Steve Chapman’s New Year’s Day column “For 2025, we should resist despair — but also false hope” is a perfect introduction to the second Donald Trump presidency and why our democracy may not survive the next four years. He perfectly explains the constitutional crises that this man brings to the White House, along with policy disasters. He explains enough of our history so that we should all be worried. In short, he nails it!
Especially moving are his thoughts about Trump presiding over a ceremony set for July 4, 2026, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I cannot imagine Trump explaining the significance of that sacred document. Nor can I watch him swearing an oath to uphold our Constitution on Jan. 20 during his inauguration. The Founding Fathers would be appalled that we elected an insurrectionist to the presidency.
Chapman also points out that most Americans do not care about saving the institutions or abiding by the constitutional provisions that have been at the core of what sets us apart from other democracies around the world. If they understood what was at stake in this past election, Trump never would have won.
A Trump voter CNN interviewed after he cast his ballot said that Trump was his choice because he promised to bring down inflationary prices. The voter said Kamala Harris talked about the Constitution being at risk. He then said, “I did not even know what she was talking about.” That, in a nutshell, is the problem.
How do we fix that?
— Jan Goldberg, Riverside
Our national character
In his New Year’s Day column, Steve Chapman warns us to be neither complacent nor despairing over voters’ decision to hand control of the White House back to Donald Trump. He points out some specific worries over promised import taxes, workplace raids in pursuit of deportations and oddball foreign policy pronouncements. But he also flags the more fundamental danger of Trump’s “relentless assault on governing traditions.”
It seems many Americans did not put much value on such high-minded abstractions, perhaps thinking they aren’t really affected by those things. But that reveals a more subtle effect of Trump’s invasion of our collective psyche: the normalization of utter selfishness. Trump and the propaganda machinery that elevated him to power have transformed his blatant narcissism and vindictiveness from vices into virtues. More public figures now dismiss criticism of the man’s intellectual, emotional and moral bankruptcy as “Trump derangement syndrome.” Others claim the worries are overblown because he will be constrained by the institutions that still remain.
Perhaps he will be. We can hope. But who or what will constrain the Trump-induced corruption that is eating at our national character?
— Rick Knight, Brookfield
Biden’s sour grapes
President Joe Biden vetoing the effort to add federal judgeships was little more than a case of sour grapes because Donald Trump won the presidency. It is that simple. The billed passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Biden’s veto of the bill was akin to a 10-year-old taking his ball and going home after being thrown out at second base.
— Terry Takash, Western Springs
Carter versus Trump
I noticed that a few letter writers contrasted Jimmy Carter with Donald Trump (Jan. 2). There is no question that Carter was a better citizen and probably a better human being than Trump. However, while Carter was a model citizen and a great humanitarian, he was not a good president. I heard him speak at a business convention in Atlanta when he was governor of Georgia and found him to be a solid centrist. I’m not exactly sure what happened when he went to the White House, but he seemed to try to please everyone and was very indecisive.
What this tells me is that the traits required to be president are far different than those required to be a good citizen.
So, rather than trying to change his legacy as a president or comparing him to others such as Trump, let’s just say Carter was a great human being.
— Dan Schuchardt, Glen Ellyn
I can’t forgive Carter
I agree that Jimmy Carter did laudable things, but as a Vietnam veteran, I cannot come to grips with the fact that he pardoned the draft dodgers.
— Jim Weber, Naperville
An unintended gift
On Christmas Day, the Tribune offered all readers the unintended gift of holiday peace and love by keeping Donald Trump and his tirades out of the newspaper. Instead of reading about his threats, criticisms and boasts, readers were allowed to soak up the love, caring and friendship of neighbors that embody the heart of this season. The sharing of religious traditions and the focus on the health of kids were even able to mute the contentious Chicago Teachers Union issues.
A white Christmas would have been nice, but this year emphasizes that the spirit of the season is not dependent on the weather but on our treatment of each other. Happy holidays to all!
— Mary Ann Kehl, Wilmette
Assault weapons ban
After the tragic attack in New Orleans, we are likely to hear the usual argument: Guns aren’t the problem, people are, so should we ban cars now?
It is true that evil people can kill with any number of items — car, knife, club and so on. But there is a major difference. Those other items have a safe use. A gun has one purpose — to kill. And some guns, such as assault-style rifles, when coupled with large magazines can kill a large number of people quickly.
Banning assault-style rifles, which are not protected under the Second Amendment by any rational reading of the amendment, will not stop an evil person from killing innocent people. But it will make it a little more difficult and could save lives.
Isn’t that worth it?
— Peter Felitti, Chicago
Insurance CEO’s death
I don’t condone the killing of the UnitedHealthcare executive, but I understand it. Just to get the discussion moving here, I’ll pose three questions.
What responsibility does the top guy in a business have regarding doing the right thing? The corollary to that is: Does he bear the ultimate responsibility when his corporation does the wrong thing?
When is enough money enough? I point to arbitrarily denied claims, reckless endangerment due to known product inadequacies and the bilking of policyholders/customers for enhanced profit. Profits at what cost?
Is it, finally, only about money? Martin Shkreli went to prison for misleading his investors but only got fined for raising the price of his lifesaving drug by nearly 5,000%. In essence here, the message is you might have to give the money back if you screw with the little guys, but if you mess with rich guys’ monies, you risk some time in the pen.
Perhaps the new message is that the big guys will sue you when you take their money; the little guys will go buy a gun.
Let the discourse begin.
— Stuart Linderman, Wilmette
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.