Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

My best cycling year ever, in terms of mileage, was 2016, when I rode 6,288 miles. I set a high goal for 2018: 7,300 miles. That's an average of 20 miles per day for 365 days. Since today is the end of the sixth month of the year, let me take stock. Counting today's 41-mile ride (in 100º heat), I've pedaled 3,632.5 miles. Twenty miles per day (for 181 days) would be 3,620 miles. So I'm 12.5 miles to the good. I rode 17 times in June for a total of 661.3 miles. That's an average of 22.0 miles per day. Life is good.

To the editor:

It has been noted in multiple articles that Democrats have been decrying President Trump’s border policies. Since when does compassion belong to a single political party? And, really, do we want our president, Democrat or Republican, to:

Have no empathy for those seeking asylum? Continually lie and invent facts to suit his own agenda? Demonize the FBI and Justice Department? Vilify minorities who protest injustices? Refer to neo-Nazi protesters as “very fine people”? Denigrate the crucially important free press and call it the “enemy of the people?” Intentionally divide rather than unite American citizens? Bail on the United Nations Human Rights Commission? Abandon the Paris Accord and its mission to control and stabilize the global climate? Put policies in place that do further harm to an already fragile environment? Ignore all input and advice from experienced aides and Cabinet members, no matter the problem, because he “alone can fix it?” Praise the world’s most authoritarian and least democratic rulers while maligning our closest allies?

The above is only a partial list of the deplorable actions taken by our president, and neither Democrats nor Republicans should find even one of them acceptable. To repudiate any and all of them requires only basic human decency and a conscience.

Robert Archerd, Rancho Palos Verdes

Either we need to elect more Republicans in November or Republicans must end the ridiculous 60 vote, or Filibuster, rule – or better yet, do both. Cryin’ Chuck would do it on day one, but we’ll never give him the chance. Some great legislation awaits – be smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 30, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

There are two main lines of argument against traditionalism. The first is that it is so vague that it is hardly possible to disagree with and that consequently it does not have any substantial content. The conservative is not opposed to change as such and absolutely, but rather to large and sudden or violent change. But how great does a change have to be to be unacceptably large? Again, conservatives admit that large political changes may be needed to cope with large changes of social or natural circumstances. The same vagueness, it may be argued, is present here.

This is an objection which conservatives should meet by agreeing with it, rather than seeking to rebut it. The vagueness complained of, the conservative could reply, is inevitable, the future course of events cannot be predicted and so cannot be prepared for in specific and detailed terms. The conservative response to novelty must be a matter of judgement, based on experience, not a business of the application of a set of rigid principles.

The critic could argue further that circumstantial changes, for the most part the outcome of technological progress, have very greatly increased in magnitude in recent times, as shown by huge increases in population, in the destructiveness of weapons, in damaging pressure on resources and the natural environment. This is harder for the conservative to deal with, suggesting as it does the anachronistic character of inherited political wisdom. But he could reply that the conservative method of dealing with change, by continuous, gradual steps, is better than confronting it with vast speculative schemes.

The other main argument against conservative traditionalism is that it is inconsistent since it now endorses political and legal arrangements which it strenuously resisted when they were first proposed—the emancipation of Catholics and Jews, the enlargement of the franchise to the unpropertied and women, the reduction of the monarchy to a merely ceremonial status and the political marginalization of the House of Lords, to take only British examples.

The conservative could reply that there is no inconsistency, the high social cost of absorbing these political innovations, which would not have been called for if they had been introduced more gradually, has now been paid. They are now themselves a part of the customary, established political fabric. But one may wonder if they would ever have come about at all if they had not been forced through against conservative opposition.

(Anthony Quinton, "Conservatism," chap. 9 in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy [Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1993], 244-68, at 261-2)

Pilgrim (1998). Another John Sullivan suggestion.

Here.

Here.

I agree on the general substance of your June 27 editorial “United States of Intolerance.” Of course, we should exercise our common sense, common decency and common courtesy on how we conduct ourselves with those whom we may have disagreements over points of view. There are certainly many examples today of actions of intolerance on both the right and the left.

I did find it very interesting that the editorial omitted using the president of the United States as a prime example of one who has time and time again demonstrated intolerance and a failure to show common decency and common courtesy to others through his speeches and actions.

President Donald Trump has consistently made comments during his campaign rallies and as of late, his presidential rallies, that have had negative influences on the public discourse and civility in our country.

His anti-Muslim and anti-Mexican rhetoric, bashing the media and attacks on our judicial system are without precedent. His hate speeches emboldened by his campaign escalated after his win. Mr. Trump has at times even called for violence at his rallies against those who do not agree with him.

Tolerance and diversity have never been the goals of this president. Why didn’t the editorial criticize Mr. Trump for his contribution in raising the level of hate and intolerance that we are experiencing?

Aren’t his actions normalizing intolerance and incivility in our country? That omission was baffling to me.

JOSEPH P. CORNIBE

McCandless

Six months after our TAX CUTS, more than 6 MILLION workers have received bonuses, pay raises, and retirement account contributions.#TaxCutsandJobsAct https://t.co/MevjwIINGU

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js