Like many others, I’m anticipating the probable Joe Biden-Donald Trump election rematch with limited enthusiasm. But has anyone else noted the extraordinary assessment opportunity developing here? Only twice in history have two candidates with presidential experience ever been matched. First was the Grover Cleveland-Benjamin Harrison race in 1892, with Cleveland winning to become our only split-term chief. 1912 saw President Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt losing to Woodrow Wilson.
So today, we have not only campaign promises but also actual job performance to consider. And unlike 1892 and 1912, we have another reference guide — presidential approval ratings. The Gallup poll, plumbing public opinion on presidents since the 1930s, recently noted that Trump actually had approval numbers superior to Biden at the three-year mark of his first term. Jimmy Carter alone fared worse.
What will we make of all this? Will we move past the “spoiled rich kid” and “old geezer” stereotypes and examine work history? We live in the super-information age. We can quickly unearth facts online now that once took hours to uncover at the public library, if they could be found at all.
But electronic storehouses are useless if we don’t look into them.
— Tom Gregg, Niles
Why people support Trump
The reasons why people are supporting former President Donald Trump are very consistent. First, people want a fighter, which the former president definitely is, but usually only fighting for himself. Next are the accomplishments of appointing judges and justices and pushing through tax cuts. The list of judges, including Supreme Court justices, has been influenced by a conservative legal think tank. U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell got them confirmed. It had been his single most important goal since the Robert Bork hearings. The tax cuts went through because of House Speaker Paul Ryan. It had been his main goal. These two men were almost solely responsible for these achievements, not the president. Any Republican president would have gotten the same results.
The last reason is immigration and the border. The former president has prevented immigration reform, first when president and now by opposing the bipartisan efforts in the Senate. Trump uses this issue to infuriate his supporters. It is too valuable a political tool to resolve or diminish it.
The hardest to understand is the overwhelming support by evangelicals. The justification is that God uses imperfect people, which seems to underestimate Trump’s moral failings. He spreads hate and anger and does not follow the teachings of the New Testament. The belief of some of his followers that he was sent by God as their defender and savior is astounding. He is the opposite.
How can Christians follow such a hateful, deceitful and lawless man?
— Stephen Whitlock, McPherson, Kansas
Obstructing border legislation
There’s a saying: “There is no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn’t matter who gets the credit.” The current proposal regarding the southern border is a prime example.
Republican U.S. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma is part of a bipartisan group and has been working on and trying to pass a workable package, something that Donald Trump, the MAGA crowd and the GOP and the nation have been focusing on. With a workable deal possible, some of Lankford’s constituents wanted to stall it. Why can’t they work together and just get it done? The reason is obvious. They don’t want the incumbent party to possibly take any credit for something that needs to be done, now, for the overall good of the country. That might look like an accomplishment for the opposition in an election year, and that is a nonstarter. That is the sad reality for Lankford, who is actually trying to get something done.
The overall good of the country has to wait until Trump possibly gets reelected and Republicans can take credit for getting the border secured. That kind of thinking is how some of our leaders in Congress and elsewhere are supposedly going to make America great again.
The voting booth is how that mentality can be changed.
— David C. Schueler, independent voter, Columbia, Illinois
Board of Elections decision
Regarding “Board vote unanimous to keep Trump on state ballot” (Jan. 31): The Illinois State Board of Elections’ argument to allow the inclusion of Donald Trump in our state elections is based on its position that it lacks “the authority to decide whether he was disqualified … guided by past Illinois Supreme Court rulings that prevent it from deciding complex constitutional issues.”
In fact, the U.S. Constitution does not present the 14th Amendment as a “complex” issue; it states simply, “No person shall … hold any office … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Paradoxically, the board has “followed the recommendation of a hearing officer, former Republican Kankakee County Circuit Judge Clark Erickson, who said … Trump had engaged in ‘insurrection.’” In essence, the board decided that an insurrectionist can be allowed to hold office. The consistency of its logic escapes me.
My understanding of the board’s mission is that it has accepted a duty and an obligation to set policy for the citizens of Illinois and see that it is implemented. The board has fallen far short in this task as the board seems to lack an understanding of its decision to keep an insurrectionist on the ballot.
Attorney Matt Piers, representing the objectors to Trump’s inclusion on the ballot, said that there exists a “fairly fulsome record on which to presume (Trump) knew that trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power was illegal.” That statement follows the understanding of a whole raft of attorneys, prosecutors, judges, citizens, civil rights groups, community leaders and reporters who know that Trump made false statements repeatedly, that his application included false eligibility statements and that he knowingly called insurrectionists to the Capitol and watched gleefully while they threatened our political leaders and wreaked havoc on the Capitol grounds.
It is past time to put a stop to the people who use such immoral, unlawful and callous acts to fuel their personal ambitions, which are wholly against the public’s interests.
— Patrick Comer, Clarendon Hills
We don’t do as we say
What’s wrong with us? Do we retain any honor? Do politicians? We all complain about politicians. They run for office. We vote for them. Many of us want our own facts: “alternative facts.” We talk about our ethics. Our principles. Our feelings. Then we vote for politicians who exhibit the exact opposite. We say the others do it too.
That’s a cop-out just like it was on the elementary school playground. We need to heed the advice of Polonius: “To thine own self be true.” We and politicians talk about problems needing correction. Occasionally, we’re offered solutions to those problems, then vote against them. Rationalizations are touted, but the odor of selfish wishes a la dead fishes rises. We can’t let the other side receive any credit.
Politics versus governing. We continue to cast blame. Winning elections becomes the goal. This time, Cassius: “The problem, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves.”
— William Burns, South Elgin