Readers Write: ‘Violent populism,’ the budget bill, Iran

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Academic cover for those who want to admire assassins. That’s the tone of the June 23 article “Shootings studied as ‘violent populism.’” Instead of exploring how someone rapidly devolves from self-appointed messiah to creepy loser, we read regurgitations of so-called violent populists’ rationalizations for murdering their targets.

We need a different label for people like this. I propose “radicalized American individualists.” They’re not like populists of the past who harnessed the force of political, economic and social systems to make life better for the poor and powerless. Rather, today’s versions have deceived themselves into viewing their violent intentions as a public struggle for justice instead of a private vendetta motivated by an exaggerated sense of grievance. They place themselves above the law, above the Constitution, above God. Let’s not reward their idolatry by making idols out of them.

Luke Walbert, St. Paul

•••

There have been a couple of pieces in the Strib Voices section recently about the special election to fill Rep. Melissa Hortman’s seat and how the Republicans should not, out of respect for Hortman, run any candidate. As a lifelong Democrat, I have to say this is one of the worst political ideas — and recently there have been plenty — I have heard. I did not know Hortman personally, but in watching her over the past years I think she believed wholeheartedly in the political process of fair elections. I say to Republicans and Democrats: Please put up your strongest opponents. This will truly respect her work and legacy.

Bruce Lemke, Orono

•••

As a response to toxic behavior in pro hockey, the NHL has for many years annually awarded the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy to the “player adjudged to have exhibited the best type of sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct combined with a high standard of playing ability.” Perhaps our state Legislature could do something similar with a Melissa Hortman Memorial Trophy. Legislators would do well to remember and model her competence and grace in a competitive environment that’s perhaps even more consequential than pro hockey.

Dan McInerny, Victoria, Minn.

•••

Sophie and Colin Hortman, the adult children of Mark and Melissa Hortman, invited us to consider seven ways to honor their parents. The list included: tree planting, petting a dog and standing up for what you believe in, especially if that thing is justice and peace. In the midst of the horrible tragedy, this item on the list was the saddest of all: “Tell your loved ones a cheesy dad joke and laugh about it.” That’s a model of good family relationships and a happy parenting style. What a loss for Sophie and Colin, and for us all. Here’s a cheesy one to encourage a laugh (and groan): What did the tie say to the hat? You go on a head, I’ll just hang around.

Marilyn Rossmann, St. Paul

I had my interest aroused surrounding all the discussion about the current budget bill in Washington. A lot of rhetoric and finger-pointing has been going on regarding the other party’s “failures” and their own “successes” and who is the more fiscally responsible. My research has me believing that neither party can claim to be fiscally responsible. Over the past 44 years the office of president has been held by a Republican for 24 years and a Democrat for 20 years. In that time during the GOP years, approximately $14.8 trillion was added to the debt. During the Democratic years approximately $17.3 trillion was added to the debt. That’s over $32 trillion of our $36.2 trillion debt.

I realize that more research could alter these numbers a little bit, but I believe arguing about a trillion here or there will not change the main point. Neither party has been able to show fiscal responsibility, and we are placing a huge burden on future generations. We cannot only cut our spending or only increase revenue to get out of this downward spiral. We need to do both if we want to be fiscally responsible.

Michael Lavin, Minneapolis

Several nights ago on TV, Christiane Amanpour interviewed John Kerry, former secretary of state under Obama, regarding the bunker-buster bomb strike against Iran. Kerry was responsible for the previous anti-nuclear-development treaty with Iran, which involved regular inspection of Iran’s nuclear program and which was unfortunately terminated by Trump in his first term. Kerry made clear what a disaster Trump’s action was: The treaty was working well at the time, with good compliance from Iran, and when it was terminated, Iran began an aggressive nuclear development program with many uranium enrichment centrifuges operating at Fordo and other sites. Trump declared that the bomb strike had “obliterated” the Iran nuclear bomb program. More recent information from experts in the government has cast doubt on this claim.

Clearly the best approach at this point would be to reinstate the independent inspection and verification aspect. Iran right now is in a very weak position to resist this. But it is likely that Trump will reinstate such a program? This would amount to admitting that his termination of the Kerry-Obama treaty was a bad, very bad, idea, since it led to the crisis that caused Israel to attack the Iran nuclear sites about two weeks ago. Trump will resist all attempts to concede that what he did in his first term was a serious mistake. Admitting mistakes is not his strong suit. But ruling out an inspection-and-verification program will inevitably lead to redevelopment, probably at even deeper secret sites than Fordo, of Iran’s atomic weapons program. This means development of an even more vicious program, with perhaps a few months or two years of delay. Kerry was clearly against this, as we all should be.

John Connett, Roseville

•••

Some recent letters to the editor have claimed in various ways that Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden “gave billions” to Iran. This is a blatant misstatement of the facts. A multinational agreement (formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), which the U.S. was a part of, released assets to Iran that had been frozen through imposed sanctions. These funds were not paid by American taxpayers. The assets were held largely in foreign banks and the money that was unfrozen belonged to Iran. It had only been made inaccessible by sanctions aimed at crippling the country’s nuclear program.

Stephen Bennett, Golden Valley

•••

Most Americans, whether they agree with it or consider it important, are familiar with the fact that the U.S. Constitution assigns the power to declare war to Congress and not to the president. But do they understand why? Was it a random call? Did someone slip this in and most of the ratifiers of the Constitution failed to read it carefully?

No, their intent was clear and well thought-through. The founding fathers were keenly aware of war, especially European wars, which had haunted their homelands at least since the collapse of the Roman Empire. They knew it was they who fought the wars and suffered the physical and economic consequences; they knew that it was exclusively monarchs and royalty who claimed the “spoils of war,” if there even were any, and they understood that it was exclusively the latter who started wars, often based on petty grievances of no significance to those who fought these wars.

The framers of the Constitution were sick of being dragged into unnecessary, expensive and unwinnable wars. And they thought, right or wrong, that Congress would exercise better judgment.

John K. Trepp, Minneapolis