Related Articles
More from our inbox:
Deluged in PennsylvaniaSpeech on CampusThe Fight Against Malaria
To the Editor:
Re “If Trump Wins, Who, or What, Will Liberals Blame?,” by Bret Stephens (column, Oct. 23):
I can answer Mr. Stephens’s query about who or what liberals will blame should Donald Trump win the presidential election: John Q. Public.
Should Mr. Trump prevail, he will have captured the mood of a majority of American voters who countenance disparagement of “the other”; applaud vile language; laugh at lewd public remarks; support authoritarian and dictatorial policies; and no longer require character as a criterion for leadership.
We will have no one to blame other than ourselves.
Gregory J. StamosWoodbridge, Conn.
To the Editor:
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that’s it true, as Bret Stephens writes, that people are turned off by liberals’ condescension, name-calling, gaslighting, highhandedness, the politics of Pollyanna, and selective fidelity to norms and identity politics.
In that case, they might disapprove of describing people as stupid or mentally deficient; claiming that the economic success under Donald Trump was his doing and that the pandemic was successfully managed and that Jan. 6 was a peaceful rally; and suggesting that a particular religious identification is central to being a true American.
Mr. Stephens provides no reason to think that the factors he cites, which may apply to varying extents to elements within both parties, are more significant than the Electoral College, sexism and the other factors that he mentions at the outset, or the torrent of lies and fear-mongering about immigrants to which we’ve been subjected.
Richard FeldmanRochester, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Bret Stephens takes absurdity to new levels when he wags his finger at Democrats for “name calling” when you consider their opponent: the biggest school-bully, name-calling politician in the history of American politics, a.k.a. the Republican nominee. Donald Trump’s litany of insulting nicknames even has its own Wikipedia page.
As for Democrats (accurately) calling Mr. Trump fascist, they’re not the only ones. The Times reports that Mr. Trump’s own former chief of staff, John Kelly, says he meets the definition of fascist. Or, try talking to people, as I have recently, from countries that are actually recovering from the damage done by fascists — they know what one looks like firsthand.
Calling Mr. Trump a fascist is not an insult like “Sleepy Joe” or “Crazy Nancy.” It’s not a political ploy. It’s a stark fact and a warning for our nation.
Brian JansenSan Francisco
To the Editor:
I wish to thank Bret Stephens for his column about who and what liberals (namely, Democrats) should blame if Donald Trump defeats Kamala Harris to become our next president.
Question: Who or what should American conservatives blame should Donald Trump achieve electoral success?
Michael MercilColumbus, Ohio
To the Editor:
Bret Stephens made a moral and patriotic choice to vote for Kamala Harris and admit so publicly. His column shows clearly what a tremendously agonizing decision this is for him.
The contempt that Mr. Stephens holds for leading “liberal voices in government, academia and media” should not surprise me, but I was floored that he would be so reckless to voice it clearly and succinctly now, just before the election.
If he paid such a high emotional price to decide to vote for Ms. Harris, why on earth would he write a piece that could only push votes to Mr. Trump?
John MarchitellBerwyn, Pa.
Deluged in Pennsylvania
To the Editor:
Re “The Lies Piling Up in Philadelphia Mailboxes,” by David Firestone (The Point, Opinion, nytimes.com, Oct. 21):
I have been waiting for someone to address the volume of political advertisements that we Pennsylvania residents have been receiving this election cycle. It truly is unprecedented, to say the least!
Personally, I have been collecting and ripping up every mailer I get but not throwing them in the trash — so I can set them in my backyard fire pit and light them all on fire!
I plan to do this as soon as the final results of the elections are made available.
Christina HackneyPittsburgh
Speech on Campus
To the Editor:
Re “College Officials Must Condemn On-Campus Praise for Hamas Attacks,” by Erwin Chemerinsky (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 23):
We share Mr. Chemerinsky’s disgust at campus celebrations of “coldblooded murder and torture of innocent civilians” and agree that college administrators should denounce conduct that creates a hostile environment. The devil, however, is in the details.
In a questionable interpretation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Department of Education insists that even protected speech can contribute to a hostile environment. That approach has encouraged some colleges and universities to crack down on campus protests despite institutional commitments to free expression.
Mr. Chemerinsky’s approach risks making a bad situation worse. When students, for example, chant “from the river to the sea,” some hear calls for genocide against Jews, others legitimate criticism of Israel. Either way, such chants are protected by the First Amendment, at least at public universities.
Condemning such speech risks chilling campus discourse, inviting more demands to restrict speech, and stoking campus polarization.
While we agree that institutional values may sometimes force campus leaders to condemn incendiary speech, we believe they should do so only in exceptional circumstances, lest campuses cease to be forums for robust debate on controversial political issues.
David WippmanGlenn AltschulerMr. Wippman is president emeritus of Hamilton College. Dr. Altschuler is emeritus professor of American studies at Cornell University.
The Fight Against Malaria
To the Editor:
Re “As U.S. Fights Malaria in Africa, Russian Disinformation Stirs Dismay” (news article, Oct. 15):
It was chilling to read about the scale of a disinformation campaign targeting crucial public health programs in Africa.
As the article points out, malaria killed nearly 600,000 people in Africa in 2022. That number, while staggering, would be far greater without malaria programs like the U.S. President’s Malaria Initiative and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.
For example, in countries where the Global Fund invests, malaria deaths declined by 28 percent between 2002 and 2022. Without malaria control measures, deaths in those countries would have increased by an estimated 90 percent.
We cannot allow outright lies and propaganda to destroy two decades of progress on a disease that still takes way too many lives. Through investments in global health, the U.S. also projects diplomatic, reputational and security leadership.
The U.S. must remain a leader in the fight against malaria and make sure that these lifesaving programs not only continue, but are even scaled up to meet the challenges of this moment.
Chris CollinsEllicott City, Md.The writer is president and C.E.O. of Friends of the Global Fight Against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
<
