It's all about power
I've figured out the secret of Donald Trump's success. It has nothing to do with any ideas or beliefs. It is entirely about power. Around the turn of the last century Friedrich Nietzsche came up with the assertion, "Kraft, nicht Wahrheit" (power, not truth). He also came up with "God is dead," which is an apt postscript to the latter. For once truth is dead, God will not be far behind.
"Power, not truth" is all there is to Trump's philosophy. If truth gets in the way of your objectives, simply call it "fake," redefine it, or quash it. Might makes right. Power always wins.
This amoral philosophy was prominent in most ancient political systems. It obtained its particularly lethal 20th century embodiment in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Communist China. It is alive and well today in neo-Soviet Russia, the People's Republic of China and Trump's GOP. Most Americans don't know what it's like to live in a system where truth doesn't matter. They will soon find out.
The only thing power can't steamroll with lies is the Law of Cause and Effect. Lies will not stop global climate change. Lies cannot stop pandemics. Lies cannot change physical reality--only our perception of it.
In short, once the lemmings leap, gravity takes over. Welcome to the next four years.
ALEX MIRONOFF
Fayetteville
Editor's note: This letter was originally published 10 years ago today.
A disappointing vote
I was deeply disappointed in the number of congressional Democrats voting in favor of the recent budget-compromise bill. The inclusion of the swaps language extending FDIC insurance for high-risk gambling by Wall Street banks, making taxpayers inevitably saddled for future bailouts. Plus, the expanded latitude for unlimited contribution to both political parties will surely lead to ownership influence of both parties by big-money dominance.
Neither of these inclusions is in any way related to budget. Both serve the interest of big money to the detriment of equality in citizenship. (One more major step toward the disolution of our sacred democracy.)
I'm sure there were numerous fiscal-advantage provisions in the bill, but I don't condone abandoning the long-standing Democratic tradition of preserving the middle class' fundamental right to equal voice in our government.
Achieving compromise at the cost of our egalitarian democracy is a price I am unwilling to pay.
I listened to several Green Party and independent candidates in last year's election debates. I thought some made pretty good sense. If both major political parties are to succumb to the allure of big money, maybe middle-class citizens need to aim at electing a majority mix of these two parties. We could attempt to urge those Democrats who voted against the compromise to run as independents.
ROBERT G. HALL
Jacksonville
Bibles in classrooms
Some states have started to pass laws allowing the Bible to be used in the classroom. My question is "Which Bible?"
The Jewish Bible contains 24 books. The Greek Old Testament, the basis for the early Christian Bible, contains 53 books. The Catholic Old Testament has 46 books, the Protestant has 39 books. So, how many books are in the Old Testament: 24, 53, 46, or 39?
Within Judeo-Christian traditions, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants have different lists of the Ten Commandments and number them differently. Which version is to be posted in a classroom? In doing so, is the state promoting one faith over another?
If someone says, "I believe the Bible literally," the question becomes which translation. There are dozens of Bible translations in use today. Even the King James Version is about the eighth version of the Bible translated into English. Each translation is unique in its approach to translating the original Hebrew and Greek texts.
Using the Bible in a classroom comes close to obscuring the line between church and state. In selecting one version or translation over another, we have to decide if a Jewish, Catholic, or a Protestant Bible is to be used. If a Protestant version is to be used, which one? By choosing one Bible over another, is the state favoring one theological perspective over another?
I am a Bible proponent. When it comes to reading and using the Bible, parents and their church should be intimately involved in that selection, and not some state or local school board official. To those who believe their child would be better off with a Bible in the classroom, I would ask, "Did you read some scripture and pray with your child before school today?" If not, why not? That's your job, not the state's.
DENMAN GILLETT
Little Rock