To the Editor:
Regarding Frank Bruni’s “‘Guilty’ May Not Matter” (Opinion, June 2):
Bruni worries that Donald Trump’s new status as a convicted felon may not be the reason he loses the election. While Bruni may be right, he and the rest of us who desperately want to stop this vile firebrand from returning to the White House should consider why so many people would vote for a candidate with a criminal record.
Trump’s appeal to dissatisfaction and nostalgia for a bygone era has won him huge support among the non-college educated working class, whose economic progress has stagnated over the past few decades. In many cases, Trump is simply exploiting racism and xenophobia, but there is legitimate damage being done.
Income growth has stagnated despite productivity gains, good unionized blue-collar jobs are being shipped overseas and replaced by low-wage non-union jobs in the service sector, and our profit-driven health care system has become increasingly ruthless.
By declaring the system to be rigged against both him and his supporters, Trump has cynically aimed his ire at the elites who have weathered or created capitalism’s latest upheaval.
Trump leads a party that has traditionally defended the interests of the wealthy, but Democrats have failed to offer a compelling alternative to disaffected voters. Democrats need to start focusing on progressive solutions to working-class woes, and President Biden must make a compelling case for the real-world impact of his no-small accomplishments.
If this doesn’t happen, there’s a good chance President Trump will be in office again, no matter how many criminal allegations he faces.
Kenneth M. Coughlin
new york
To the Editor:
Regarding “Seven Reporters on the Verdict” (Opinion, June 2) and “Oh My God: 45 to 34!” by Maureen Dowd (Column, June 2):
There seem to me to be two key ironies behind the Times opinion writers’ thoughts on the verdict. The first is that even though Donald Trump was worried that revelations about Stormy Daniels might harm his electoral chances and therefore paid her hush money and falsified business records, Trump likely needn’t have worried because, as the opinion writers largely agree, many voters were not particularly concerned about his conduct.
The second irony, at least suggested by some opinion writers, is that not only did Trump’s conduct not harm his electoral chances, but the decision to prosecute him for it would actually help His chance.
Matthew Continetti, for example, claims that the prosecution “undermined faith in the rule of law and rallied Republican voters to Trump,” and Maureen Dowd quoted her sister as saying, “I wasn’t going to vote for Trump, but now I will because I think this whole thing is a sham.”
Ultimately, the impact of Trump’s actions and the jury’s verdict may not be known until voters make their decision. their The verdict is due on November 5th, and it seems likely that there will be further ironies before then.
Walter Smith
Washington
To the Editor:
The conviction of former President Donald Trump creates an opportunity: President Biden should announce that if Republicans decide they can’t nominate convicted felons, he won’t have to be the Democratic nominee.
Open nominating conventions by both parties could prevent a presidential election that risks irreparably dividing society and allow for an important generational transition.
Peter McAuliffe
Islamorada, Florida
To the Editor:
It doesn’t matter to me whether Donald Trump is guilty or innocent. To me, he is the lesser of two evils.
My family is suffering under President Biden and the Democratic Administration. Biden assures us that our lives are getting better, but we don’t realize it. I know exactly how much our gas bills are increasing. I know exactly how much our food, electricity and water bills are increasing.
My family has certainly become better off under Trump, and that matters to me.
Edward Little
Temple City, California
To the Editor:
On “Time flies when you’re convicted” by Gail Collins and Bret Stephens (The Conversation, June 4):
“I am not convinced that anyone previously inclined to vote for him will now be voting for President Biden,” Stevens wrote of Donald Trump. That much is clear: MAGA nation will continue to support Trump’s most extreme ideas and rhetoric, and opportunistic Republicans will go along with it for a variety of self-serving reasons.
The question is whether traditional conservatives who believe in good character, the rule of law and a criminal justice system, and sensible moderate independents, will refuse to vote at all in this presidential election because they cannot bear to choose between a felon convicted on what Stevens sees as a weak legal theory and an incumbent opponent who is past his prime and must defend deeply unpopular policies.
If many voters stay home on Election Day, it will affect the outcome of the Biden vs. Trump race.
This election is ultimately about the weaknesses of the American political system. It’s hard to engage with an election process that has produced such deeply flawed major party candidates, each very different in their own ways. In about five months, we will have the president we deserve, but it will be ugly.
Stephen S. Bellizzi
Norwalk, Connecticut
Foster children deserve money
To the Editor:
Regarding “Foster children fight to stop states from receiving federal benefits” (news article, May 27):
Foster children who are entitled to Social Security benefits should not have to wait for federal or state legislation to right the injustice of local governments pocketing money that should be owed to them.
New York is unfortunately one of the cities that is taking money away from children with disabilities, and the Legal Aid Society is lobbying Mayor Eric Adams’ administration to adopt practices used in other states that protect children’s benefits to cover basic living expenses or help them become independent after leaving the foster care system.
Arizona has emerged as the gold standard in this area, with the state contracting with third parties to identify eligible children and place the funds in approved savings accounts.
Ironically, New York City also contracts with the same company, but instead of doing the right thing for these children, the Department of Child Welfare uses the vast majority of its benefits to defray the costs of providing foster care.
New York City cannot wait for Congress or other agencies to act. It must do the right thing and follow the example of other jurisdictions that have figured out how to ensure these vulnerable children receive every penny of the benefits and money to which they are entitled, while complying with federal requirements.
Dawn Mitchell
new york
The author is lead attorney in the Legal Aid Society’s Juvenile Rights Practice Unit.
Free school meals
To the Editor:
Regarding “How Free School Meals Became Mainstream” (Headway, nytimes.com, May 21):
It’s wonderful that children can eat lunch and breakfast at school without feeling embarrassed and that experts recognise the benefits of free meals for all.
It wasn’t always this way. When the Black Panthers and Young Lords launched free breakfast programs in Oakland and New York in the late 1960s, politicians and critics condemned the effort as dangerously radical and subversive.
Even today, Conservatives are calling for the abolition of free school meals for children, but thankfully they have neither the strength nor the persuasive argument to back them up.
Mark Edelman
Callicoon, New York
The author is a professor of anthropology at Hunter College and the Graduate School of the City University of New York.
