Ilya Shlyakhter (notestaff) - letters to editors

Donald Trump and the 14th Amendment

Regarding Ruth Marcus’s Dec. 21 op-ed, “The Supreme Court should keep Trump on Colorado’s ballot”:

The 14th Amendment disqualifies, besides insurrectionists, those who have “given aid or comfort to the enemies” of the United States. The country has many enemies, whom many things might comfort. For example, efforts to ostracize Israel surely comfort Iran. What’s to stop partisan attempts to bar candidates for any act that might comfort some enemy?

Once a trend to disqualify opponents instead of defeating them at the polls starts, it’s hard to see where it stops.

Aid Ukraine, Regardless

Re “Kyiv Walks Fine Line as Fighters Embrace Use of Nazi Symbols” (news article, June 6):

We jail murderers of unsavory victims, not because we love such victims, but because we hate murder. Same with aiding Ukraine, its unsavory elements notwithstanding. The right to be free from aggressive war, like the right to be free from murder, is universal.

Kuwait in 1990-91 was not a model democracy; that didn’t stop a wide coalition from aiding it against Iraqi invaders.

There is a time for nuance, and there is a time for bright lines — like the line against wars of conquest.

A Curb on Arms for Ukraine

Re “U.S. Is Reluctant as Ukraine Asks to Upgrade Arms” (front page, Sept. 18):

About the concerns over giving Ukraine missiles that can strike inside Russia: Can’t the satellite-guided weapons be hard-wired to reject any target coordinates outside Ukraine?

Shouldn’t all precision weapons we export have geographical limits built in? Even non-precision weapons could be programmed to work only within specified GPS locations.

If we’re concerned about the spread of war, such limits shouldn’t be an afterthought.

Canceled by M.I.T: The Professor’s Talk

Once M.I.T. starts choosing speakers based on their public stances, it becomes responsible for every stance of every speaker it does invite. Isn’t that a bigger risk for M.I.T. than a stance-neutral policy?

On protecting the filibuster

When Democrats were the Senate minority, did they complain that the filibuster unduly empowered the minority? If not, they’ve forfeited that argument.

Seeing Red in America’s Totalitarian Habits

A warning against groupthink is useful. But a warning like Mr. Satter’s, solely against groupthink on the left, is only a warning against the left styled as a defense of liberal norms. Today’s right doesn’t like dissent, either. For many Republican politicians, accepting the election result would have “ended any hope of a career,” to use Mr. Satter’s words. Talk about an “attempt to impose a deluded version of reality.” The right’s leader cultivates a personality cult and campaigns against “enemies of the people.” These are core Soviet practices.

Want to be anti-Soviet? Fight all bad Soviet things. Especially in your own political tribe, where you have street cred. But hanging bogeyman labels on opponents? That’s such a Soviet thing to do.

It’s a matter of squandering democracy, not votes

The purpose of voting is not to tell the state your innermost wishes, which the state has no business asking. The purpose is to make collective decisions. If a candidate definitely can’t win, our collective decision as to that candidate has been made: that’s what “no chance of winning” means. If there are two still-viable candidates, use your vote to pick between them.

Voting is not like getting ice cream, where if you don’t like the flavors, you can leave. As a citizen, you’re not just a customer — you’re a co-owner. The “shop” is no less yours if your ideas for it have not caught on. The shop is on fire; will you pace around with a placard, or get a bucket?

Readers Have Ideas on How to Fix the Senate

Having state legislatures appoint senators would be bad. State legislatures can be gerrymandered. The party in control at redistricting time can lock in that control. Senators elected by statewide popular vote have much more legitimacy.

Sabotaging Trump rallies does nobody any good, and could help him

Much as I want to see President Trump defeated in November, I’m appalled by efforts to sabotage his rallies. Rally attendance is core political expression. Stopping others’ expression, whether by physically blocking rally entrances or by hoarding tickets to keep them from would-be attendees, strikes at our core values of free expression and personal autonomy.

We’re free to try to persuade others not to back Trump. If they choose not to heed us, and choose to proclaim their choice, by what right should we stop them?

Reports of Trump opponents sabotaging one rally in Tulsa, Okla., help the president write off as sabotage any campaign failures: flopped rallies, weak polls, even an election loss. Not knowing Trump’s true support can confound his rivals, as happened in 2016. But the main reason not to adopt sleazy tactics is that doing so entrenches Trumpism. If we oust Trump while normalizing his brand of pursuing power at all costs, what will we have won?