Anger Over the Destruction of American Values
To the Editor:
'How to Make a Mild Guy Really Angry,' by David Brooks (column, May 30), struck a deep chord. His outrage is justified.
The reduction of patriotism to mere tribal loyalty and the denial of the idea that soldiers might fight for ideals are not only historically inaccurate but also morally corrosive. Mr. Brooks rightly calls this what it is: an attempt to reject the better angels of our national character.
If the current administration wishes to recover a sense of moral clarity, it might begin by revisiting the rich tradition of Catholic social teaching. Pope Francis often reminded us that authentic social peace cannot be built on exclusion or the idolization of the homeland, but only through a love that seeks the good of others. Human dignity is not earned by group membership or ancestry; it is universal and inviolable, and must be the foundation of all political action.
When leaders traffic in dehumanizing language or policies, they not only stain the office they hold — they also cheapen the very ideals that generations of Americans have fought and died to uphold. America is indeed a homeland. But as Mr. Brooks reminds us, it is also an idea. And without that idea — of liberty, justice and equal dignity for all — we become just another tribe with flags.
Robert StewartChantilly, Va.
To the Editor:
David Brooks's anger over the destruction of American values is felt by many who are demonstrating on our streets and filling town hall meetings. But if we are to reverse the terrible moral condition of the United States, we must accept that the American people are responsible for it.
The American people elected Donald Trump and the MAGA majority in Congress, and by doing so eliminated historical national values such as democracy, compassion and concern for the national good, replacing them with individualism, grievance, presidential corruption and tribal dominance.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘We made a mistake': Pillen accepts responsibility for failed vetoes to Nebraska budget
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. Dec. 10, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen has accepted responsibility for mishandled line-item vetoes to the state's next two-year budget while reiterating that many of the suggested cuts will be reconsidered in 2026. Pillen, speaking with the Nebraska Examiner after the Legislature adjourned for the year, said the veto process includes 'human beings' in his office, the Clerk of the Legislature's Office and the Secretary of State's Office. On May 21, his office delivered Legislative Bill 261 and LB 264 with line-item vetoes to the Secretary of State's Office, which is the right place for the bills to go when the Legislature is out of session, but not to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office on the other side of the Capitol, which is where bills must be returned when senators are in session. The Governor's Office says LB 261 was line-item vetoed at 1:08 p.m. on May 21 and LB 264 at 1:10 p.m. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State's Office said the bills were delivered to that office around 5 p.m. the same day. The Legislature did receive a separate letter from Pillen the night of May 21 detailing the line-item vetoes, as well as a copy of the bills with the inscribed vetoes, but lawmakers contended the next day that a line-item veto is constitutional only with the inscribed vetoes on the actual bills. Those bills remained at the Secretary of State's Office until morning. The Nebraska Constitution requires vetoes to be returned within five days of being presented to the governor, excluding Sundays. The bills passed May 15 and went to Pillen's office at 1:12 p.m., so the deadline was by the end-of-day May 21. Pillen said the mistake on the night of May 21 was 'a miscommunication on where it was supposed to go.' Pillen was in Washington, D.C., the following day, for a 'Make America Healthy Again' event at the White House. 'Bottom line: We made a mistake. I'd have thought, because we all work together, that a flag would have been thrown and said, 'Hey, let's do X,' but there wasn't, and then the glass of milk was spilled the next morning,' Pillen told the Examiner. The intended vetoes targeted $14.5 million to the state's general fund and $18 million in repurposed cash funds for improvements at Lake McConaughy. He sought to save $14.5 million that the Legislature's budget aimed to use from the state's 'rainy day' cash reserve by trimming spending — $152 million from the rainy day fund went to help balance the budget. The Nebraska Supreme Court, which faced about $12 million of Pillen's proposed general fund reductions (83%), has said the loss of those funds could close vital court services. This was Pillen's second two-year budget — he vetoed $38.5 million in general fund spending in 2023 for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. Lawmakers restored about $850,000 of the trims. Pillen, Secretary of State Bob Evnen and Speaker of the Legislature John Arch have pledged to clarify the line-item veto process for the budget ahead of 2026, and they've agreed that the suggested reductions should be considered when the budget is adjusted next year. Arch has said that to his knowledge, nothing like this had happened before. Pillen, whose office now insists the matter is resolved, said, 'As I told our team, we look in the mirror, we accept responsibilities. I've not met a human that doesn't make a mistake yet.' Pillen and his staff have declined to detail exactly what happened the night of May 21. Rani Taborek-Potter, a spokesperson for Evnen, said no one from the Secretary of State's Office delivered the actual LB 261 and LB 264 with the line-item vetoes to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office, 'nor is it our office's responsibility to do so.' 'When bills are vetoed by the Governor, the vetoed bills are delivered directly to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office by the Governor's office, as was the case for LB 319 and LB 287 to the best of our knowledge,' Taborek-Potter told the Examiner, referring to the two other bills vetoed this session related to expanding SNAP benefit eligibility and fighting bedbugs in Omaha. Taborek-Potter confirmed the Governor's Office delivered the budget bills to the administrative assistant in the Secretary of State's Office just before 5 p.m. on May 21. The Examiner on May 23 requested all records and communications regarding the line-item vetoes from when the budget bills passed May 15 to the date of the records request. The request sought texts, emails and digital messages. It also asked for communications within the executive branch and between Pillen's office and the legislative branch, including staff and state senators. Documents provided in response indicated that Pillen's veto letter detailing his objections was ready by 6:05 p.m., when the state budget administrator, Neil Sullivan, sent it to Pillen's staff. Around 6:27 p.m., Kenny Zoeller, director of the governor's Policy Research Office, the main research and lobbying arm for Pillen, confirmed the letter among gubernatorial staff. 'We are handing this off back to the Legislature POST adjournment,' Zoeller wrote of next steps. 'I will text when it's handed off.' Laura Strimple, the governor's primary spokesperson, sent a draft news release regarding the vetoes at 8:21 p.m. to Sullivan. It was sent to reporters around 11:23 p.m. The Legislature adjourned at 9:20 p.m., and a reporter could see legislative staff discussing the veto letter. Through much of the day on May 22, legislative leadership met off the floor, including Arch. Several emerged just before adjournment at 2:37 p.m. when Arch announced the vetoes could not be accepted and that the Legislature had concluded they were constitutionally improper. Some members of the Appropriations Committee hugged, threw fists in the air and smiled after. Pillen's spokesperson, Strimple, sent a statement to reporters at 4:48 p.m. stating it was the governor's position that Pillen 'clearly took the legally required steps to exercise his veto authority by surrendering physical possession and the power to approve or reject the bills.' She said the Governor's Office would consult with the Attorney General's Office and other counsel. The Policy Research Office, executive branch budget staff and other members of the governor's staff met around 5 p.m. on May 22. Strimple sent her statement on the governor's position to all members of the governor's staff at 5:23 p.m., then to lawmakers at 5:53 p.m. On May 27, the next legislative day, Pillen, Arch and Evnen released their joint statement around 2:54 p.m., ending the possible constitutional dispute and returning to their respective corners, with no one taking blame for the situation until Pillen spoke with reporters this week. Pillen's office asserts that it searched texts and digital messages as part of the public records request but found no responsive records, including from Zoeller, who had pledged to text after delivering the veto letter in one of the emails. The Governor's Office provided no records reflecting communications with the legislative branch. None of the records indicate what happened to the bills after being delivered to Evnen's office. Evnen, speaking with the Examiner on Friday, reiterated that the Secretary of State's Office's role with legislation is to file it, and 'when it's brought to our office and we're asked to file it, that's what we do.' 'There's a certain amount of confusion, really between the legislative branch and the Governor's Office, about those line-item vetoes, and I think that what we will do is sit down and talk through together how that will be handled. That's a really good thing to do,' he said. Multiple lawmakers beyond Arch have quietly teased the suggestion with the Examiner, asking how much clearer the process can be. Asked if there was a reason the original bills in the Secretary of State's Office by about 5 p.m. could not be delivered by midnight on May 21, Evnen said: 'You would have to ask the Governor's Office.' Strimple, asked about the remaining timeline on May 21 and May 22, said that with the Arch-Evnen-Pillen joint statement, 'The matter is concluded.' One of the top targets of Gov. Jim Pillen's intended line-item vetoes to the state's budget bills was about $12 million in spending earmarked for the Nebraska Supreme Court. Corey Steel, state court administrator for Nebraska, told lawmakers that the line-item vetoes to the courts could eliminate various services, including three problem-solving courts in Lancaster and Sarpy Counties, a drug court in Gov. Jim Pillen's home of Platte County, transition living reimbursements for certain adults and non-statutory services for juveniles on probation. Pillen told the Examiner that while he has the 'utmost respect' for the separation of powers between Nebraska's branches of government, he believes each one must look at government differently. He said the courts have significantly increased spending and have money sitting around. Steel, as well as Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke, have said that position isn't accurate and that increased spending has been in part due to legislation that came without new funds. The judicial branch leaders have said that the 'money' held in various funds is now exhausted. However, Pillen said he's not backing down and that the reductions will be considered in 2026. 'We have to be fiscally responsible,' Pillen said, 'and that's all we're asking.' — Zach Wendling SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
CNN
42 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump encouraged Vance to respond diplomatically when asked about Musk. Here's how it played in real time
Vice President JD Vance rolled his eyes when shown during a podcast taping Elon Musk's suggestion that President Donald Trump should be impeached and Vance should replace him. 'Oh, my God,' Vance said, sipping on a sparkling orange energy drink while sitting across from comedian and podcaster Theo Von. 'See, this is what I'm talking about.' 'What are you talking about — campaigning?' Von joked. But Vance didn't take the bait, or even risk joking about the possibility of taking power from Trump. 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Vance said of Musk, who turned criticism of Trump's domestic policy agenda into bitter personal attacks, this jab specifically appearing to pit the president and Vance against each other. 'Politics is a place where people stab each other in the back. You can't get anything done, unless you're all on the same team and you're actually committed to getting stuff done together,' Vance continued. 'The idea that … the president should be impeached — I'm sorry, it's insane.' As Musk was adding fuel to the flames of the escalating fight Thursday, Vance was taping a podcast with Von in Nashville at Trump ally Kid Rock's new restaurant and was forced to respond in real time. Vance was shown for the first time Musk's post accusing Trump, without evidence, of being in the 'Epstein files.' Reading the post on the monitor, Vance said, 'I haven't even seen this one.' 'Jeez, man,' Vance said, letting out a breath. 'Presumably when this comes out, people are going to know more about this than even I do, because this kinda happened on the plane when I was coming on down here,' he said during the interview, which was released Saturday morning. Before Vance flew to Nashville to tape the podcast, the vice president was in the Oval Office sitting to Trump's left when reporters peppered the president with questions about Musk's criticism of his 'one big, beautiful bill.' A source familiar said Trump and Vance had multiple conversations throughout the day Thursday and that Trump encouraged Vance to speak diplomatically about Musk when asked about him publicly. Vance first defended Trump against the Epstein allegations, saying in the podcast, 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'Whatever the Democrats and the media says about them, that's totally BS,' Vance added. But it wasn't the Democrats or 'the media' making this allegation, it was Trump's former right-hand man, Musk. Vance, however, didn't lash out at Musk or serve as an attack dog for Trump, instead taking the diplomatic approach the president encouraged and making it clear where his loyalty lies. At the time, Vance said he hoped the two men might make amends, but the Epstein post put some doubt in his mind. 'I'm the vice president to President Trump. My loyalties are always going to be with the president, and I think that Elon, he's an incredible entrepreneur,' Vance said, adding, 'I hope that eventually Elon kind of comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now, because he's gone so nuclear.' On Saturday, Trump told NBC News he's not interested in fixing his relationship with Musk. The Tesla CEO appears to have deleted several of the posts from Thursday's feud, including the one about Epstein and suggesting the president should be impeached and replaced with Vance, but the criticism of Trump's bill remains on his X account. Vance and Musk, however, have long had a good relationship, even before Vance was chosen as Trump's running mate, and the two would speak regularly, a source familiar with their interactions told CNN. CNN previously reported that Musk lobbied Trump to pick Vance as a running mate, as did several conservative allies, including Donald Trump Jr., Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson. Responding to Musk's implosion with Trump, Vance praised him for his efforts to rid out 'waste, fraud and abuse' with the Department of Government Efficiency, but cast him as emotional, an entrepreneur who is frustrated with business of politics. 'Elon's new to politics, right? So, his businesses are being attacked nonstop. They're literally, like, fire-bombing some of his cars,' Vance said, referring to acts of vandalism against Tesla vehicles and facilities. 'I think part of it is this guy got into politics and has suffered a lot for it.' 'I get the frustration,' Vance said. 'It's a good bill. It's not a perfect bill, like the process of DC, if you're a business leader, you probably get frustrated with that process because it's more, you know, bureaucratic, it's more slow-moving.' Vance hinted at some erosion between Trump and Musk's relationship, based on his criticism of the bill, even before Thursday's blowup. 'I don't want to reveal too many confidences, but [Trump] was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon, but I think has been very restrained, because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk, and I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine,' Vance said. While Vance said, 'Elon's entitled to his opinion,' he warned of entering a 'war' with Trump. 'Is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don't think so. So, hopefully, Elon figures it out, comes back into the fold,' Vance added. Boiling it down further, Vance said, 'I think Elon means the best. But I think he's making a mistake.'
