Readers Write (April 9): Power of the presidency, population growth in the Twin Cities, Minnesota and renewable energy, David Brooks' philosophizing

Stephen Young's April 2 commentary "Why Trump can't make it go" was an interesting reflection on the office of the presidency. Still, it's important to note passages intended to persuade the reader toward a particular point of view. For example, Young's characterization of federal judges as using "sophomorically bad legal reasoning" when they stopped President Trump's travel ban was the first tipoff as to Young's intent. By what background of study and knowledge of the law does he make this assessment? With no explanation to back up this disparaging claim, his remark comes across the same as so many of Trump's own accusations — as an attempt to shoot down legitimate and qualified criticism of Trump.

Likewise, he characterizes dedicated, experienced members of our intelligence agencies as "mean-spirited moles burrowed into the bureaucracy," and the information they provided that signaled the need for further investigation of the Trump campaign's possible collusion with the Russians as "annoying." Alternatively, one might label these individuals as patriotic public servants displaying loyalty to country.

Young declares, "Trump critics call him a 'liar' so that no one will listen to him"; however, one could counter that people call Trump a "liar" because he has been caught time and again disseminating false information and making wild claims that are not true.

• • •

Young reminds us whence the power of the president derives, and provocative reminders they are. I disagree that the "aim" of "Saturday Night Live" is "to make Trump if not despicable, at least … deplorable." Rather, I see them as playing the role of the fool in Shakespeare: to call attention to the failings of those whom the everyday person might not dare disparage. In contrast to the primary campaign, the "liberal" media appear — much too late, in my opinion — finally to be doing the same.

• • •

Young's essay seems to lament that a U.S. president — and now, particularly Mr. Trump — is hindered by a whole array of forces. The only way to counteract all these adversarial forces is "persuasion." And, following through with that theory, Trump will have to "persuade" us Americans and the agents of our system of government that lying, secrecy, possible conflicts of interest and incompetence should be overlooked — so that his programs can be carried out.

Lori Sturdevant's April 2 column on the "visionary leadership of the past" ("GOP spits into the wind on renewable energy") was correct in advancing the need for expanding renewable energy but somewhat in error in the facts published. The 1994 law that expanded this use came from our administration, but the principal purpose was to solve the crisis of nuclear waste storage generated by NSP's plant in Red Wing. The federal government was paralyzed, and communities were certainly not welcoming. We negotiated a solution with NSP on the storage issue but also recognized the need for bipartisan buy-in, since we were working with a DFL Legislature, as well as a longer-term solution that included reliance on renewable-energy sources.

Sen. Steve Novak and Rep. Loren Jennings, both outstanding DFL leaders, participated in the negotiations, carried the legislation, worked with our staff and achieved success. The bottom line is that the environment can be protected and jobs created, but a bipartisan solution is invariably the best.

The writer was governor of Minnesota from 1991 to 1999.

So the Twin Cities lags other U.S. metro areas in population growth? (Front page, April 2.) Does this mean that our population count is now part of a national contest? The bigger the better? Are we trying to be Beijing, Mexico City, New York or L.A.? I thought Minnesota was about quality, not quantity. What a ridiculous front-page news story!

• • •

• • •

If the Twin Cities hope to attract and retain more young people, a necessary goal for the long-term health of the state, then we have to be willing to invest — invest in transportation infrastructure such as more light rail, invest in the University of Minnesota, invest in public education. Unfortunately, the Republican-controlled House and Senate are refusing to do any of these things, focusing instead on returning the budget surplus rather than investing in the future of our state and wasting time on shortsighted, ill-conceived efforts such as defunding family planning programs and loosening gun-safety laws. None of this is a recipe for a thriving 21st-century state.

Thank you for reprinting David Brooks' excellent April 2 essay on modern culture ("The strange potency of guilt in our frameless, secular era"). It's refreshing to read a concise intellectual analysis free from the usual gobbledygook inherent in much contemporary discourse.

It has been a long time since we've moved from the metaphysical theology of Thomas Aquinas to a kind of amoral secularism. We live in a shame-based society and guilt has been used as motivation for civil obedience. Capitalism has turned the "golden rule" upside down. A business CEO once told me: "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Maybe we all need to abide by "Do unto others as you have them do unto you." People can live ethical and relatively guilt-free lives by adhering to this axiom.

Dear old David Brooks has once again wandered off into the academic, esoteric weeds in search of clues to our moral dilemmas of the day. All those large words, and yet he has failed by simply not casting his net wide enough, nor in the right direction. If he were only to glance at the news (any media: print, website, television), he would correctly conclude that almost all the problems in today's world, as well as years before, are due to … men.

Violent, aggrieved, vindictive and almost always, heterosexual men. Please, sir, ponder that and see what solutions flower in that musty head of yours.