Opinion Editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers daily online and in print. To contribute, click here.
•••
In his commentary, “A Bad Candidate Can Make a Good President” (Opinion Exchange, May 29), James Blunt said he might vote for Donald Trump for president, indicating that he likes Trump’s policies but not his personality.
While these sentiments are often expressed by Trump’s supporters, I hope that Trump and all other voters do not forget or ignore the powerful words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt: “The Presidency is not merely an executive office; that is only a small part of it. The Presidency is more than an engineering job, efficient or inefficient. It is above all an arena of moral leadership. All our great presidents have been thought leaders at times when particular ideas in the nation’s history needed to be articulated.”
Dale Anderson, Egan
•••
I felt sympathy for Blunt after reading his article arguing that Trump was a bad person but a good president. As a liberal, I don’t have to face that dilemma: Would I vote for someone who supports my political views, even if they lack morals?
Blunt gives specific examples. Of course, we liberals can refute all of Trump’s specific “achievements” with our own specific examples. For example, Blunt cites Trump’s “lightning-fast” development of a COVID vaccine, but misses Trump’s dismissal of the COVID threat as merely the flu (against the advice of experts) and his promotion of the ineffective and potentially dangerous hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. Similarly, Blunt’s citations of favorable economic data under Trump ignore the devastating economic impact of the pandemic, something President Joe Biden has no control over. Moreover, Blunt’s criticism of Biden’s immigration policies misses the fact that Trump is a “hidden president” who has ordered his sycophant Republicans to sabotage Biden’s attempts to beef up border resources to improve the response to the crisis. And we can refute any attempt Blunt makes to cite policy justifications for voting for the morally bankrupt Trump.
But nitpicking aside, as a liberal, I have some sympathy for Blunt. We liberals should not have to compromise our standards when voting for a candidate. Of course, there are liberal politicians who make poor communication choices (e.g., Rep. Ilhan Omar’s “it’s all about the money” statement), but their moral integrity is never questioned. Unfortunately, conservatives like Blunt are not given the same choice as, say, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas or John Kasich of Ohio. I don’t agree with their political philosophies, but both are conservatives I could accept as president.
Rather than trying to force himself to justify the injustice of voting for Trump, Blunt would be better off focusing his efforts on putting conservative candidates on the ballot who will serve our country and make us proud to be Americans.
Richard Masur, Minneapolis
•••
In his commentary, Blunt acknowledges that neither candidate is a compelling choice, nor one I would strongly support.
Like many Americans, I’m not going to vote for the “lesser of two evils” this time.
That’s why I support and endorse Jill Stein. Her Green Party platform is about people, planet and peace. She is an alternative that could bring about the real change we so desperately need.
Michael McDonald, St. Paul
Presidential Election
I’m just preaching to like-minded people here.
The second theory in Ezra Klein’s “Seven Theories for Why Biden Is Losing” (Opinion Exchange, May 28) was “Blame the Media.” A better one would have been “Blame Apathy.” Polls show Biden leading by a whopping 49 points among voters who rely on newspapers, while Trump holds a huge 26-point lead among ostriches who don’t follow political news. Which means some of my earlier letters to the editor about Trump’s disqualification were just sermons to sympathizers. Let’s all sing “Don’t Stop Believin’.”
Jim Bartos, Maple Grove
economy
Articles discussing fast food prices are misleading
I am writing to express concern about a recent article entitled “Fast Food Prices Are Skyrocketing” (Business, May 22nd). While I appreciate the focus on consumer price trends, the article contains several inaccuracies and misunderstandings that require correction.
In today’s inflationary environment, value and affordability are top priorities for millions of Americans, so our readers have a right to know the truth.
First, the article fails to address the many economic factors that contribute to price fluctuations. It is important to consider the impact of rising supply chain costs, rising wages, and inflationary pressures that affect not just fast food but all sectors of the economy.
For McDonald’s, price increases in the US go hand in hand with increased restaurant operating costs. McDonald’s average “input costs” (salaries, ingredients, paper) have risen by about 40% over the past five years, and so has the average price of a McDonald’s menu item. Furthermore, the data cited in the article seems to lack context and proper sources, leading to misleading conclusions. For example, it says the price of a Big Mac has doubled over the past five years, but that’s not true. In 2019, the national average price of a Big Mac was $4.39; it’s now $5.29. That’s a 21% increase.
In reality, the price increases on McDonald’s menu items have been below the rate of inflation, keeping our prices well within the price range of other quick service restaurants.
McDonald’s is committed to providing great value for our customers and providing affordable options when they need them most, and readers across the country and in the Minneapolis area can find those options at their local McDonald’s.
Going forward, I urge the Star Tribune to provide a more nuanced and accurate portrayal of the factors that influence restaurant pricing.
Michael Gonda, Chicago
The author is Senior Vice President and Chief Impact Officer, North America, McDonald’s USA.
Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra
Get out and enjoy some local performances
Minnesota offers exquisite beauty, physical strength, stirring drama, deep emotion and personal sacrifice like no other place in the world. I’m not talking about our Timberwolves (go for it, Wolves!), but the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra (SPCO).
Unlike the Wolves, SPCO courtside seats are very reasonably priced and sometimes even free. Attending their concerts is like a massage for your brain. Watching them perform offers a variety of health benefits. Your creativity will be boosted in surprising and unexpected ways.
In addition to attending SPCO concerts, now is the time to tell SPCO management how much you love this orchestra and what it means to you. We are in danger of losing this world-class resource. Some musicians have already left or are planning to leave. Tell the director and management today that you want SPCO to do more, not less, to reach out to different regions and new audiences, to do more concerts and videos. Musicians sacrifice countless hours to create great music. They deserve to be well compensated and have benefits. Experiencing an SPCO performance is a big part of what makes Minnesota great. Tell them how passionate you are about this incredible team that regularly delivers performances that are as good as any orchestra in the world.
Michael Michaluk, mound
