Simplistic assessment of Trump, global issues
To the editor:
In response to Mark Merritt's letter of May 25 "Trump is preferable to more of Clintons," I think the writer has incorrectly analyzed a range of issues regarding the upcoming election, as well as the political process in general.
He blames "customary political experience" for "the rise of ISIS, Russia's incursion into Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, governmental gridlock, stagnant wages, and a widening economic gap between rich and poor." The reality remains that Russia's strengthened economy, based primarily on energy, gives it room for increased influence both on policy and military matters. ISIS, ironically, was created due to the gap in power created by our toppling of a powerful dictator in the Middle East by the George W. Bush administration.
Governmental gridlock was created in large part by the removal of pork projects from the process and the emergence of the tea party. Stagnant wages and the rift between the rich and poor have been ongoing since the 1970s and was widely increased under Ronald Reagan.
The writer cites Einstein's quote regarding insanity, but does not acknowledge the complicated reality on the ground that the world is changing quickly, requiring new solutions that can, and do, produce unknown outcomes, which often themselves require correction. He states that Donald Trump thinks he "can dictate terms to our adversaries," which merely indicates the ignorance as to what the president is constitutionally authorized to do.
Like Trump, he attempts to litigate ancient history that has long been settled by bringing up Bill Clinton's affairs, which are in no way relevant in this election cycle. In the grand scheme of life, these are private matters to be settled within the Clinton family. They have no bearing upon the current race for president.
Like so many others he claims the president has overstepped his constitutional authority, but fails to articulate a single specific example of how he thinks this is true.
While Trump may make headlines babbling non-specific nonsense about making America great again, which is notable in and of itself as it implies the candidate thinks America currently is not great, he lacks the specifics of a plan to actually govern. While his rhetoric may be feel good for a limited number of citizens, it doesn't represent a reasonable path forward, much less a path to "greatness."
Brian W. Barnett, Glendale