To the Editor:
So far, so-called “women’s issues,” which are really everyone’s issues, have been missing from the debates. I want to see the candidates discuss: women’s reproductive health and freedom; the wage gap; domestic violence; the #MeToo movement; body shaming; underrepresentation on boards, in corporate upper management, in academia and in STEM fields; child care availability; and widespread cultural misogyny.
After all, we do make up more than half the population.
Diane Kravif
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
International relations have been consistently ignored. President Trump has seriously disrupted longstanding treaty commitments, agreements and positive relationships with many of our allies, while fawning over dictators. The United States is perceived as unreliable and untrustworthy. How would the candidates improve our foreign relations?
Jeanne Pierrette Dross
Albany
To the Editor:
Having lost a son to heroin use, I want to ask the following of the candidates: Our “war on drugs,” declared by President Nixon in 1971, is a dismal failure. The historian Alfred McCoy wrote recently in The Nation that “instead of reducing the traffic, the drug war has actually helped stimulate that ninefold increase in global opium production and a parallel surge in U.S. heroin users, from just 68,000 in 1970 to 886,000 in 2017.” Drug deaths reached 192 a day in 2017, with many of them between the ages of 12 and 25. That is a silent Parkland … every day. What is your solution to this catastrophe?
Bill Williams
New York
To the Editor:
One egregious omission to date from the Democratic debates is the future of Social Security, which according to recent projections will face a critical funding shortfall by 2034. This threatens the well-being of millions of Americans. Efforts to discredit and undermine the program, whether through benefit cuts or privatization, will ultimately erode the nation’s entire social welfare system.
Individuals earning under $50,000 a year receive 90 percent of Social Security benefits. Nearly half of all racial minority retirees rely on them for all or nearly all of their income.
It’s time Democrats debated this vital issue.
Michael Reisch
Baltimore
The writer is a professor of social justice at the University of Maryland School of Social Work.
To the Editor:
No one is talking about or seems to care about the deficit and national debt. We are running a $1 trillion deficit during good times, so what happens when things go south, which they inevitably will? I don’t want to saddle my children with a huge national debt.
Matt Carbone
Valhalla, N.Y.
The writer is an accountant.
To the Editor:
There has yet to be any meaningful debate discussion of the judiciary. The president has appointed over 150 judges (and counting), including two Supreme Court justices, one of whom remains controversial a year after his appointment. I would like to hear questions about what the candidates would be looking for in their judicial appointments and also what they plan to do when their plans are inevitably derailed by judges appointed by this president.
It may also be time to open a discussion of changes to the judiciary, such as term limits for judges. Should someone who is president for only four (or even eight) years really be able to reshape the judiciary for 40 years?
The Republicans are highly successful at getting their voters to the polls with promises of judicial appointments. It is beyond time for the Democrats to stress the importance of judicial appointments to their voters. If the president is re-elected, he will undoubtedly get at least one more Supreme Court appointment, and the consequences for the country would be dire.
Judy Gitlin
Valley Cottage, N.Y.
To the Editor:
I offer the candidates not an issue to discuss but a plea to include in their discussion what has been absent: the hope and promise of America. The candidates, rightly enough but relentlessly and angrily, point to what we do wrong, to our endless faults, our systemic racism, sexual harassment, cruel capitalism, economic injustices and widespread discrimination.
Recall Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” ad. However shallow it may have sounded, and however much mocked, it resonated deeply, and we recall it even today.
Perhaps candidates should take a hint. Perhaps point to a vision, however imperfectly realized so far, of a country where liberty and justice are part of its promise and its future, a country for which so many sacrificed. Perhaps draw inspiration if not from Reagan then from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose message always remained one of hope, of a dream.
Mel A. Topf
Providence, R.I.
To the Editor:
The issue of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income persons has not been adequately addressed. Although Senator Bernie Sanders and Julián Castro, former Housing and Urban Development secretary, have made fleeting references, I have not heard a thorough discussion of this problem, including homelessness.
I believe that decisive federal action is necessary because local and state government simply lack the resources to solve this nationwide problem.
Bob Ryan
San Francisco
To the Editor:
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Congress has ceded too much power to the unrestrained discretion of the president on matters such as tariffs, spending (on, for example, the wall) and war by invoking an “emergency.” There must be discussion about what the candidates would support to properly rebalance power between the executive and legislative branches.
Joel Lutzker
Greenwich, Conn.
To the Editor:
I have an opposite suggestion: Ban all questions about health care. We need to hear about other pressing issues.
David Martocci
Interlaken, N.J.
To the Editor:
The Democratic debates have virtually ignored numerous national security issues, particularly the bloated defense budget; the overzealous tempo of military deployments; the overabundant overseas bases; the unnecessary modernization of our nuclear weapons; and the troublesome decline of arms control and disarmament. The United States has become the dominant arms merchant in the international arena and has downplayed the important instrument of diplomacy.
A manifesto signed by Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein and others warned years ago: “We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest that will be disastrous to all parties?”
The Democratic debates would be a good place to start this conversation.
Melvin A. Goodman
Bethesda, Md.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and former C.I.A. intelligence analyst.
To the Editor:
Millions of workers are earning less than their parents did. This is true of those affected by automation and international trade and those with less than a high school education. They have not only lost income but also feel left out. What will the candidates do to increase the supply of well-paying, respected jobs?
Peter Dawson
Boulder, Colo.
To the Editor:
Debate topics? How perfect that the mandate is “no more than 200 words.” I’d like to see a discussion of the very travesty of “debates”: prime-time manufactured, largely substanceless verbal contests with strict time limits. No nuance, no depth, no real follow-up.
It’s all sportscasting, replete with countdown clocks and sleazy previews and promotions, offering the promise of zingers, punches landed, gaffes, put-downs, rehearsed scripts, weaponized sound bites. Afterward are headlines about who won, who lost, who’s out, who came back.
How much better would be in-depth, challenging interviews, with follow-ups, rather than this sorry, unbearable sideshow.
Susan Wolfson
Princeton, N.J.
To the Editor:
Agriculture is being recognized as both the culprit and the savior in our race to combat climate change. I’d like to know what the candidates plan to do about the crisis affecting land stewardship and food production. In the Midwest, where I live, small farmers struggle to make a living, are ignored by federal and state governments, and often end up abandoning their important profession. It’s time to recognize that the fate of these farms is the canary in the coal mine.
Vikki Proctor
Evanston, Ill.
To the Editor:
One glaring omission is reproductive rights. While most candidates have at least alluded to protecting those rights, there has been no specific question about what each would do to keep the Supreme Court from reversing Roe v. Wade, even though a case challenging it is likely to come before the court in the next few years. Even more important, what would the candidates do to protect access to contraception, now covered in the Affordable Care Act?
As The Times just reported, the abortion rate is at its lowest since 1973, when it became legal, partly because of coverage of long-term contraception methods by Obamacare. Now the Trump administration is trying to roll back contraceptive coverage. How will the next Democratic president ensure that women have control over their reproductive lives?
Ellen Sweet
New York
The writer is former vice president of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
To the Editor:
I wish the candidates would address the dysfunction in the Senate. Particularly, why does the Senate majority leader have such outsized power to shape national policy by controlling what the Senate will even consider? It is not a matter of constitutional law. It is just Senate rules — essentially a tradition, tacitly agreed upon among senators. The Senate does not reflect principles of democracy, and it needs reform. I would like to hear the leading candidates, several of whom are senators, discuss ways to reform the Senate and place some limits on the power of the majority leader.
Michael T. Ferro
Endwell, N.Y.
To the Editor:
I would ask: What rules or restraints would you impose upon yourself and others in your administration on tweeting?
Dick Stoll
Milwaukee
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | The Next Debate: Let’s Talk About …
Opinion | The Next Debate: Let’s Talk About …
To the Editor:
So far, so-called “women’s issues,” which are really everyone’s issues, have been missing from the debates. I want to see the candidates discuss: women’s reproductive health and freedom; the wage gap; domestic violence; the #MeToo movement; body shaming; underrepresentation on boards, in corporate upper management, in academia and in STEM fields; child care availability; and widespread cultural misogyny.
After all, we do make up more than half the population.
Diane Kravif
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
International relations have been consistently ignored. President Trump has seriously disrupted longstanding treaty commitments, agreements and positive relationships with many of our allies, while fawning over dictators. The United States is perceived as unreliable and untrustworthy. How would the candidates improve our foreign relations?
Jeanne Pierrette Dross
Albany
To the Editor:
Having lost a son to heroin use, I want to ask the following of the candidates: Our “war on drugs,” declared by President Nixon in 1971, is a dismal failure. The historian Alfred McCoy wrote recently in The Nation that “instead of reducing the traffic, the drug war has actually helped stimulate that ninefold increase in global opium production and a parallel surge in U.S. heroin users, from just 68,000 in 1970 to 886,000 in 2017.” Drug deaths reached 192 a day in 2017, with many of them between the ages of 12 and 25. That is a silent Parkland … every day. What is your solution to this catastrophe?
Bill Williams
New York
To the Editor:
One egregious omission to date from the Democratic debates is the future of Social Security, which according to recent projections will face a critical funding shortfall by 2034. This threatens the well-being of millions of Americans. Efforts to discredit and undermine the program, whether through benefit cuts or privatization, will ultimately erode the nation’s entire social welfare system.
Individuals earning under $50,000 a year receive 90 percent of Social Security benefits. Nearly half of all racial minority retirees rely on them for all or nearly all of their income.
It’s time Democrats debated this vital issue.
Michael Reisch
Baltimore
The writer is a professor of social justice at the University of Maryland School of Social Work.
To the Editor:
No one is talking about or seems to care about the deficit and national debt. We are running a $1 trillion deficit during good times, so what happens when things go south, which they inevitably will? I don’t want to saddle my children with a huge national debt.
Matt Carbone
Valhalla, N.Y.
The writer is an accountant.
To the Editor:
There has yet to be any meaningful debate discussion of the judiciary. The president has appointed over 150 judges (and counting), including two Supreme Court justices, one of whom remains controversial a year after his appointment. I would like to hear questions about what the candidates would be looking for in their judicial appointments and also what they plan to do when their plans are inevitably derailed by judges appointed by this president.
It may also be time to open a discussion of changes to the judiciary, such as term limits for judges. Should someone who is president for only four (or even eight) years really be able to reshape the judiciary for 40 years?
The Republicans are highly successful at getting their voters to the polls with promises of judicial appointments. It is beyond time for the Democrats to stress the importance of judicial appointments to their voters. If the president is re-elected, he will undoubtedly get at least one more Supreme Court appointment, and the consequences for the country would be dire.
Judy Gitlin
Valley Cottage, N.Y.
To the Editor:
I offer the candidates not an issue to discuss but a plea to include in their discussion what has been absent: the hope and promise of America. The candidates, rightly enough but relentlessly and angrily, point to what we do wrong, to our endless faults, our systemic racism, sexual harassment, cruel capitalism, economic injustices and widespread discrimination.
Recall Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” ad. However shallow it may have sounded, and however much mocked, it resonated deeply, and we recall it even today.
Perhaps candidates should take a hint. Perhaps point to a vision, however imperfectly realized so far, of a country where liberty and justice are part of its promise and its future, a country for which so many sacrificed. Perhaps draw inspiration if not from Reagan then from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose message always remained one of hope, of a dream.
Mel A. Topf
Providence, R.I.
To the Editor:
The issue of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income persons has not been adequately addressed. Although Senator Bernie Sanders and Julián Castro, former Housing and Urban Development secretary, have made fleeting references, I have not heard a thorough discussion of this problem, including homelessness.
I believe that decisive federal action is necessary because local and state government simply lack the resources to solve this nationwide problem.
Bob Ryan
San Francisco
To the Editor:
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Congress has ceded too much power to the unrestrained discretion of the president on matters such as tariffs, spending (on, for example, the wall) and war by invoking an “emergency.” There must be discussion about what the candidates would support to properly rebalance power between the executive and legislative branches.
Joel Lutzker
Greenwich, Conn.
To the Editor:
I have an opposite suggestion: Ban all questions about health care. We need to hear about other pressing issues.
David Martocci
Interlaken, N.J.
To the Editor:
The Democratic debates have virtually ignored numerous national security issues, particularly the bloated defense budget; the overzealous tempo of military deployments; the overabundant overseas bases; the unnecessary modernization of our nuclear weapons; and the troublesome decline of arms control and disarmament. The United States has become the dominant arms merchant in the international arena and has downplayed the important instrument of diplomacy.
A manifesto signed by Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein and others warned years ago: “We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest that will be disastrous to all parties?”
The Democratic debates would be a good place to start this conversation.
Melvin A. Goodman
Bethesda, Md.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and former C.I.A. intelligence analyst.
To the Editor:
Millions of workers are earning less than their parents did. This is true of those affected by automation and international trade and those with less than a high school education. They have not only lost income but also feel left out. What will the candidates do to increase the supply of well-paying, respected jobs?
Peter Dawson
Boulder, Colo.
To the Editor:
Debate topics? How perfect that the mandate is “no more than 200 words.” I’d like to see a discussion of the very travesty of “debates”: prime-time manufactured, largely substanceless verbal contests with strict time limits. No nuance, no depth, no real follow-up.
It’s all sportscasting, replete with countdown clocks and sleazy previews and promotions, offering the promise of zingers, punches landed, gaffes, put-downs, rehearsed scripts, weaponized sound bites. Afterward are headlines about who won, who lost, who’s out, who came back.
How much better would be in-depth, challenging interviews, with follow-ups, rather than this sorry, unbearable sideshow.
Susan Wolfson
Princeton, N.J.
To the Editor:
Agriculture is being recognized as both the culprit and the savior in our race to combat climate change. I’d like to know what the candidates plan to do about the crisis affecting land stewardship and food production. In the Midwest, where I live, small farmers struggle to make a living, are ignored by federal and state governments, and often end up abandoning their important profession. It’s time to recognize that the fate of these farms is the canary in the coal mine.
Vikki Proctor
Evanston, Ill.
To the Editor:
One glaring omission is reproductive rights. While most candidates have at least alluded to protecting those rights, there has been no specific question about what each would do to keep the Supreme Court from reversing Roe v. Wade, even though a case challenging it is likely to come before the court in the next few years. Even more important, what would the candidates do to protect access to contraception, now covered in the Affordable Care Act?
As The Times just reported, the abortion rate is at its lowest since 1973, when it became legal, partly because of coverage of long-term contraception methods by Obamacare. Now the Trump administration is trying to roll back contraceptive coverage. How will the next Democratic president ensure that women have control over their reproductive lives?
Ellen Sweet
New York
The writer is former vice president of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
To the Editor:
I wish the candidates would address the dysfunction in the Senate. Particularly, why does the Senate majority leader have such outsized power to shape national policy by controlling what the Senate will even consider? It is not a matter of constitutional law. It is just Senate rules — essentially a tradition, tacitly agreed upon among senators. The Senate does not reflect principles of democracy, and it needs reform. I would like to hear the leading candidates, several of whom are senators, discuss ways to reform the Senate and place some limits on the power of the majority leader.
Michael T. Ferro
Endwell, N.Y.
To the Editor:
I would ask: What rules or restraints would you impose upon yourself and others in your administration on tweeting?
Dick Stoll
Milwaukee
Source: Read Full Article