Readers Write (Sept. 25): Donald Trump, Super PAC ad, Allina ad, hate crimes

Stephen B. Young accurately describes ("The value of Trump," Sept. 18) elite failure and baby boomers' "worst narcissistic excesses" personified in Bill and Hillary Clinton. But his assertion that a Donald Trump presidency could stimulate a creative destruction of the manifestations of elite incompetence, narcissism and self-interest is wishful thinking, at the least, and spectacular delusion, at the worst. Trump is nothing more than a mendacious carnival huckster reeling in the rubes who believe his particular brand of snake oil is the panacea for all of their complaints — real or imagined.

The logic behind the promotion of a serial societal parasite like Trump (multiple leveraging of bankruptcy procedures to cheat investors and vendors, promoting and/or authoring spurious claims that serve to jab the "deplorable" brain zone of those he hopes to influence, and the utter lack of continuity of stances on a large range of issues from legal access to abortion to the Iraq war — just the tip of the iceberg, mind you) is truly mind-boggling.

Trump is the embodiment of the worst impulses of 21st-century American society, as named by Young. So the idea that Trump could somehow act as a catalyst for change for the better is magical thinking on an epic scale.

Nominally, Hillary Clinton is a competent public servant. In other words, she can do the job of senator and the job of secretary of state without bringing the roof down around her (purportedly even some Republican senators who served with her respected her). Trump is a sideshow curiosity with no known talents — other than self-promotion and demagoguery.

Am I looking forward to a Hillary Clinton presidency? Not in the least. But if the nation can survive eight years of George W. Bush, it can survive four years of Hillary Clinton. There is no compelling reason to believe that it can survive — in any recognizable form — a Donald Trump presidency of any duration.

Gene Case, Andover

• • •

• • •

Oh, Lord, another opinion writer with "mommy" issues. Stephen B. Young, ostensibly writing in defense of Donald Trump, tells us all we need to know with his statements midway through his commentary. Devoting the first half of his lengthy complaint to the evils of Hillary Clinton and America's "elites," a class to which he also belongs, he writes: "Clinton wants to 'mother' us into right thinking and right acting. Like my grandmothers and great-grandmother, she is scrupulous about seeing ... that we — especially the men among us — do not go astray. ... But I don't want to be so bossed around." Quite clearly, not by a woman, anyway.

• • •

There is much in Stephen B. Young's commentary that I agree with; the electorate is indeed fed up with the elitism that politics has spawned. However, his consideration of actually voting for Donald Trump dangerously brushes aside the many descriptions of Trump's personal history and character — impulsive, vicious, clinically narcissistic and a con artist — that make him wholly unqualified to lead our country.

But worse, Young doesn't even touch upon the biggest elitist threat to American politics today, that of the billionaire class controlling the political process and empowering the radical right — much of it for their own financial self-interest. Since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, hidden billionaire elites already have funded the takeover of the House by the radical right in 2010 (with its consequent temporary shutdown of the federal government), the subsequent virtual locking in of Republican Party margins in the House for at least a decade through gerrymandering and the turnover of the Senate majority to Republicans a few years later (see Jane Mayer's book, "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right"). Hillary Clinton's elitism is benign compared with the frightening consequence of the billionaire elites' takeover of the presidency, too. (If you doubt they're for Trump, see the full-page ad excoriating government and backing him on page A3 of the Sept. 18 Star Tribune).

The mysterious Save America From Its Government super PAC full-page advertisement that appeared on page A3 on Sept. 18 should be required reading for any high school social studies or political science class. Not for what it is selling but for the way it sells it. We are told that government is out of hand and to vote Trump. It is a toxic political propaganda mixture of warehouse club proportion smoke and mirrors. It is a study of how the wealthy can pervert a political process with its self-serving agenda and make it sound like it is all about you. It is a lesson of the bear traps that are laid for the unknowing and under informed voter. It is the enemy of clear rational thought and should be shunned like an Amish person with a Maserati. It is a bigger threat to our democracy than any immigrant refugee will ever be.

The ad, in fact, is billionaire conservatives telling us that additional billionaire conservatives now should join millionaire conservatives who have been in charge of the Do Nothing Congress for the last several years. In other words, a group of foxes are telling the chickens that they need more foxes in the hen house. Do your homework and learn your lesson well. Vote for the woman who consistently works to benefit others and not the man who only works to benefit himself.

• • •

In response to the full-page ad placed by Allina Health President and CEO Dr. Penny Wheeler ("An open letter to our nurses," Sept. 18): Dr. Wheeler, if you are indeed "committed to resolving the outstanding issues with our nurses' union at the bargaining table," then please, feel free to contact our negotiating team. I believe that is how it is done. Placing this ad is nothing more than a desperate effort on your part to garner public support.

The hypocrisy shown by these two articles — "Rooting out jihad from within" and "Hate crimes against U.S. Muslims soared in 2015" (Sept. 18) — is eye-opening. How unjust of us to focus on making Somalis prevent radicalization in their own community, when we ignore those who are committing terrorist acts against the Somali community. What if instead we ran intensive, anti-prejudice interventions on all segments of the population known to have committed hate crimes against Muslims? Just like we have data and surveillance on people at risk for radicalization, we likely can find data on those likely to commit hate crimes. Our anti-radicalization strategy should target all of those factors that cause it.