To the Editor:
A majority of the American electorate has seen fit to elect an immoral, untruthful, misogynistic, inept narcissist to the highest office in the land. The consequences of their decision are uncertain, but given Trump’s character and stated intentions, the portents are not good. How did most voters come to the decision to elect such a flawed candidate? Pundits have already peppered the airwaves and internet with their theories, but the issues are complex and intertwined and will be debated endlessly. Two factors, however, stand out: the positions of both political parties and beliefs of the electorate.
Aside from a few courageous individuals, the Republican Party did not oppose even the most egregious and dangerous actions of Trump. The Party had several opportunities to eliminate Trump as a political factor but failed to do so. The best opportunity came with Trump’s impeachment following the January 6th insurrection. Although several prominent Republican senators had denounced Trump’s instigation of the insurrection, only seven voted to impeach, not enough to reach the two thirds majority necessary for conviction. Had Trump been successfully convicted, his political influence would have ended. Moreover, whether out of blind loyalty or fear, Republican officeholders consistently supported Trump’s litany of lies, reinforcing his position as party leader and contributing to the sea of Republican misinformation. In their support of Trump, Republican officials consistently chose party over country and Constitution. Their cowardice and mendacity contributed to Trump’s victory.
The Democratic Party also bears responsibility for their election failure. For much of their history, Democrats had been champions for the working class, and labor had become a pillar of their support. The Clinton administration, recognizing the importance of the growing knowledge economy began to shift focus from the working class to educated elites. Unions were bleeding membership and less educated factory workers were being replaced by a new class of knowledge worker who Democrats believed would become a new source of political power. Blue collar workers felt abandoned and disrespected as Democrats supported global free trade pacts and the offshoring of labor-intensive jobs. By 2024, after decades of ignoring the needs of the working class, their loyalties had shifted away from Democratic candidates. Trump’s victory proved that Republicans had become the party of the working class while Democrats were now firmly associated with educated elites. The reversal was aggravated by Democratic Progressives who promoted divisive identity-focused ideologies. “Woke” advocates converted distorted beliefs derived from bankrupt postmodern ideology into DEI practices that demonized white people, especially white men as exploiters and oppressors. It should come as no surprise that working class white men overwhelmingly turned out for Trump.
Despite the factors discussed above, the fundamental reason for the election failure rests with the majority of voters who translated their resentments, biases, and ignorance into the election of an obviously unfit candidate. The flood of egregious lies and distortions flowing from Trump and his associates should have disqualified him in the eyes of any informed person. Trump voters, however, lacked both the information and critical thinking skills necessary to evaluate his candidacy. Firmly ensconced in media echo chambers that reinforced their biases, Trump voters could not separate their sentiment from evidence. They became a tribe, blindly supporting MAGA ideology. This was the case for the resentful working class as well as Evangelicals who had entered a Faustian bargain with Trump that betrayed the core of their moral beliefs. Another bloc of Trump voters who believed that Trump would be a better steward of the economy demonstrated their ignorance of basic economics, blaming Harris for high prices for no good reason while accepting ridiculous Trump claims that he would immediately bring down prices and replace taxes with tariffs.
In a famous observation of democracy in America, political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the dangers to democracy when citizens lacked sufficient education and knowledge to evaluate the claims of public figures. He warned that ignorance could lead to the ascendance of demagogues and the erosion of democratic principles. When voters lack the ability to think critically, they become susceptible to manipulation and misinformation. These warnings seem prescient today. American voters have forgotten Tocqueville’s warnings and elected an inept populist demagogue. The next four years will decide if our constitutional safeguards are sufficient to ensure the survival of American democracy.
Robert D. Russell, Ph.D.
Harrisburg, Pa.
Robert:
Well put.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Actual Good News: Climate Progress!
To Seacoast Anti-Pollution League [SAPL] Board and Friends:
This past Tuesday, federal officials at BOEM [the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management] held the first offshore wind lease auction for the Gulf of Maine, leasing four areas of almost a half-million acres total, and netting $22 million (plus rent from lease holders) for the federal treasury.
If fully developed, these areas will be able to generate about six gigawatts of power, about five Seabrook plants worth, and more capacity than New Hampshire and Maine together currently use at “peak” power demand. It will still be 7-10 years before potential wind farms are completed, and BOEM intends to hold another lease auction for the region in 2028, but we’re off to a good start!
See the BOEM website for more details: https://www.boem.gov/…/state-activities/maine/gulf-maine.
For those on Facebook, a similar post went up on the SAPL page today, so please “like” it and add your comments so it can get more attention. https://www.facebook.com/saplNH.
Given these developments, we hope our new governor-elect would reconsider her “all of the above except offshore wind” approach to future energy development—since letting our neighbors take advantage of the huge potential the Gulf of Maine wind resource has to offer while we continue to rely on unsafe, unsustainable sources makes no sense at all.
Doug Bogen
Barrington, N.H.
Doug:
Thanks for letting us run this. We don’t often get to spread good news
The Editor
–=≈=–
This Is Not OK
Dear Editor,
Four days before the Main Event, W.D.Erhart, a man after my own heart, questions in his most recent post why millions of our fellow citizens “gobble up his garbage as if they were starving survivors on a desert island,” referring to the one whose name I refuse to speak, type, watch or listen to. Millions of us join with the good professor in asking ourselves the same question. After months of wrangling over this in his mind, one has come to the conclusion that quite simply the starving survivors are off-the-rails nuts. They have lost their minds. Completely bonkers. There is no way on God’s green earth you can justify voting for a convicted felon, a congenital liar completely devoid of empathy, sociopathic, stupid, borderline demented, possessing not even a shred of human decency and dangerous to literally every creature on the planet.
Too much? Consider the military might and nuclear arsenal at his disposal once he’s back in power. You certainly can’t chalk up this inexplicable support to a lack of knowledge or awareness of who he really is. He’s been rammed down our throats and up our rear ends for the past 10 years, 24/7/365, by a complicit media greedily slurping up the enormous profits he generates for them.
By the next edition of this esteemed paper, we should have a pretty good idea of who the Next Occupant is, or be facing a tsunami of threats, conspiracies, refusals to certify, stupid frivolous lawsuits, street violence, lies, lies, and more lies, lies stacked upon an Everest of lies, or all-out civil war.
God willing, we’ll be spared most of this. But if the Almighty saw fit to intervene any time in the next few days, we’d be spared all of it.
John C. Ficor
Richmond, Va.
John:
Well, our deus ex machina failed to show up. No more chickens on His altar.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Flag Police Alert
To the Editor:
Desecrating the American flag with Trump’s image is unpatriotic
The pride and patriotism associated with the American flag is beautifully captured in the iconic image of six U.S. Marines raising the flag on the island of Iwo Jima during World War II. The image is also significant as three of the brave Marines went on to lose their lives in the battle. The bravery of the Marines was honored by a grateful nation in the Marine Corps War Memorial in Virginia; dedicated to all Marines who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation.
Tragically, for the last nine years, our nation’s beautiful symbol has been misappropriated. Ridiculous cartoonish drawings of Trump looking like Rambo are regularly printed on the American flag.
A sense of decency should stop people from desecrating the American flag with pictures of Trump. As that didn’t stop the Trump campaign and the supporters, we should remind them of federal codes specifying how the flag should be treated as a symbol of respect and patriotism.
From the United States Flag Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, under Respect for Flag:
“The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”
In other words, a picture of Trump on the American flag is a sign of disrespect!
No pictures on the flag.
No signatures on the flag.
No campaign slogans on the flag.
None of these are acceptable on the American flag.
Desecrating the American flag is wrong, it’s disrespectful, and it’s unpatriotic.
Karishma Manzur, PhD
Exeter, N.H.
Karishma:
Trump says he’s above the law. The court and his cult of followers agree. You see through that, and so do we.
The Editor
–=≈=–
A Time For Remembering Thomas Paine
Dear Editor:
I have been trying to find the appropriate words to describe my utter grief and despair regarding the election. While I am not totally surprised by the results, I did maintain a spark of faith and hope that Americans would not so carelessly and recklessly abandon their responsibility to save what so many had sacrificed so much for so long to maintain and nurture. Unfortunately that spark of hope and trust has been extinguished.
For those of us who tried to prevent the coming catastrophe, there is little joy in knowing that those who brought this on will themselves, along with their friends and families, suffer the same fate as the rest of us. While they may celebrate their hollow victory today, their joy will be short lived. They will suffer the same economic, social, health, political and emotional consequences of allowing Trump and his cult to regain power. They will learn that while it is very easy to destroy something that has stood for more than 240 years, it will be much harder or even impossible to rebuild it. It takes very little skill, wisdom or intellect to destroy something, but building something of value and beauty requires all those traits and more.
Although I feel total despair today, I vow to not to go quietly into the night. I owe it to my oath as a retired military officer to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic as well as to my children and grandchildren to continue to do whatever I can lawfully do to resist and fight for democracy and their future. I know that millions of patriotic Americans like me will also resist this disaster by speaking out, attending peaceful protest rallies, contributing to politicians who are trying to save the Republic, voting, and recruiting others to join in the fight. We have no other choice. As Thomas Paine said, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he who stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” We cannot behave now like “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot.” It is our sacred duty not to shrink from the service to our country in the face of the coming forces of destruction.
Rich DiPentima, LTC, USAF, (Ret.)
Portsmouth, N.H.
–=≈=–
Legacy Policy Threatens Harvard’s Legacy
To the Editor:
Harvard University, once a symbol of academic excellence, is now facing a multifaceted decline that threatens its prestigious reputation. The university has seen a 15 percent drop in applications over the past two years, as prospective students increasingly prefer institutions like Stanford and MIT for their vibrant cultures and innovative programs.
Compounding this issue is the scrutiny of Harvard’s legacy admissions policy, which favors legacy applicants at a rate eight times higher than non-legacies. Critics argue this practice perpetuates elitism and undermines meritocracy, leading to disillusionment among potential applicants and alumni.
Campus unrest has escalated, fueled by protests over the administration’s handling of free speech and antisemitism. The resignation of Dr. Claudine Gay, Harvard’s first Black president, amid controversies regarding academic plagiarism, as well as her non-response to rising antisemitism, has further unsettled the university.
Financially, Harvard is struggling, with declining investment returns and diminishing alumni support, particularly regarding the administration’s approach to sensitive issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict. Additionally, deteriorating facilities and insufficient mental health resources have raised concerns among students.
To navigate these challenges, Harvard must embrace reform, prioritize community voices, and adapt to the evolving landscape of higher education. Without significant changes, the university risks losing its esteemed legacy and place at the forefront of academia.
John B. Hoffman
N.Y., N.Y.
Founder, Oliver Scholars, a college access program in NYC placing 1500+ black and Latino students from low-income families into leading private schools and colleges, including 50+ at Harvard. (646) 595-6253; oliverscholars.org.
John:
Legacy admission policies survive at prestigious universities, and yet we live in a classless society. What a curious paradox.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Meanness, Through Rose-Colored Glasses
To the Editor:
May we never again see a campaign like this one, with the party’s leader so mean, rude, crude, selfishly motivated. The day after voting, I’ve been behind a truck with a “F* * * Kamala” bumper sticker. As I write, I saw today, on a car’s backside, “My Dog Is Smarter Than Kamala” and (celebrating!) “Mean Tweets—2024”
But he won. He’s a felon, and has been impeached twice, and the majority wanted him. If it happens that food prices now come down, I’ll consider figuring that the CEOs of big companies, who personally gained with Trump’s massive tax cut for the wealthy, calculated this. Get Trump as President (again), and regulations will be fewer, tax cuts for the wealthy greater. Deal, by cutting food prices. Gas and energy costs may mimic this situation too. If he also makes a deal now with Netanyahu, to end the murderous warring on Palestinians and Lebanese, I’ll think that, like corporations rewarded for helping Trump, Netanyahu gets a favor too.
Let’s see what happens. A hopeful scenario would be aged-body Trump ending as all aged bodies do, VP Vance becomes President. With three young children and an intelligent wife, he may prioritize care for our Constitution and care for our planet’s health—both interweaving with their children’s futures. He has the benefit of a superb education and a discerning vocabulary. Aren’t I the optimist!
Lynn Rudmin Chong
Sanbornton, N.H.
Lynn:
Yes, you certainly are.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Let’s Knock That Job Down a Peg
Dear Editor,
America approached the 2024 election like there were only two choices for the future of the country. Those two choices were two individual personalities championing the policies of two different political parties.
There actually was and is a third choice. It may not have been on the ballot, but it is within the power of the electorate to get busy working on it at any moment. That third choice involves not “What is our leader going to do,” but “What am I going to do.” It’s a little bit like President John F. Kennedy’s famous statement, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
The third choice is something that neither party or candidate devoted any breath or resources to bringing up to the electorate as an option. In brief, that choice is to get back to doing democracy the way our constitutional law requires democracy to be done.
That document doesn’t say a word about social or economic policies like abortion or border control or grocery and gas prices, or energy development, or health care, or education, or technology, or crime and punishment. What it talks about is the ground rules for how the people of this country are supposed to actually pull off democracy. It is all about process, not policy. If the people go through the proper democratic process, i.e., how they themselves are required to make the laws, then the policy by definition will be deemed good and representative and wise, because everybody had their say. That process is violated almost wholesale by both major political parties in America today. And that is why America was destined to lose this election no matter which political party won the vote.
The Constitution says it is the Congress that makes “all laws” coming out of Washington D.C. Presidents of both political parties have veered heavily toward one man/woman making more and more of those laws, leaving the people’s representatives in the dust, and leaving rule of law in the dust.
The people figure the President is elected by all of the people, so what is the problem with the President proposing and pushing hard for all the laws and even decreeing a bunch of them, if the person is duly elected? The problem is, having one person propose and push all the laws and also make a bunch of them on his/her own puts too much power into one person’s hands. That is not how laws were made in this country when America was rising to pre-eminence in the world.
For a long time in our nation’s democracy, the President did not even let his views on a particular policy be known to the public, because he wanted to honor the constitutional process of the Congress making all the laws. His job, as the word “executive” suggests, was merely to execute the will of the Congress, not to compete with it or supplant it.
What if the one person making the laws turns out to be corrupt, or power-crazy, or lopsided in a particular policy area. The Congress can hammer out all the various views and build a coalition around each piece of legislation that considers the views of all the people in all the localities across the entire country. The President primarily represents the state he comes from and the donors who helped him get elected. He and his donors may have all kinds of blind spots that interfere with a proper, moderating position on issues.
When the Congress makes “all laws” that means tens of thousands of donors and dozens of different positions are carefully weighed and debated. When the President makes a law, one cigar-smoking donor representing one industry or company says to him, “Buddy, let’s do it this way. Everything will be just fine if we do.” Or one unelected adviser says to him, “Pal, let’s punish those people who didn’t vote for us. Let’s make a law that destroys their livelihoods, their desired policies, and hurts them and their families personally.” It is much harder for the Congress to take this kind of retribution on individuals than it is for one vengeance-minded President.
Kimball Shinkoskey
Woods Cross, Utah
Mr. Shinkoskey is the author of The American Kings: Growth in Presidential Power from George Washington to Barack Obama. (2014)
–=≈=–
End the Deadly Delays on I-95
Dear Editor:
Today, Seacoastonline.com reported that the NHDOT “will install more roadside reflective markers between exits 2 and 3 of I-95 concentrating on the area where the recent crashes have taken place.” They also reported that median guardrails will be added to parts of I-95 beginning in the summer of 2025. While I am pleased that the State is finally taking some action this is much too little and much too late. Adding more reflective markers will do little or nothing to prevent more median crossovers. When a driver loses control of their vehicle due to excessive speed, distraction and or impairment those reflective markers will be useless. Waiting to install median guardrails until next summer means at least another seven months of many totally unprotected medians on I-95. This action is way too late for those victims and their families who have been injured or killed, and it will be too late for those who may be injured or killed waiting for the NHDOT to begin to install median guardrails next summer.
The most basic responsibility of the government is to protect the health and safety of the people it serves. The State of New Hampshire has failed to meet this most basic governmental duty. In the face of so many preventable injuries and deaths for which a very effective solution is available to the State there is no excuse to have waited 12 years to do anything, and to wait an additional seven months to take some effective action. Massachusetts has installed effective median barriers on the same highway that exists in N.H. They have already demonstrated how this can be done. New Hampshire simply needs to do what they have done. While the State has limited control over reckless driver behavior, it does have a great deal of control when it comes to taking preventive actions like installing median barriers to prevent injuries and deaths.
In the future I hope to learn more about why the State has delayed for so long in protecting motorists on I-95. I have submitted a Freedom of Information request under RSA 91-A to the NHDOT requesting all pertinent documentation and communications regarding the issue of median barriers on I-95. I am currently in discussions with the NHDOT to expedite this request. We must hold the government accountable when they fail to live up to their most sacred obligation.
Rich DiPentima
Portsmouth, N.H.