3 days Ago By Chicago Tribune
Yes, this was a tough election. But let us all agree, whether Donald Trump was your choice or not, the citizens who voted are entitled to make their choice known and respected. That is what’s called a democracy! Let’s give our new president the support he deserves.
This was not a close election. We should respect that fact. Let’s delay before we judge! Someone in the letters section ( “Is he someone to emulate?” Nov.
7) recently asked, “Would you want your children to grow up to be a person like Trump?” I’ll follow that by asking: Would you want your children to grow up to be like Hunter Biden? Trump, from what we know, raised children to be proud of. That speaks volumes. I didn’t say perfect.
It’s time to give it our best and try to unite. That means turning all the pages in the last book. — Myrna Silver, Coral Gables, Florida In Christianity, the seven deadly sins are pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth.
In American politics, add an eighth deadly sin: gross incompetence. The last few presidential elections seem to follow a predictable cycle, much like business cycles in the general economy. Incumbents or their anointed heirs fared badly, starting with Hillary Clinton in 2016, followed by Donald Trump in 2020, and most recently by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in 2024.
Midterm elections over this period also followed similar pendulum swings. It has been suggested that the majority of voters made their decisions based primarily on the state of the economy at their particular household level, as well as the status quo of the incumbency, with all other considerations secondary. As long as there are free and fair elections, and to the extent the eight deadly sins noted above apply in the eyes of the voters, the same pattern is expected to continue going forward.
Remember, Trump will represent the status quo for the next four years. The same will be true of the red wave that is expected to be in power at the time of the midterm elections in 2026. For better or worse, the message of President John F.
Kennedy’s famous inaugural address in 1961 in which he stirred the soul of America, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” gradually has been replaced with a more pragmatic view emphasizing what your country can do for you. Why else would we use as a vote-deciding criterion the answer to the question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” — Mark Grenchik, Chicago So many are confused by the question of how Donald Trump could have won a majority of the vote. For all the facts, evidence and accurate perspectives, his past presidency showed that he would be a failure of a president.
The answer to the question has a simple answer, an answer that we do not like. The simple answer is one which I get in the men’s locker room at the gym. Whenever I ask, “Are politics about emotions?” the response always is, with a laugh: “Of course, it is.
” Never once has anyone, over some years now, ever said, “Well, of course not.” If we know this, what then? The answer we don’t like is clarified by a fact about two primates. Chimpanzees and bonobos have 98% the same DNA as human beings.
You read that correctly. Instincts rule. This is scientific fact.
Don’t believe me? Research it. So Trump being elected is due to the fact that a majority of voters were emotionally moved to vote for him. Period.
End of unwanted perspective and question. Which leads into the profound question: What emotions did he tie into to get people to feel that he felt with them and was the answer to their problems? Instincts, then rationalizations. That ends the confusion.
At least to the first question. — The Rev. Robert W.
Jais, Oakbrook Terrace Watching Kamala Harris’ dignified and inspiring concession speech hammered home to me the fact that a deeply unworthy candidate won. Imagine if Donald Trump had been defeated — even by a landslide. The election would have been subjected to a series of lawsuits, lies and riots on his behalf.
He would never have conceded. So either way — win or lose — Trump remains an existential threat to the integrity of this country. — Rachael Mellen, Peru, Illinois I guess the election was free and fair.
It’s amazing how accepting of the results Donald Trump is because he won. Of course, he preempted the election results with lies and cynicism about stolen votes and machines being tampered with, riling his base, causing fear and distrust, perpetrating the same lies spewed in the last election he free and fairly lost. Always the child who changes the rules of the game if he’s not winning.
Those lies gave Trump cover to save face if he lost this time. Contrast that with Kamala Harris and her dignified acceptance of the election results. A congratulatory call to Trump.
No lies about a stolen election. No violence. A concession speech that continues the theme of unity.
So as citizens, we must emulate dignity and inclusivity that can reunite Americans. The alternative is a losing proposition. — Teri Pehta, Glen Ellyn There’s no kidding ourselves.
Donald Trump is who we’ve become, a nation raised on trash television and beguiled by the tripe on the internet. We’ve elected to our highest office a convicted felon, a man found liable for rape and a chronic liar. It’s too bad a decent man like Jimmy Carter lived to see such history.
— Jim Arneberg, Hoffman Estates So we now all know that Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election. There is a lot of gloom and doom around this decision. I would like to suggest to the Trump camp that it now try to connect with those who feel disheartened and frightened and communicate that Trump is going to govern with good intentions and goodwill.
Perhaps if we hear that from the powers that be, we will all be more optimistic about the future. If not, it will be more of the same Trump rhetoric. — Arleen Armanetti, Arlington Heights Letter writer Jack LaBolt ( “Why mayor should resign,” Nov.
6) wonders if the people who voted for Brandon Johnson for mayor are smart enough to realize they made a mistake. I wonder if the approximately 62% of registered Chicago voters who didn’t bother to vote in the runoff are smart enough to realize that they made a mistake. The margin of victory was less than 30,000 votes.
— Cheryl Arvio, Chicago Regarding the letter by Hanover Township Supervisor Brian P. McGuire ( “The value of townships,” Nov. 6): Township governments were established for sparsely populated rural farming communities in Illinois.
Hanover Township’s population in 1850 was 672 people. Now there are more than 100,000 residents in the township. Hanover Township is not a community of poor farmers and settlers.
It has a median household income of nearly $94,000 . Township governments have the state-mandated duties of assessing property and providing general assistance programs. But Cook County is responsible for assessing property in Hanover Township.
Social services? Municipal governments should be responsible for social services, not township governments. McGuire is like other township supervisors who defend this outdated form of government. Illinois has 17 counties that do not have township governments.
The city of Chicago abolished its township governments in 1902. Evanston residents voted to abolish their township in 2014. Hanover Township should also be abolished.
Tribune writer Rick Pearson reported on why some believe township consolidation, or elimination, should be a priority in Springfield to reduce the size and cost of Illinois’ nation-leading number units of local government. There are more than 8,500 units of government in Illinois, according to the comptroller’s office. — Bob Anderson, former McHenry Township trustee, Wonder Lake I’m curious as to what the cost is to produce those little “I voted” stickers.
For towns, cities and states and a federal government looking for ways to save a few bucks, getting rid of these stickers would be a nice first step. — Dan Wasser, Wheaton Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected] .
.
