Sept. 9, 2025 5 AM PT
To the editor: Contributing author Josh Hammer is making an attempt to rewrite historical past with this op-ed (“America wants Trump to fight crime,” Sept. 5). To help President Trump’s risk to ship the army to police blue cities like Chicago and Baltimore, Hammer claims that historical past is on Trump’s facet and cites President Washington’s suppression of the Whiskey Revolt in 1794.
This can be a false analogy. Washington led troops into western Pennsylvania to place down a violent rebellion of farmers who have been flouting a brand new federal regulation that taxed whiskey. That’s very completely different from sending federal troops to carry out regular city policing capabilities. Hammer’s assertion that “federal power has been referred to as in, or despatched in, to help state-level regulation enforcement loads of instances” fails to understand the present circumstances and objective of Trump’s proposal. By misinterpreting the previous to justify Trump’s actions, Hammer proves what Orwell mentioned 75 years in the past: “Who controls the previous controls the longer term. Who controls the current controls the previous.” We will’t overlook “1984.”
Bruce Dickey, Costa Mesa
..
To the editor: Hammer has chosen to brag as a substitute of questioning the knowledge of consolidating a lot energy within the govt department. However the powers Trump now claims, and Hammer now applauds, may create a starkly completely different existence within the fingers of a Democratic administration.
Think about a Democratic president declaring threats to “nationwide safety” (no much less believable than these Trump has declared) regarding local weather change, civil rights, training, healthcare and gun violence. Think about the Nationwide Guard or Military pouring into purple states to “safeguard” the well being, security, liberty and safety of the residents. Think about armed troops ensuring no extra oil is pumped, or stationed inside hospitals to make sure ladies aren’t stored from receiving reproductive medical care, or in faculties ever vigilant that anti-science and non secular quackery don’t seep into curriculum.
Conservatives misplaced their minds over the very nebulous forces of “wokeism,” gender identification and significant race concept. They responded to those threats by empowering the president to make use of armed forces to safe their coverage objectives and political retribution. Think about now the liberal agenda being applied not by milquetoast NPR debates, tutorial treatises and newspaper opinion columns however, as Trump has completed, by troops rolling down their streets in armored personnel autos. Both they’re so drunk on energy they can’t perceive that such a future is solely believable now, or they consider Trump will one way or the other by no means must cede energy. Neither chance would make life higher in America.
Greg Seyranian, Redondo Seashore
..
To the editor: I take sturdy exception to the fundamental assertion underlying Hammer’s argument. He states as proven fact that Trump is on the fitting facet of a transparent “80-20 concern,” implying that an enormous majority of People are in favor of deploying the Nationwide Guard to our cities. Balderdash! In actuality, a latest CBS News/YouGov poll confirmed that 58% of People oppose such deployments. Clearly, America doesn’t need Trump to “combat crime” in our cities.
Jerry Swovelin, Carlsbad
