What’s at Stake in the Midterm Elections

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/opinion/letters/midterm-elections.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but I am terrified by what is at stake in this election.

If we don’t mind reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits, if we don’t mind large corporations and the uberwealthy dominating every aspect of our lives, if we don’t recognize the need to seriously address climate change, if we don’t value fair elections where everyone can vote, if we don’t approve of the diversity of our citizenry, then I’d say vote for the “party” that has taken over the once respectable Republican Party.

Bruce RobinsonBoulder, Colo.

To the Editor:

Re “Democrats Say Party Stumbles on Messaging” (front page, Nov. 2):

As a retired New York advertising executive born and raised in a red state, all I can say is, “Duh!” The Democratic leadership has the collective messaging ability of a 10-year-old. President Biden’s policies have helped people in red states more than those in blue ones, but the voters don’t even realize it.

In fact, I’m so disgusted with the Democrats that I’d be tempted to vote Republican as I used to do … but that party no longer exists.

Robert E. DavidsonNew York

To the Editor:

“Cheney Offers Trail Support to Democrats” (front page, Nov. 2) notes that Representative Liz Cheney is helping the Democrats “impress upon voters that sometimes pocketbook issues like inflation must take a back seat to existential issues like the future of the republic.”

But another article, “G.O.P. Signals Plans to Shrink Social Security” (front page, Nov. 3), shows that both pocketbook issues and the future of the republic are at stake. If that combination doesn’t bring out the Democratic vote, then we’re really in trouble.

Ann J. KirschnerBrooklyn

To the Editor:

Re “How the Right Became the Left and the Left Became the Right,” by Ross Douthat (column, nytimes.com, Nov. 2):

The key difference between the left-wing conspiracy theories of yesteryear and their right-wing counterparts of today is the degree of acceptance within the broader public. Crackpot leftist ideas were almost always consigned to the lunatic fringe, and anyone expressing those ideas was disqualified from public office.

By contrast, right-wing conspiracies are so widely held at the moment that their adherents have essentially co-opted one of America’s major political parties.

The country is now poised to elect a raft of Republican members of Congress who believe (or at least profess to believe) that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. There will always be nut jobs. The more important issue is whether you let the nut jobs run the show.

Morgan HuseNew York

To the Editor:

Re “Amid Distrust, TV Braces for Chaotic Election Night” (Business, Oct. 31):

Your article on what the TV networks will do differently in reporting on the 2022 election results shows either how little the networks have learned about baseless election fraud allegations or how they hope to hype their coverage for more viewers.

Since it is clear from many governmental entities and organizations that electoral fraud is rare, reporting on fraud allegations on election night behind a “Democracy Desk,” as CBS plans, plays into the hands of election denial extremists.

Mainstream media contributed heavily to our current climate of election denial by amplifying baseless allegations of election fraud. The networks should aid our democracy by encouraging voters to remain patient while waiting for election results that may take longer than usual and not play into the hands of those who allege that the delays are the result of fraud.

Susan AnspachCold Spring, N.Y.

To the Editor:

The 2022 midterms will turn not on guns, abortion, inflation or crime but on whether Americans will vote for election deniers. It will turn on whether we think democracy is worth saving. I think it is that simple.

Sandy MileySherrill, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Re “What Brazil’s Election Means for Climate” (news article, Nov. 1):

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s presidential victory in Brazil is a monumental win in the struggle against the climate crisis. The Amazon rainforest is one of Earth’s most important ecosystems, and Lula’s commitment to reduce deforestation will go a long way in preventing carbon emissions.

This outcome is proof that one election can have an immense impact on the environment. We saw the opposite in 2016 — a serious setback to climate action with the election of Donald Trump — but Lula’s triumph is a sign for hope.

The United States is a critical player in the climate crisis. Our country is one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters and contains ecosystems that are invaluable for biodiversity and carbon storage. With midterm elections looming, I hope people take note and cast their vote for the candidates that support ecological research, progressive environmental policy and swift climate action. It does make a difference.

Emma LauterbachPenn Valley, Calif.

To the Editor:

Re “The Senator-Pastor From Georgia Mixes Politics and Preaching on the Trail” (news article, nytimes.com, Oct. 30):

Those committed to maintaining a wall of separation between government and religion should be troubled by this portrait of “Senator-Pastor” Raphael Warnock of Georgia.

His activities demonstrate how that wall can be breached when a cleric becomes a politician who clothes policy debates in language of religious faith.

We read here, for example, that Senator Warnock delivered a sermon about “both the healing powers of God and the dangers of power-hungry politicians.” Indeed, your article says, he “both preaches and talks politics on the campaign trail” and “invokes Scripture and calls voting ‘a kind of prayer’ before calling for Medicaid expansion.”

Debates about public policy should turn on real-world facts and positions tested by the evidence. It surely is difficult to evaluate or argue with a position that supposedly bears the endorsement of the Almighty, and voters should not be asked to do so.

Kenneth A. MargolisChappaqua, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Re “Charges Depict a Chilling Plan Against Pelosi” (front page, Nov. 1):

Some cable news networks have repeatedly displayed photographs of the suspect in the Pelosi assault case. This is very dangerous, because there are some violent criminals (both of the ordinary kind and the politically motivated kind) who would love to get their pictures on television.

This practice, wholly unnecessary as a matter of public policy, therefore should cease immediately.

Howard UlanCamp Hill, Pa.The writer is a psychologist.

To the Editor:

Re “Is That Mondrian Upside Down?” (Arts, Nov. 2):

What next? Will we discover that the Nude was really Ascending the Staircase? And that Chagall’s Fiddlers were really playing in the basement?

Keith DanishLeonia, N.J.