To the Editor:
Re “I’ve Told My Last Trump Joke,” by David Kamp (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 24):
I encourage Mr. Kamp to keep telling Donald Trump jokes. Mr. Trump is a serious threat to American democracy and the institutions of a pluralistic society, so I understand Mr. Kamp’s fear that jokes make the danger seem trivial.
However, alongside every joke aimed at deflating Mr. Trump stands the fact that 74 million American citizens voted for him in 2020, and even more may vote for him and autocracy in 2024. Sobering facts, yes, but humor can bring comfort to those who oppose Mr. Trump and unite us in opposition as it reminds us not only of the danger of handing such a self-absorbed mediocrity power but also that he can be brought low and defeated.
Certainly, Mr. Kamp needs better jokes than the sophomoric epithet “short-fingered vulgarian,” which merely places the comic on the same immature level as Mr. Trump. But jokes that remind us of his disdain for democracy, pluralism and decency can be a powerful weapon against Mr. Trump’s campaign.
No joke will turn MAGA supporters against their messiah, but good ones will remind the rest of us why we need to vote and work for the re-election of President Biden.
Tony Speranza
Washington
To the Editor:
Just after watching the “Saturday Night Live” cold open with James Austin Johnson’s Donald Trump impression and not laughing once, I read David Kamp’s essay. He expressed my feelings in his eloquent words.
It is definitely time to stop making Trump jokes. There is no place for humor about him as we face what lies ahead in these next months.
Michelle Putterman
Raleigh, N.C.
To the Editor:
David Kamp’s guest essay advises, “Let’s just hold off on the laughter until he is defeated.” But I’ll buy what the columnist Nicholas Kristof prescribed in 2020 under the headline “To Beat Trump, Mock Him.”
Mr. Kristof listed examples of successful tyrant deflation, ending with an observation about making the eventual downfall “softer and less violent.” He quoted the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo: “A clown needs less revenge than a monster does.”
Steven T. Corneliussen
Poquoson, Va.
To the Editor:
David Kamp reads the room right. Trump humor is so very 2016. It cushioned us from the grim reality of the individual and the darker reality of the presidency for quite some time. We need humor even about the presidents we do like. But Donald Trump is no longer a president or even an ordinary presidential candidate.
It was a long time before many of us were comfortable with laughing at Hitler (“The Producers” and “JoJo Rabbit”). The dictator in front of us is never funny. Even mimicking him contributes to the normalization of him.
There is nothing normal about this situation.
Mary Ann Cherry
Los Angeles
It Was an Insurrection
To the Editor:
Re “Why Jan. 6 Wasn’t an Insurrection,” by Ross Douthat (column, nytimes.com, Jan. 12):
What would have been the consequences had Donald Trump’s mob been successful?
Mr. Trump would now be president, having invalidated the lawful election of Joe Biden as president.
The size of the mob does not matter, and the length of the action does not matter. What was the aim of the action? The aim of Mr. Trump’s action was to overthrow a duly elected government.
That is an insurrection. Full stop.
Bruce Higgins
San Diego
China’s Concern About Lower Birthrates
To the Editor:
Re “Beijing Foiled in Drive to Lift the Birthrate” (front page, Jan. 18) and “A Quarter of Humanity Is Affected by Drought” (news article, Jan. 16):
China understands that an aging population will reduce economic growth but, like many other countries, appears unwilling to face the fact that relying on endless population expansion is not a sustainable model for social and environmental prosperity.
We know that the fundamental cause of global warming is excess human population. Relying on a perpetual increase in the number of babies to fuel economic growth and support an aging population is essentially “Ponzi demography,” a pyramid scheme that privatizes benefits and profits without regard to the resulting enormous environmental degradation that we are all experiencing.
The drought facing a quarter of humanity did not arise spontaneously, but is yet another stark reflection of humanity’s failure to understand the limits of the planet to support population overshoot.
In his 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” Paul Ehrlich echoed the warnings of Thomas Malthus and predicted dire global effects of excess human population. At the time he wrote, the world population was about 3.5 billion.
While Ehrlich and Malthus may not have foreseen the precise effects that our current eight billion people are having on climate, they were prescient in predicting the scope of the disasters that now face humanity.
Carl Mezoff
Stamford, Conn.
To The Editor:
China’s government may think of the country’s lack of population growth as a “national emergency,” but from a global perspective, it certainly isn’t. Endless growth is not compatible with planetary limits.
Lower birthrates generally reflect greater bodily autonomy and education and career opportunities for women — something to celebrate rather than lament. There is a problem, however, when people feel that having children will seriously disadvantage them and expose them to more injustices. It’s good to see the authors note that “deep-seated gender inequality” seems to be behind the continuing decline in China’s birthrate (just like in South Korea).
Helping people fulfill their desired family size should replace the goal of boosting population growth. Xi Jinping needs to start listening to women, and channel efforts into advancing gender equality and improving quality of life. He and other world leaders also need to accept that small family size is likely here to stay, and prepare for inevitable population aging.
Authoritarian efforts to roll back women’s rights will only backfire and stall economic and social progress.
Olivia Nater
Boulder, Colo.
The writer is communications manager for Population Connection.
Debate the Israel-Gaza War in School
To the Editor:
Re “New York City Schools to Teach About Bias in Response to War” (news article, Jan. 23):
You report: “Inside classrooms, the approach to discussions of the war has varied greatly across the city’s more than 1,600 public schools. Some educators have attempted to avoid talking about the conflict altogether, anxious over being swept into heated debates.”
But heated debates are part of the vitality of democracy. Why not equip students to participate in our democracy by inviting a pro-Israel speaker and a pro-Palestine speaker to wage a debate and then open it up to student participation?
Felicia Nimue Ackerman
Providence, R.I.
The writer is a professor of philosophy at Brown University.