Death of a party?

Someone can’t be a Republican and an ‘American’ today.  I realized in 2016 that Republicans would eventually have to choose: their party or their country.  An Elmer Gantry-type person had come along, realized Democrats, his former party, wouldn’t tolerate his blatantly crooked ways for a minute, and decided to attach himself, like a wood-tick, to the Republican Party.  He’s been sucking the life out of it ever since.  He turned it into a cult. The Republican Supreme Court sold out to the corporations, capitalists, and wealthy (CCW) with their 2010  “Citizens United” decision, allowing corporations to be “persons” (ridiculous!), and allowing unlimited and dirty, even foreign, money into our politics.  That would’ve been a perfect time to swing SCROTUS back liberal, but Republican Senator Mitch McConnell cheated in many ways to block that.  The Republican Party was now owned by the CCW, and money could buy our government. Republicans probably couldn’t get their party back now by choosing country over party.  Political parties do die off; it’s time for this one to do so.  Conservatives could help Democrats clean this mess, or they could organize a new conservative party. 

I realized the Republican Party was near death when it abandoned its platform of defending Ukraine in 2016 to suck up to donald trump (deliberately not capitalized), who was pursuing ‘deals’ in Russia. When we vote for a president, every voter is a member of the “board of directors” of our country, to hire a CEO for us.  Revenge now is the main platform of trump, and thus the Party cult.  Revenge isn’t going to cure any of our many problems, from climate, to wealth inequality, to CCW crapping on The People (deliberately capitalized).  And no, trump isn’t “taking it on the chin for you”.  His concern is himself. A. Martin     Merrifield, Minnesota

Historical head-scratcher

If this country till exists 100 years from now, the most-asked question by future historians will not be about how we reached a point where a former president was indicted for multiple crimes. The question will be how did such a terribly flawed, uniquely unfit man ever manage to get elected in the first place.   William L Scott    Soudan, Minnesota 

The Trials of Trump

The lies and psychological projection of the fascist MAGA cult are something to behold. The Grand Old Pity Party says that holding Cheeto Benito accountable for trying to overthrow our democracy is something that would only happen in a Banana Republic. But it was their coup attempt that was straight out of a Banana Republic. They say the indictments of The Orange Menace are timed to distract us from MAGA’s (so far) evidence-free attacks on Hunter Biden. But it is MAGA’s petty Hunter Biden bulls**t that is meant to distract us from the absolutely historic indictments serving to protect our democracy from an ongoing coup attempt. “False equivalencies” does not begin to describe MAGA’s pathetic attempts at propaganda, but high-quality lies are not needed when speaking to a brainwashed cult. Objective truth has been obliterated for a fraction of Americans, and that is always a goal of totalitarians. Only the words spoken by The Orange Jesus are legitimate, and all the precious institutions which make our democracy possible are presented as corrupt enemies to be done away with because they stand in the way of a Trump dictatorship, and hold him accountable for his crimes. These are happy, historic days for our democracy as Banana Republicans and their tinpot dictator face consequences for their evil actions. 

David A Sorensen. Duluth, Minnesota

I have always admired Phil Anderson’s refusals to accept the conventional aspects of warfare and patriotism, such as pointing out that very few of the wars we have engaged in have actually been based on ways to protect out nation’s freedom. However, in his “Destroying Ukraine to save it” article in the July 27, 2023 issue of Reader, he really fails to provide the reader with any positive plans that might truly change the role of of the US into an essential but not dominate participant in diplomacy. His article is full of rosy sounding generalities such as needing to forge “a diplomatic settlement that stops the killing and defuses tensions.”or when he quotes the Guardian’s advice that, “What is needed now more than ever, is a conception that goes beyond the narrow parameters of the battlefield...and seeks to overcome the old cold war east-west divide”or, the words of Stephen B Heinz who said, The US “must recognize that the efforts to maintain global US primacy are neither possible nor in our national interest. And that, humility and honesty are essential: We must engage with strategic empathy, "(transforming US leadership in an age of turbulence).” Excuse me, but all of these easily proposed solutions bring to mind the answers of a Miss America contestant when asked what she would do to bring about world peace. Anderson's platitudes are not as frivolous or glib as Miss America’s , but still, he provides no practical diplomatic path for engaging in negotiations with someone like Putin, who seems very much like Trump, in regard to his obsession about never losing.   I also think that Anderson is overly critical of the US when characterizing the war In Ukraine as a mere attempt to “engage in a proxy war in which the Ukrainian people and their soldiers are nothing but cannon fodder in a struggle for world Hegemony.” While its true that our self-conceived role as “the policemen of the world" involves large doses of self interest. Its also true that what inspired many Americans to support the brave efforts of Zelenski and the Ukrainian people was their heroic efforts to fight against the attacks of a corrupt Russian government. and an even more corrupt and heartless autocrat like Putin. Zelenski and his Ukrainian countrymen were expected to fold before the Russians like a bunch of paper tigers, but that is not what happened. Instead we have all been impressed by their constant courage. So it's hard to believe that our support for Ukraine is no more than just a cold and greedy attempt to benefit our own foolish self-interests?   Ever since Vietnam we have been forced to acknowledge that even a military behemoth like America is not always able to be easily victorious against those who are the clear aggressors in their attempts to supplant the rights of a Sovereign nations with autocratic greed. Are we always corrupt? Don't we ever represent the moral high ground when we fight the Taliban or Al Qaeda? Yes, perhaps we never should have engaged in such tedious struggles against oposing groups, but are our motives for doing so never more than just self serving? Isn't it about time for Russia to understand that it too cannot win in every conflict that it creates i.e. its defeat in Afghanistan decades ago, due to America's supportive role in providing RPGS to Afghan fighters?  America has been forced to eat humble pie on many occasions but does that mean we are really as evil and corrupt as Anderson implies? In any case, if we ever succeed in making diplomacy truly effective, it will require much more than general criticisms and diplomatic platitudes!  

Peter W. Johnson    Superior, Wisconsin