Nation's greatest risk
Exactly 75 years ago this week, my ship, the USS Meade, a destroyer returning home from World War II fighting in the Pacific, sailed into San Diego. We were welcomed with crowds of people, cheering and waving flags, with bands playing.
I vividly remember how together and unified people had become while surviving the hardships of the war in order to save our country and democracy. Visualize frequently experiencing horrible war news; living through severe rationing of gasoline, tires, sugar, coffee, etc.; working 10-12 hours a day, whether on a farm, in a manufacturing plant building airplanes, jeeps, tanks, etc., or in a shipyard building landing crafts, submarines or battleships.
Contrast that love of country, that togetherness, that unity with the alarming disloyalty, the hatred and extreme divisiveness among our citizens and government today. Why? How, in this bountiful land of freedom and plenty have we allowed this to happen? How do we correct an almost dysfunctional Congress that may grow worse in 2021?
Finally, do our fellow citizens ever think that the greatest risk to our great country may lie within?
JACK MURPHY
Little Rock
Opposition not enemy
I watched a tennis tournament in London this past weekend. Two great tennis talents battled for hours to win a coveted major tournament. After a hard-fought battle, the two players met at the net, shook hands and patted each other on the back. They recognized each other as opponents, but not as enemies.
In light of the U.S. government shutdown that has been caused by the partisan conflict between Democrats and an in-fighting Republican Party, it's hard to imagine a time in Washington's history when there was productive peace. How can two fiercely opposed sides of American government possibly thrive by meeting in the middle and achieving long-lasting legislative results for the American people?
To find the answer, all one has to do is study the relationship between Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. Although the pair faced off in numerous battles on Capitol Hill, they also shared a strong admiration and respect for one another that evolved into a friendship. In spite of fierce battles on major issues, they treated each other with respect. Ronald Reagan once said that they were friends "after 6 o'clock."
President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich worked together to restore the economy, and they did pass major reforms. No, they weren't best friends. But there was a substantial ability to compromise.
Donald Trump classifies anyone who disagrees with him as an enemy to be reckoned with, not as someone to work with and to compromise.
PAUL HARPER
Sherwood
Neglected to mention
I agree 100 percent with Peter Marvin's letter regarding the writings of columnist Philip Martin. His columns are sometimes very trite. But Mr. Marvin neglected to mention the constant references to his enjoyment of drinking alcohol. And he has a separate column regarding alcohol. Alcohol enjoyment is a problem in our country.
CLAIRE LEHENY
Sherwood
On pardoning power
With President Trump's pardons of Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, the question can legitimately be asked if presidential pardons for close friends and campaign staff are what the founders intended when the U.S. Constitution was written. Frankly, the answer is "no."
There was a debate of whether to include presidential pardons; the ideas had evolved from the royal power of English kings that had such powers. In the debate, there were two plans. George Mason argued against including presidential pardons. He argued that it was a mistake to grant such power to a single person, and said the new country had witnessed the tyrannical power of English kings. But Alexander Hamilton, in his Federalist Papers, argued that in a large, powerful government in times of insurrection or rebellion, there might be a need for such presidential powers. Hamilton did recognize the danger of the misuse of pardoning power, so he recommended that a president could be impeached for abusing pardoning power.
We know that Hamilton won the debate and presidents do have the absolute pardoning power. But we also know that while some presidents have used the pardon as it was intended, many presidents, like the current president, have abused this power as George Mason feared. Historians mostly agree that after the Civil War, when President Andrew Johnson pardoned the Confederate soldiers to reunite the country, this was proper use of the pardoning power. And to help heal the nation after the Vietnam War, when President Jimmy Carter pardoned young Americans who escaped to Canada to avoid military service, while this displeased many citizens, it was considered proper use of such power.
Unfortunately, the threat of impeachment for misuse of the pardoning power is mostly ignored. And even worse, there is now a debate about the question if a president can pardon himself. Clearly, the founders that wrote the Constitution would be disappointed.
JIM LANCASTER
Sheridan
While nation burned
Nero fiddled, Trump golfed.
SCOTT HEARN
Little Rock