•••
I read the portion of the Reader’s Write section from last week about Donald Trump, “The way his supporters see it” (Oct. 25). As an emotionally charged and illogical liberal voter, I’m willing to admit to not being enough of an economic expert or policy wonk to make any opposing statements similar to those that bring these authors to their conclusions. There are, however, some things I feel I can conclude just from harking back to high school civics and common sense. First of all, the president can propose fiscal policy until he turns purple, but none of it happens unless the legislative branch — Congress — passes the bills. Second, we have a capitalist economy that is not, by definition, directly controlled by the federal government or the president, right? Lastly and rhetorically speaking: How can anyone believe that the economy is so simple that any economic rise or fall that happens after Jan. 20 and lasts for the four years following can only be directly attributed to the one individual who just walked across the White House threshold? I’m not going to base my vote on either presidential candidate’s fiscal policy proposals based on tired party-based rhetoric and therefore equivalent to pandering political pablum.
Speaking of oversimplification, as for border policy, this has also been a decadeslong intractable problem for administrations going back to the Reagan years! It’s not honest to lay this problem at the feet of either the Republicans or Democrats, let alone one president or another. Once again, it’s Congress that has neglected to pass any meaningful legislation for long-term solutions. Presidential executive orders targeting border issues have never resulted in any real solutions since they are primarily political sideshows and can be revoked by the next White House occupant. Recent bipartisan legislation attempting to move a long-term solution the right direction was killed in favor of presidential politics and promises of more heavy-handed executive short-term solutions.
It’s emotionally satisfying to latch onto simple, black-and-white, cause-and-effect solutions. This back-and-forth, blaming the other side for any bad outcomes and taking credit for any good ones won’t sustain a working democratic society. Real-world problems don’t always respond to these approaches, however we might wish it to be so.
Connie Clabots, Brooklyn Center
JUDICIAL RACES
Retain Justice Procaccini
As former associate justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court, we are deeply familiar with the work of the court and the qualifications and experience of its members. The court rightly enjoys a reputation as a professional institution that follows the rule of law, deliberates thoughtfully, writes carefully and often reaches unanimous decisions. To maintain that reputation, we recommend that Minnesotans retain incumbent Associate Justice Karl Procaccini.
His credentials are outstanding. After graduating with high honors from Harvard Law, Procaccini clerked for two Minnesota federal judges. Then he practiced law at a highly rated firm, appearing regularly in both federal and state courts. For five years, he served as general counsel to the governor. Procaccini has performed well in his initial year of service on the court.
