The Republican Alternatives to Trump

To the Editor:

Re “If You’re Going to Win the Nomination, Here’s Step 1,” by Kristen Soltis Anderson (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 8):

Ms. Anderson says that many Republicans are open to opponents of Donald Trump who can articulate a new direction for the party, but that those candidates are running out of time to make their case.

Ms. Anderson mentions the former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley as a viable alternative to Mr. Trump. But in terms of good fiscal governance and foreign policy, I believe that Ms. Haley is even more misguided than Mr. Trump.

For example, she has recommended ending the federal gas tax, enacting a new middle-class tax cut and extending the 2017 Trump administration tax cut. While such policies might attract some voters to Ms. Haley, they would greatly diminish the revenue needed to pay for essential services, not to mention blowing up the national debt.

As for international affairs, she has recommended sending special forces to “take out the cartels” in Mexico. Imagine how Mexico and other countries might react to such an invasion.

Serious Republicans don’t need to look far to find a better presidential candidate than Ms. Haley.

Eric Murchison
Vienna, Va.

To the Editor:

Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and the other G.O.P. candidates must know that the most likely path to a nomination for them is if Donald Trump is convicted or forced to drop out of the race. In that scenario, many Republican voters are likely to be very angry, and they will rally behind the candidate who can most compellingly channel their indignation. Anyone who has been seen as significantly anti-Trump will be out of the running.

It is strategically savvy of them not to level any direct harsh criticism at Mr. Trump. If the time comes that Mr. Trump is forced out of the race, the last thing his competitors will do in that situation is suggest that the charges against him are anything other than politically motivated.

William Sherman
Huntington, N.Y.

To the Editor:

This guest essay suggested that the candidates explain why they are running against Donald Trump, which in fact was one of the questions asked during Wednesday’s debate. Perhaps the reason they have not yet done so convincingly is that they are not running “against” Mr. Trump.

Several of them are likely running for vice president, and that would preclude discussing their differences.

Carolyn Bross
Bloomingdale, N.J.

Whatever Happened to Civil Presidential Debates?

To the Editor:

Re “From Substance to Shouting: The Demise of Political Debate in America” (Opinion video, nytimes.com, Nov. 7):

Our view of politics has shifted dramatically from the days when presidential debates were respectful discussions of platforms and ideologies. I am a high school junior, and my classmates and I are worried about the future of the American presidency.

Presidential debates, once characterized by thoughtful discussions, have transformed into heated contests where candidates pick one another apart in hopes of winning a few more percentage points. Genuine discourse is rare, and recap videos showcase the biggest insults or the funniest moments.

How does it affect our country’s future when presidential candidates can’t engage in respectful discussion? What does it mean for American society when our ideology divides us completely? A president’s priority should be to represent the people and work toward the betterment of our nation. We cannot afford to lower this standard.

As the future generation of voters and leaders, it falls on us young people to advocate a return to civil and meaningful discussion in our political debates. The strength of our democracy depends on it, and young voices need to be part of the solution.

Maia Dietz
San Jose, Calif.

Questions for Hamas

To the Editor:

Re “Hamas’s Goal for Oct. 7: A Permanent State of War; Group’s Leaders Say Carnage Was Needed to Restore Focus on Palestinians” (front page, Nov. 9):

After reading your interviews with Hamas leaders, one wonders:

1. Are the Palestinian citizens of Gaza OK with a permanent state of war?

2. Where is that permanent state of war supposed to lead?

3. What cause was “slipping away”? Certainly not peace or a two-state solution; so what is left?

4. If the cause and the policy of permanent war mean the destruction of Israel, are all those chanting “Free Palestine” or “From the river to the sea” supportive of that?

Scott Benarde
West Palm Beach, Fla.

Questions for Israel

To the Editor:

Israel’s stated war objective, repeated often by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is to “destroy Hamas.” Hamas is a movement, a political-military organization with the backing of Iran and other entities.

Might one ask what exactly does “destroy Hamas” look like? Is it every member of Hamas surrendering, or is it the death of the leadership, much of which does not even live in Gaza? How does one measure success when the stated aim is impossible to measure, let alone manage?

I think that if we are paying for the arming of Israel — and make no mistake, we are — we are entitled to a straight answer.

Geoffrey D. Batrouney
Rye Brook, N.Y.

Advice for These Fraught Times

To the Editor:

Re “How to Stay Sane in Brutalizing Times,” by David Brooks (column, Nov. 5):

What amazing advice from Mr. Brooks on how people can stay sane in these perilous times. His emphasis on humility, prudence and caution is inspiring. I would add just one thing: self-compassion. Today public leaders need to be kind to themselves for the nearly impossible jobs they are often called on to do.

Jerome T. Murphy
Cambridge, Mass.
The writer is a retired Harvard professor and dean who taught courses on leadership.

To the Editor:

David Brooks reaches back thousands of years, integrating diverse cultures and quoting appropriate phrases from several authors, to emphasize the vast depth of his subject matter. Yet after all that, he does not cite the one that summarizes the entire concept: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

Mary Ann McGinley
Wilmette, Ill.

Antipsychotic Drugs and Weight Gain

To the Editor:

Re “Psychiatric Drugs Add Pounds. Some See Solution in Ozempic” (front page, Nov. 6):

Like other clinical psychiatrists, I use a simple, low-tech solution for my patients who gain weight on their antipsychotic drugs. In consultation with our patients, we find another antipsychotic, one that doesn’t cause weight gain. There are many to choose from.

Together with our patients, we look for the most effective drug with the least side effects, at the lowest possible dose. To be on the safe side, we weigh our patients at each visit to guard against weight gain.

Of course, this requires continuing follow-up visits with our patients, to form a trusting relationship and a common goal of healing. But with a new patient it’s essential to provide such close attention.

Some might object that such frequent office visits for follow-up care are too expensive. But compared with the monthly cost of Ozempic, good care is a bargain.

Alice Feller
Berkeley, Calif.