More from our inbox:
To the Editor:
Re “No, Not Sanders, Not Ever,” by David Brooks (column, Feb. 28):
I’m the quintessential traditional liberal whom David Brooks talks about. I am committed to the system that Mr. Brooks says Bernie Sanders wants to tear down. But while Mr. Sanders isn’t my first, or even third, choice among the Democratic candidates, I won’t hesitate to vote for him should he become the nominee — and, if he has a lick of sense, neither should Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Sanders may have bizarrely charitable views about the policies of some cruel authoritarians such as Fidel Castro. But let’s be clear about what really matters: Mr. Sanders is not himself an authoritarian and would not govern like one.
I have no doubt that Mr. Sanders believes in the rule of law; that he would not use the power of the state against political enemies; and that he would not demean and degrade institutions such as the press, the courts, the Justice Department and the diplomatic corps. Nor is Mr. Sanders cruel.
In all of those things, Mr. Sanders is the antithesis of the man currently in the White House. If you want to preserve constitutional democracy, David Brooks, think again.
Carl T. Bogus
Bristol, R.I.
The writer is a professor of law at Roger Williams University.
To the Editor:
I’m grateful to David Brooks for crystallizing my thinking about the Democratic primary. Like so many Americans, and certainly many of my friends, I’ve wavered between throwing my lot in with the moderates — Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar or Mike Bloomberg — and taking a gamble with the more impassioned but riskier candidacies of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. But Mr. Brooks made clear that Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders shouldn’t be spoken of in the same breath.
Sure, they share many of the same ideas, but Ms. Warren is a progressive pragmatist who has worked within the system to get things done, including her signal achievement, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Sanders is a left-wing populist, as extreme and uncompromising in his way as President Trump is in his. The time is short for Ms. Warren to drive home this message herself.
Wayne J. Guglielmo
Mahwah, N.J.
To the Editor:
I feel that I must urge The New York Times to quit laying into Bernie Sanders. I am somewhat undecided about my wishes for the Democratic nomination, but the nonstop negative articles about Mr. Sanders are getting to me.
David Brooks has now joined the fray. What is this about? Do you fear that Mr. Sanders will single-handedly turn this country away from capitalism? No chance.
I am really tired of it. Quit, please. We are heading toward another Hillary Clinton debacle. And if that happens The Times will be partly to blame for the disaster that will befall this country.
Jean Christensen
Louisville, Ky.
To the Editor:
I know David Brooks is a conservative, and that’s just fine. But he is also an influencer, and his suggestion that he could not pull the lever for Bernie Sanders, even if it appears that a vote for anyone else is a vote for Donald Trump, seems incredibly irresponsible to me. If, as Mr. Brooks states, Mr. Trump’s moral rot threatens our nation, can he honestly believe that Bernie Sanders is an equal threat?
If the only two choices that we have are Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump, I truly believe that we must vote for the lesser of two evils and trust that our system of checks and balances will work as intended.
Gretchen Genz Davidson
Skokie, Ill.
Another Setback for Immigrants
To the Editor:
“Immigrants and the Wealth Test” by Catherine S. Ramírez (Op-Ed, Feb. 26), about the government’s new policy “to deny permanent legal status to legal immigrants considered likely to become a public charge,” beautifully describes what many of us have been feeling. The administration’s changes to the “public charge” rule are abhorrent and antithetical to the America we experience living in New York.
Compounding the administration’s draconian changes to this rule is the crackdown on the refugees at our southern border, disproportionately high-poverty immigrants of color. Since its inception, the Trump administration has been working diligently to preserve an America that benefits only the white and wealthy.
Donald Trump, the son and grandson of immigrants, is not the first president to use the “public charge” provision to carry out an anti-immigrant agenda. President Herbert Hoover made changes to the same provision in the 1930s, with the intent of blocking the many Jews attempting to flee Europe. As a direct result, countless Jews were left with no viable path to America as Hitler rose to power.
We must call out such practices and demand that our country welcome all immigrants.
Ann Toback
New York
The writer is the chief executive of the Workers Circle (formerly Workmen’s Circle), a Jewish social justice nonprofit.
A New York Alligator Story
To the Editor:
Re “Gator Tales in the City: Are They Fact or Fiction?” (news article, Feb. 26):
Kudos for your bright compendium on the gators of New York. I submit an addition.
As an official in 2003 with the New York City Police Department, I witnessed N.Y.P.D. emergency service officers first sedate and then extract a fully grown Bengal tiger from a Harlem apartment.
The tiger, Ming, received all the attention. Al, a 5-foot-4 alligator, was carried, jaws taped, soon thereafter from the same apartment, to little acclaim.
Paul J. Browne
South Bend, Ind.
"Opinion" - Google News
March 03, 2020 at 03:32AM
https://ift.tt/3cjx1BL
#NeverBernie? The Pundit and the Blowback - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment