It’s not conservatism
Sunday’s editorial, “Just what is conservatism?” began with an astonishing premise. “A specter haunts American conservatives today: The need to choose between the populist appeal of a Ronald Reagan and that of more traditional conservative heroes like Washington or Lincoln … ”
Really? It’s commonly understood that liberals are more willing to embrace change whereas conservatives are more inclined to cling to the status quo. Was Washington, who fought to transform America from a British colony into a representative democracy, a conservative; and was King George III, who fought to keep the American people under the thumb of the monarchy, a liberal? Was Lincoln, who ended slavery, a conservative; and were his counterparts, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, who fought to preserve the institution of slavery, liberals? The answers to these questions appear to be self-evident.
I can understand why conservatives search for political heroes of their own political persuasion: It seems there are so few of them. Political heroes are mostly agents of change; men and women who endeavor to improve the condition of mankind by changing the existing order of things. I believe they are, by definition, almost always liberals.
I don’t understand how your editorial writers justify recasting Washington and Lincoln as traditional conservatives when it appears nothing could be further from the truth.
GENE BRAMBLETT
Camden
Testing is a good idea
I feel very strongly that everyone should support the state’s new program of screening and testing thousands of needy Arkansas families who receive state aid. Why? We know that massive drug abuse, frequently starting with children, is a horrible curse and scourge that causes untold crime, pain, misery and broken lives and families.
Consider the tremendous potential for early detection and treatment of drug abuse among thousands of fellow Arkansans. How does one measure, in terms of budget costs, the value of upgrading the quality of life for many citizens? Should this not be our highest priority?
I believe, and certainly hope, the state will administer this broad, sweeping program in an effective, fair, and unbiased manner regardless of race, color, or place of birth. Finally, I am OK with the use of my tax dollars and hope you are too. Kudos to the governor and legislators.
JACK MURPHY
Little Rock
Case for estate taxes
In his book, Capital in the 21st Century, Thomas Piketty presents data on the ratio of private capital to national income in the U.S. Presently, that ratio is over four to one. That means that if the average return on capital is 5 percent, the share of national income from return on capital is over 20 percent. In the future, we can expect the rate of return on capital to significantly exceed the growth of the economy.
That means, among other things, that inherited wealth can be expected to dominate wealth created from lifetimes of labor.
This situation certainly supports the continued use of estate taxes. Also, Piketty makes a strong case for a progressive tax on wealth. Such a tax, levied on perhaps the top 0.1 percent of the population, would supplement the federal income tax.
I do not expect federal legislators to enact a progressive tax on wealth. I believe they will talk a lot about tax reform, but will do little but continue to be soft on tax-dodgers and polluters while promoting massive military expenditures worldwide.
JOHN R. PIAZZA
Bethel Heights
A fresh Trump theory
As a retired person, I watch multiple news channels with rampant pundit theories on why Donald Trump, a non-conservative, is the front-runner for the Republican Party. I have a socially educated theory not discussed.
Many Southern states became red with the advent of the Religious Right movement several years ago. It became Christian to be Republican, largely due to anti-abortion ideology. It has recently expanded to anti-same-sex marriage and unregulated gun control. It is my theory that these once longtime Democrats became Republican for these reasons and did not fully buy into ideology of limited government, no social programs, etc.; they are not true or strident old-time conservatives. They have no religious-based answers as to why their party does not believe in government helping the poor, the old, the sick and the disabled.
In comes Trump. He holds on to the religious ideology of anti-abortion and anti-same-sex marriage (although not convincingly or sincerely) but advocates not touching Medicare and Social Security, and not letting sick people die in the streets. Trump is a rare breed and is immensely disliked by the old establishment for not being conservative. His followers do not strongly believe in trickle-down economics because it is, in many cases, working-class Americans who love him.
All of this makes the once-blue states accept the non-conservative Trump because they never bought into the old hard-line conservative doctrine anyway and were merely in the party because it was supposedly the Christian Party. I admit the Republicans were smart to pander on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and gun control, but their chickens have come home to roost. The Donald is a Republican who is truly his own party. It should be called “Make Me Great Again.”
FRANKIE SARVER
Hampton
Came to a conclusion
I have finished reading the Washington Post editorial board’s in-depth interview with Donald Trump, in the hopes of finding some clarity on Trump’s thinking about the issues that challenge our country.
At no time were his answers coherent. He frightens me all the more because he obviously has a very chaotic mind that rules out any hope of clear communication with other humans except on the visceral level.
I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Trump is as Gertrude Stein reportedly commented about Hollywood: “There is no there there.”
TOM CLARK
Fayetteville
Didn’t fly those jets
Mike Masterson’s column on inaccuracies appearing in the Washington Post about Harrison was good. However, I want to point out that his reference to Col. David Fitton was also inaccurate.
Unless Colonel Fitton flew for the Luftwaffe in World War II, he could not have flown as a jet pilot in that war flying numerous combat missions. Only the Luftwaffe had pilots that flew the ME-262, the first jet fighter airplane. The American Lockheed P-80 entered service in the closing phases of the war and was deployed to Europe, but arrived too late to see any combat.
LARRY HAUG
Fayetteville