Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about the election that is four weeks away. I have always voted, but for years, I didn’t really think that it mattered who won. Though the winners came from different parties with somewhat different policies, once they were in office, most of them saw what needed to be done for the good of the country and adjusted their thinking and actions accordingly.
After the 2016 election, I began to question that assumption. Many of the Cabinet choices made by the incoming president seemed alarmingly inappropriate. Over the next four years, I watched as the leader of our country cozied up to dictators, made fun of military service, ignored the advice of scientists and surrounded himself with people whose main qualifications were unquestioning loyalty to him and his whims. Western Europe watched with shock and dismay. He lost the election in 2020 and then encouraged a disgraceful attack on members of Congress in an effort to remain in power. Now, he is back, with his lies and divisive rhetoric and empty showmanship. And if the polls are accurate, about half of America is buying it.
I no longer look at party affiliation or promises made while campaigning as I choose who will get my vote. First, I look at character. Do these candidates seem to have strong moral compasses? Do they appear to value the truth, even if it is unpleasant? Do they come across as being comfortable enough in their skin to surround themselves with experts and then listen to their advice? I even look at whether they can engage in civil discourse, without rants and name-calling. These are qualities shared by great leaders.
Then I look at past actions. The two candidates who are running today couldn’t be more different. One has a lifetime of public service and a spoken desire to do the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans. The other has a history of failed businesses and bankruptcies, sexual improprieties, a need to be the center of attention and a desire to seek revenge on anyone who crosses him. Why is there even a question about who to vote for?
Our country and its future seem to be at risk. Voters should spend a lot of time over the next few weeks thinking about what they want to leave for their children and grandchildren and vote accordingly.
— Carolyn B. Parsons, Bainbridge Island, Washington
Failure to uphold his oath
Despite the frustrations and challenges we face today, I still believe in the promise of America — the idea that if we stand up for what’s right, engage in difficult conversations and make our voices heard through peaceful democratic means, we can elect leaders who will move us forward on the most critical issues.
While policy differences are important, they should come second to a leader’s integrity, honor and unwavering commitment to upholding the Constitution.
I challenge anyone to read the 165-page filing from special counsel Jack Smith and explain how Donald Trump upheld his oath of office. I genuinely want to understand, but what I’ve seen tells a different story. Outside of superficial claims like “election interference” or “an attack on political opponents,” which seem more like deflections than valid arguments, I have yet to hear a compelling case for why he is fit to serve.
Our Founders foresaw the danger of a leader using popularity to weaponize public anger against democracy. That’s why the 14th Amendment bars anyone who engages in insurrection from holding office, and the 25th Amendment empowers a Cabinet to remove a president unfit for duty.
Yet, neither the Supreme Court, the Senate nor Trump’s Cabinet used these tools — the 14th or 25th Amendment or impeachment — to hold him accountable.
When asked what kind of government we had, Ben Franklin famously said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” It’s now up to the voters to ensure we do.
— Michael A. Baugh, Rock Island, Illinois
Thoughts from WWII veteran
I am an American. I am 98 years old. I am a World War II veteran, and so were my three departed older brothers. We were the sons of immigrants.
Recently, in my study guide to the Old Testament of the Bible, I was asked, “In what ways is your faith commitment a continuing of an important tradition?” For me, these are sacred traditions in our secular world: our national anthem; “The Star-Spangled Banner”; the Constitution of the United States; the U.S. Capitol, the soul of our nation; the graves of our departed military heroes; the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and our war memorials; the Medal of Honor, the highest honor of our nation; my Navy oath of enlistment; and the Pledge of Allegiance.
When my late wife and I visited the Capitol in 2004, the feelings that I had there were of belonging and reverence — this is my country, and I am in a sacred place.
If I were in the Navy now, I would be ready to fight against our nation’s foreign enemies. I am now opposed to our domestic enemies — those people who would destroy our republic, even while reciting our Pledge of Allegiance.
I’m deeply concerned that if Donald Trump were to be reelected, more of our national traditions would be in danger of being dishonored or even lost. If Kamala Harris is elected, we will have no concern about how she would deal with our traditions.
— Peter S. Pierro, Naperville
Debate has made me hopeful
Do my senses deceive me, or did I watch a civil vice presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz? My hearing isn’t what it used to be, but I could have sworn I heard them inadvertently agree with each other a time or two. There were even whispers — be still my cynical heart — of them shaking hands after the Nov. 5 winners and losers are determined.
I’m reminded of the 1970s anti-war slogan: “What if they gave a war, but nobody came?”
Now we know what happens when someone gives a debate, and nobody swears.
Will civility catch on in 2024? I’m not that naïve. But what if it did?
— Jim Newton, Itasca
Give Larry Hoover a chance
Larry Hoover faces a daunting challenge to gain freedom after 26 years in prison. He is serving state and federal life sentences, the former for murder and the latter for running a criminal enterprise from prison.
As a young man, Hoover masterminded one of Chicago’s most notorious gangs. When incarcerated in 1998, Hoover faced certain life on the state charge, then another on the federal racketeering charge.
But the First Step Act signed by President Donald Trump in 2018 opened prison doors to inmates exhibiting rehabilitation while serving long, often life sentences.
Hoover should be given the opportunity to demonstrate his rehabilitation, qualifying him for release from federal prison without consideration of the heinousness of his crimes. Considering his crimes simply amounts to endless vengeance, which serves no purpose in the criminal justice system.
Hoover’s federal prison cell should be reserved for a criminal who represents an imminent and serious danger to society. Hoover, who is 73 and frail and acts in positive ways, may qualify for freedom under the First Step Act.
If so, the second step would be for Gov. JB Pritzker to exhibit that same compassion for Hoover on his state sentence. Doing so would also serve the true purpose of the criminal justice system: spending our criminal justice tax dollars wisely to protect the public.
— Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.