Readers Write: American exceptionalism, Pride weekend

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

It’s always interesting to read Chuck Chalberg’s opinion pieces (”The American story: Flawed and, yes, exceptional,” Opinion Exchange, June 30), however, he’s usually a little more subtle in his derision of everything “progressive.” I guess this is what happens when you get to define the terms of the argument, in this case, what “exceptional” means. If you decide that whatever the founding fathers thought or did was exceptional then it’s easy to see how one might think that anything that threatens that ideal must be bad.

The Constitution was inarguably a very clever document created in difficult and challenging social and political times — and it shows. For example, the inability to end slavery, the silly electors, the need to placate small states with an equal number of senators and, of course, the enormous amount of power left to the states in general.

Fortunately — or unfortunately, depending on your view — almost immediately that cleverness turned to handcuffs for a government that needed to govern because, right or wrong, people expect solutions to problems from their government (it’s called progress). The founding fathers quickly aligned themselves into partisan groups, like Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists or Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans (ironic name for a nondemocracy) and thus it began. Back and forth through our history these two groups have fought, often exchanging their philosophies — and names — to this very day, to find their own dodges to get around our stifling, immutable governing document. Sadly, often for selfish reasons.

You know what’s really exceptional? How well we have done with this kludge of a government. Civil rights, Medicare, Social Security — and of course the ability to own a powerful gun! Meanwhile, fostering the greatest economy ever and a place where millions of people still want to move.

To paraphrase Chalberg, it’s not perfect, but it’s worthy of trying to keep what we have. But preferably without resorting to a dictator.

D. Roger Pederson, Minneapolis

•••

I thank Chalberg for his essay, but I’m afraid that I strongly disagreed with his conclusion that “progressives” are the greatest threat to James Madison’s vision for the country. Even as Madison was arguing for a large country with many factions, the greatest faction in the United States was the slave holders in the South. They managed to control how the country’s Constitution was written by making sure the importation of slaves would continue until 1808, by agreeing that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of voting apportionment and by helping determine that the election of the president would depend upon the vote of the Electoral College. As a result, at least 13 of our presidents were slaveholders. That was a very strong faction that fought to extend its power across the continent, until a Civil War was fought and lost by the Confederacy.

As Chalberg brings up President Theodore Roosevelt, he did not mention that he was extending the power of the federal government in order to protect the freedom of farmers and small-business owners from the power of giant trusts. His action was to protect the factions that were being squeezed out by those trusts. In a similar way, President Franklin Roosevelt expanded the powers of government to protect the life and livelihood of the little guy. Throughout the history of the Republican Party, few presidents besides Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower have shown interest in protecting the factions of either the middle class or the poor.

I wonder if Chalberg has read either Ari Berman’s “Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People ― and the Fight to Resist It” or Steven Levitsky’s and Daniel Ziblatt’s “Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point”? Madison was hopeful that his vision for American democracy would prevail, but economic and cultural forces desirous of retaining their power and privilege have been more interested in securing their position than respecting Madison’s vision.

And now, I hope Chalberg has inquired about, listened to or read at least a summary of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. It is a 900-page plan for creating a supreme executive in charge of American democracy. It is designed to make sure the government curtails efforts to help those in factions who have been excluded or intentionally hindered and other groups that fear a tyranny of a minority.

The Rev. Grant Abbott, St. Paul

•••

The idea of American exceptionalism comes from the American origin story. We are a nation of people from every corner of the world. A people who escaped from economic hardship, political and religious oppression, from violence and hate. The American story is of deprived people who came with nothing and made something amazing. Those did who come here to make a life or a fortune or to create a new reality were rarely welcomed. When my ancestors arrived from Eastern Europe over 100 years ago, they were not welcomed but allowed to stay because, frankly, more people were needed. Today American exceptionalism is being used as an excuse to keep people out who are coming for the exact same reasons we came. According to some, they will dirty the blood of the nation; they will bring crime, disease, laziness; they will be a drain on what exists of our social safety net; they will take jobs away from real Americans.

These are the same lies that my ancestors faced. Like when my ancestors arrived, more people are needed to do work Americans are unwilling to do. People from all over the world come to America not because it is a failing nation or to destroy an exceptional place: They come to participate and make America an even greater place. Turning them away is a step toward the end of an exceptional story.

David Weinberg, Minnetonka

In response to Sunday’s “Dancing with Pride” article on a youth-centered Pride event: I have two children and a niece who grew up in Minneapolis and went through the school system. One just graduated high school this month. The last thing any of them were thinking of when they were 11 and 12 years old was about their sexuality. They were focused on school, friends, team sports, piano lessons and enjoying their childhood!

The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Department is amazing, and my children and niece were involved with many of their wonderful programs. I support the LGBTQ movement, but for adults who can make their own choices, not for innocent children who are vulnerable to their parents’.

Parents need to parent responsibly and let their children enjoy being kids, instead of, to quote from the article, “strutt[ing] up a catwalk” in a youth drag show. Really?

Cheryl Joseph, Richfield