The anti-socialism skew
Re: “I was once a socialist. Then I saw how it worked.” Dec. 15 commentary
The David Brooks article clearly identifies the problems of socialism and the benefits of capitalism. Unfortunately, thanks to often-repeated GOP talking points, Democrats are inaccurately associated with socialism and Republicans with capitalism. Left unsaid in the article is that no Democratic presidential candidate wants to replace capitalism with socialism. They want popular upgrades to our health care system that are not substantially different from what exists in Canada, Denmark or Finland. These are countries identified by Brooks as having the “freest economies in the world.”
Unfortunately, the GOP message is that Democrats want the demise of capitalism and have it replaced with Venezuelan-style socialism. Though not explicitly stated, that’s the grossly erroneous perception many readers will have after reading the commentary.
Bob Kropfli, Golden
Yes, capitalism has helped make us a rich and prosperous nation. However, what David Brooks neglects to mention is that capitalistic enterprises were able to do that because of socialist (taxpayer-financed, government-administered) programs like subsidies, tax breaks and other financial advantages that enabled our businesses to amass fortunes never before possible.
Without these socialist programs, our big businesses would be much smaller — if they even got off of the ground. Social Security, public education, roads and highways, the military and most of the infrastructure are not the only things in this nation that are examples of our unique form of democratic socialism.
R. Kiefer, Arvada
We need a third party
Re: “Term limits, anyone” Dec. 19 letters to the editor
I see articles that think term limits are the answer; well, maybe. A few years back, I wrote in (but didn’t get published) about a way to get the mess in Washington cleaned up. My solution: All these millionaires and billionaires that keep running for president and spending millions of dollars on candidates to keep the same two parties in office should instead get together and support a viable third party, with people that would like to see real change in Washington.
A viable third party in both houses of Congress, along with term limits, would ensure that no one party could control either house; it would take the cooperation of at least two of the three parties to make a majority vote.
This would make stalemates impossible and keep fresh minds coming into D.C. instead of career politicians.
Peter Beckley, Aurora
Challenged by competition
Re: “GDP is broken, but we can fix it,” Dec. 19 commentary
David Leonhardt points out that the gross domestic product was “remarkably inclusive” following World War II. Still, he chooses to ignore a fact that economists and politicians gazing back to the “glory years” of the 1950s and ’60s choose to ignore: World War II itself.
Japan and Europe were devastated following that war. The United States had the only unscathed industrial capacity in the entire developed world. I am old enough to remember that “Made in Japan” meant items of low quality in the early ’60s. We were the only game in town until the ’70s, when the world had been rebuilt and retooled, and America again faced real international competition.
It is dishonest to ignore that fact. Now even China and India, along with South Korea and Mexico, are our competitors. To believe that a country can force wealth redistribution amid withering international competition is simply unsupportable and reckless. America’s systems aren’t broken; they are being challenged by forces they cannot control as before.
Gary Rotolo, Evergreen
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
