civil liberties.
Ensuring the safety of commuters is undoubtedly crucial. However, the sight of uniformed troops patrolling subway platforms evokes uncomfortable parallels with authoritarian regimes that subordinate individual freedoms to the state’s grip on power.
Will the presence of armed troops lead to increased racial profiling or disproportionate use of force? How will this deployment affect the already strained relationship between law enforcement and the communities it serves?
Calling on the National Guard also raises questions about addressing the root causes of crime and violence. Are heavy-handed tactics merely a Band-Aid solution that fails to address underlying societal issues, potentially exacerbating tensions?
In times of crisis, governments may feel compelled to take extraordinary measures to ensure public safety. However, it is crucial that such measures be proportionate, transparent and subject to public scrutiny. The decision to deploy the National Guard in the subway demands robust public discourse and oversight.
I urge Governor Hochul to reconsider this decision and engage in meaningful dialogue with the public to find solutions that prioritize both safety and civil liberties.
Keith Bernard
Queens
A Unionized Basketball Team
To the Editor:
Re “Drive to Unionize Began in Dining Hall” (news article, March 6):
The Dartmouth men’s basketball team has voted 13-2 to unionize, an action that the college vigorously opposes. To forestall official recognition, Dartmouth has requested a review by the National Labor Relations Board and then possibly will appeal the matter to federal court.
Given the team’s record — last in the Ivy League — team members might want to think about spending a bit more time on the court rather than in the courtroom.
Henry Von Kohorn
Princeton, N.J.