Letters to the Editor: What ‘unity’ and ‘day one’ really mean -- and it isn’t about ruling like a king

To the editor: Columnist Jonah Goldberg says appeals to “unity” show we’ve missed the whole point of our constitutional system. “Nearly every pundit and public intellectual laments the lack of unity,” he writes.

I tend to think of unity, in the political sense, as working together within the party and across the aisle.

He also doesn’t care for the way politicians claim they’re going to get something done on day one, like pass a law. I’m sure Goldberg knows, better than most, that political speeches tend to be hyperbolic.

If Vice President Kamala Harris says she’s going to repeal former President Trump’s tax cuts on day one, I take that to mean she’s going to take that on and other projects on as soon as practicable.

I think Goldberg should add a dash of common sense to his recipe for curing the obsession with unity.

Nate Tucker, Costa Mesa

..

To the editor: I was initially prepared to take issue with Goldberg’s column. Calls to anger, reliance on sound bites instead of critical thinking, and the proliferation of disinformation have poisoned our politics and need to stop.

To me, unity seemed like a simple, attractive solution — that is, until its weakness was exposed in this column.

The question is, how do we reform our system? Maybe an overwhelming rejection of MAGA and Trumpism will be the first step.

Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills

..

To the editor: Goldberg is basically right about the limitations of unity, but (again) he misses a key point — the greater power of compromise.

Hopefully, Harris has learned a valuable lesson from President Biden on building consensus in order to move legislation forward.

Should she address the need for compromise to address problems like the deficit, Social Security and the needs of “fly-over states,” she will walk away with a substantial achievement and potentially a great presidency.

Scott Wrisley, Escondido