Fearful of Trump’s Autocratic Ambitions

To the Editor:

Re “Autocratic Tone Intensifies Fears of Trump’s Plans” (front page, Nov. 21):

I applaud former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and former Gov. John Kasich, both Republicans, for denouncing Donald Trump’s authoritarian language and ambitions.

It is incumbent on other prominent Republicans to renounce Mr. Trump and state that he is not fit to serve as president.

As stated in the article, a recent survey “found that 38 percent of Americans supported having a president ‘willing to break some rules’ to ‘set things right’ with the country. Among Republicans surveyed, 48 percent backed that view.”

This view is shocking. Republican leaders have a responsibility to educate voters and help change this perspective.

It is imperative that all Americans actively promote and support democracy against threats both foreign and domestic.

James H. Mills
Cumberland Center, Maine

To the Editor:

As frightening as it is to think of this man being elected again, we must also address this issue: Should Donald Trump not win, would he again try to overturn the results of the election and call on his supporters to storm the Capitol?

Can the country afford to go through this again? I think not.

Donald Trump is so unhinged and delusional that nothing would stop him from denying the election results once again and trying to stop Congress from certifying the results. This issue should be front and center as one of too-many-to-count reasons that this man should be stopped!

Robin Kroopnick
Branford, Conn.

To the Editor:

Re “The Roots of Trump’s Rage,” by Thomas B. Edsall (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Nov. 22):

What’s the point of analyzing Donald Trump’s psyche to find out why he seethes with hate? It’s far more important to understand just why that hate finds ready purchase among such a large swath of the electorate.

According to a CNN poll taken in July, nearly 70 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe the blatant lie that Mr. Trump won the 2020 election. We have no reason to suspect that this figure has diminished significantly since then.

But why is that? We do not live in a totalitarian state — at least, not yet. No one is forcing these voters to accept that lie or watch it amplified on Fox News. They freely choose to do so.

Like all cunning demagogues, Mr. Trump mirrors and mobilizes the latent hatred in his die-hard supporters, who view his many character defects as virtues. Without them, he would be nothing. There lie the real roots of his rage.

Bryan L. Tucker
Boston

Pro-Palestinian Students on Campus

To the Editor:

Re “Inside the Group Protesting for Palestine Across College Campuses” (news article, Nov. 22):

Brandeis, Columbia and George Washington University are missing a valuable teaching opportunity by banning or suspending Students for Justice in Palestine.

They would be better served by inviting representatives from the organization to meet with representatives from pro-Israel and other student groups to work together brainstorming solutions. The forums would include professors and other professionals with valuable expertise. It would be guided by mediators.

The goal would be to work on solutions instead of demands. Although the forums would have little immediate influence, they would teach and publicize alternatives to the extreme partisanship so prevalent today.

Fox News and extremist Republicans are using pro-Palestinian student demonstrations to slant popular opinion against protesting students and liberal institutions while setting examples themselves in vitriol and extreme partisanship.

As a counterweight, universities need to reaffirm their role of preparing students to be honest, open-minded and thoughtful leaders. It’s time to elevate the teaching of mediation both in our colleges and our high schools.

Compromise and working together despite differences are key to successful democracies, and vesting students with responsibilities tends to make them more responsible.

John Pappenheimer
Hadley, Mass.

To the Editor:

Of course, the tactics of Students for Justice in Palestine “can provoke discomfort” on college campuses. So what? Although some S.J.P. tactics, such as impeding student access to classes, are unacceptable, discomfort is inevitable in institutions dedicated to the free exchange of ideas.

Felicia Nimue Ackerman
Providence, R.I.
The writer is a professor of philosophy at Brown University.

Mideast Myths

To the Editor:

Re “Three Myths of the Middle East,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, Nov. 16):

It is ironic that in his attempt to dispel myths of the Middle East, Mr. Kristof addresses the lack of a Palestinian state without mentioning that the Palestinians have rebuffed generous offers of statehood and refused to enter negotiations with Israel on even more occasions.

In his omission, he propels the myth that Palestinians are mere victims who never had any opportunities to have a state. They cannot continue to refuse to negotiate and accept these offers and still complain about being stateless.

Mark Misener
New York

When a Case Is Closed, Let the Target Know

To the Editor:

Re “The Legal Double Standard That’s Rarely Discussed,” by Preet Bharara (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 19):

Mr. Bharara is correct that prosecutors should provide notice to the subjects or targets of a criminal investigation that the government has decided not to file charges. The American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Standards for Prosecutorial Investigations state that “to the extent practicable, the prosecutor should, upon request, provide notice of termination of the investigation to subjects who became aware of the investigation.”

As the former head of a criminal litigating section at the Justice Department, and in private practice, I have given and received such “declination letters.”

The A.B.A. standards could become part of the Justice Manual that guides all federal prosecutors. As Mr. Bharara observes, all those involved in the justice system, “prosecutors, the public and those being investigated,” would benefit from this small bit of grace by the government.

Steven P. Solow
Washington

Charles Peters and Neoliberalism

To the Editor:

Re “Charles Peters, Founder of The Washington Monthly, Is Dead at 96” (obituary, Nov. 25):

Though the obituary was generous and informative, it should have explained to readers that Mr. Peters’s use of the term “neoliberalism” to describe the magazine’s political philosophy in the early 1980s was nearly the opposite of what that word would later come to mean.

Neoliberalism today connotes market fundamentalism — the belief that government intervention in the economy is largely counterproductive and antithetical to growth and prosperity. Mr. Peters, by contrast, vigorously defended tough regulation of corporate behavior and other actions by government aimed at giving average Americans a leg up economically.

While he was certainly — indeed famously — critical of some aspects of traditional liberalism, he was no libertarian but, rather, a die-hard F.D.R. Democrat.

Paul Glastris
Washington
The writer is editor in chief of The Washington Monthly.