To the Editor:
Re “Trump Knows Dominance Wins,” by M. Steven Fish (Opinion guest essay, May 7):
It used to be that the two parties disparaged each other for three months out of four years during election time. After that, they went back to hammering out helpful policies with civility, despite their different interests and philosophies. Governance worked, and democracy worked.
Over the last 30 years one party gradually stopped caucusing and stopped making policy and instead kept testing the effectiveness of words of disparagement within the world of talk radio while cynically pandering to the pain of a large segment of Americans.
That accelerated when a man who can stuff more slurs and smears into one sentence than a sausage maker can stuff meat in the sausage took over the leadership of his party with his genius for smearing his opponents.
People need to write his sentences down one by one to see the ugliness in each one. His followers love him because they think that his ugly words mean that he cares about them and is fighting for their welfare.
We are close to electing a would-be tyrant for the presidency 250 years after we revolted against a British monarchy — a tyrant who would persecute his opponents and abolish free elections with a “heads I win, tails you lose” philosophy.
Let’s stop talking about “democracy” and start talking about “tyranny.”
Jerrold Bonn
Spring House, Pa.
To the Editor:
Re “Wall Street Warms Up to Trump” (Business, May 16):
I have rarely been as disgusted after reading a New York Times article as I was reading this one. The fact that these Wall Street Daddy Warbucks types are willing to put our democracy at risk by supporting a presidential candidate who has made his autocratic intentions quite clear, apparently believing that they can make even more profits under a second Donald Trump presidency, illustrates nothing if not their shortsightedness.
Aren’t these supposed to be the smartest guys in the room? Haven’t they read the research showing that democracy has a positive effect on per capita gross domestic product? How can they not see that the authoritarianism, amorality, cronyism and corruption of a second Trump presidency would weaken the systems in which they currently thrive, and would jeopardize their businesses as a result?
Think twice, Wall Street titans. Putting our democracy in further peril for your perceived financial gain risks losing both.
James Misak
Cleveland
To the Editor:
Re “From Decades of Reporting, a Long View of Hope,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, May 12):
While I am heartened by Mr. Kristof’s good news on things like reducing poverty, improving health, etc., his belief that America’s “dynamism and inner strength” can survive a second Donald Trump presidency, despite “four years of national misrule, chaos and subversion of democracy,” is naïve to me.
Four years of a president bent on destroying the environment would render all positive advances meaningless if we no longer have a planet healthy enough to sustain us. Mr. Trump is a clear and present danger to all.
Sally Chrisman
Princeton, N.J.
To the Editor:
Re “Finding Someone to Help Is a Job in Itself” (Thursday Styles, May 16):
I loved how Bianca Giaever was offering help to strangers in New York City, and I actually do something similar in L.A. I, too, want to help people, but I have a different approach.
Humor has always been my go-to, and when Donald Trump was president I decided I needed to do something. I came up with a therapy booth like Lucy’s in the Peanuts comics. Only mine was dealing with Trump-Induced Anxiety, “TheraTrumpy,” as I called it.
It was a big hit then, and I decided that I would bring it back by popular demand and see if I could help people deal with this current nightmare through laughter and intelligent conversation. Besides getting people to smile or laugh, I also suggest breathing, meditation, not watching so much news and a doll with orange hair that people can shake to vent.
I feel that I’m doing L.A. a great service.
Denise McCanles
West Hollywood, Calif.
Justice Alito’s Upside-Down American Flag
To the Editor:
Re “At Alito’s Home, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol Flew” (front page, May 17):
Justice Samuel Alito’s blame-the-wife defense for flying a “Stop the Steal” symbol at his home shows contempt for the American people, our democratic processes and the integrity of the court on which he serves.
In recent years, my own house has displayed a “Justice for George Floyd” banner, an improvised Ukrainian flag and each December a “Bah Humbug” sign. In every case, my husband and I consulted before it went up.
Could a man with both the power and the clear inclination to shape American lives not have managed at least a “Hon, maybe not a great look”?
Andrea R. Tebbets
Raleigh, N.C.
To the Editor:
When I was growing up, I was taught that hanging an American flag upside down was disrespectful. Apparently now, hanging the American flag upside down is a symbol of approving of Donald Trump.
To me, it is a symbol of the world being turned upside down, where politically wrong is right, insurrection is patriotic and morals have been turned on their head.
Jimmy Burgoff
Belchertown, Mass.
Debate Ground Rules
To the Editor:
Re “Biden and Trump Agree to Debate Twice in Summer” (front page, May 16):
I hope that CNN and ABC will do everything conceivable to rein in theatrics and encourage a substantive and civilized discourse by establishing ground rules for the upcoming presidential debates. Several possibilities come to mind:
1) Any candidate who interrupts his opponent shall forfeit time.
2) Any candidate who exceeds his allotted time by more than 15 seconds shall have his microphone cut off.
3) Candidate statements shall be verified by independent, real-time fact-checking, the results of which will be aired before the conclusion of the debate.
The goal here must be an opportunity to inform and educate the American electorate.
Gail Southard Canzano
West Hartford, Conn.
To the Editor:
Re “Disabled Adults Shouldn’t Have to Pay This Price to Marry,” by Pepper Stetler (Opinion guest essay, May 15):
While the federal Supplemental Security Income program discourages disabled adults from marrying by reducing the benefits, my 75-year-old disabled brother could not continue to receive our father’s military pension from the federal Defense Finance Accounting Service should he marry. Were he to marry, his main financial support would vanish.
My brother became permanently disabled when he was our father’s dependent child. Our father chose less of a pension when he retired after 31 years of Army service, including combat in two wars, so that upon his and our mother’s deaths my brother would receive this vital financial support.
Suzanne O’Keefe
Brooklyn