To the Editor:
Linda Kinstler's “Searching for the Lost Altar of Forgetfulness” (Guest essay in Opinion magazine, June 16th) discusses how America is still processing the events of January 6th and other traumas:
Like Dr. Kinstler, I was unable to find any trace of an “Altar of Forgetting” at the Athenian Acropolis. The likely obvious answer is that such a thing never existed. After all, the ancient Athenians were not clever enough to erect an architectural monument to a contradiction in terms: the act of forgetting itself.
But forgetting is forgetting, and forgetting is what career politicians, then and now, have always longed for, eager to sweep embarrassing facts under the carpet of history, not for their own sake but for the sake of inconvenient truths.
In fact, the forgetting that Dr. Kinstler celebrates and argues is a good model for our political behavior today led to the execution of Socrates, a man many Athenians wanted to get rid of because he believed in the truth and did not easily tolerate lies or fools.
Remembering the January 6th insurrection in all its ugliness and then moving on naively without forgetting it is exactly what America needs if it wants to have a democracy worth saving.
Stephen Bartman
West Bloomfield, Michigan
The author is Professor Emeritus of Classics at the University of Windsor, Ontario, and author of Cultural Amnesia: America's Future and the Crisis of Memory.
To the Editor:
Linda Kinstler's essay, while original, is unconvincing for several reasons, one of which is scale: the two examples she gives, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, were long-standing conflicts that directly affected the entire country, and so an act of forgetting could legitimately be considered the only way the country could move forward.
The second has to do with the nature of the media. Whereas memories of such events and newspaper articles from the time were available, today's Internet allows almost anyone, anywhere, to access information, store it, and comment on it indefinitely. While Dr. Kinstler argues that memory is “not infinite,” the Internet certainly is, making it an easy placeholder for both individual and societal memories.
The “altar of forgetting” becomes very real when she talks about “clean slate laws,” though the implementation of such laws would depend on the severity of the crime (e.g. misdemeanors instead of felonies), changing times (e.g. now-repealed marijuana prohibition laws), or other circumstances that “ensure that the punishment is not permanent.”
In short, the spirit of her argument can and should live on, but only in specific circumstances that apply primarily to individuals, not to society as a whole.
Bill Dingfelder
Philadelphia
To the Editor:
It's odd that Linda Kinstler never mentions “reconciliation” like the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The only catch is that the perpetrators, including former President Donald Trump, must acknowledge the truth.
Nelson Mandela's vision for South Africa was very different from the false mantras that would go on to be forgotten in America.
Edward W. Earl
Belfast, Maine
Trump's Vice Presidential Factor
To the Editor:
Regarding “Trump places emphasis on debate skills when selecting running mate” (news article, June 15):
It's telling that the three key factors Donald Trump looks at when deciding who to choose as his running mate are fundraising, campaign discipline and debating skills.
What about his fitness to succeed him, his foreign policy and legislative experience? Why is there less discussion about Trump's age and health than there is of the media's obsession with President Biden?
Gregory J. Stamos
Woodbridge, Connecticut
Presidential age limit
To the Editor:
As an 81-year-old with a distinguished career in computer science, I can attest that at 81 years old, President Biden is likely too old to fully fulfill the demands of another term.
But so is former President Donald Trump, 78.
Perhaps it is time for a constitutional amendment such as the following:
“No person shall be elected President who shall not have attained the age of 75 years on the inauguration date. This amendment shall not apply to persons elected President before ratification.” (The second sentence needs to be taken out of the discussion due to the immediacy of current politics.)
We can debate whether the president should be 70, 75, or some other age, but it seems increasingly likely that we will be faced with a president who is too old to serve. This is a very different debate from 1960, when some thought that John F. Kennedy, at 43, was too young to run for office.
Hugh C. Lauer
Concord, Massachusetts
Ukraine peace talks?
To the Editor:
Regarding “More than 80 countries call for talks to end the war between Russia and Ukraine” (news article, June 17):
The problem with holding peace talks between Ukraine and Russia is that Russia has already seized territory that it claims is part of its rights, and so dictator Vladimir Putin claims he would fight, possibly with nuclear weapons, to defend that territory.
Putin has also indicated that he considers at least some of the Baltic states, and even Poland, to be sovereign territory of Russia. If negotiations allow us to keep what we take at gunpoint, just as we were allowed to keep Crimea, then what will we demand next? What will we seize at gunpoint next?
We've seen something similar before. More than 80 years ago, another dictator began seizing territory that he claimed was rightfully his. He repeatedly claimed that his demands would be the last, but each time that proved to be a lie.
Unwilling to risk war to prevent a weaker nation from being conquered, the Western powers sat back and did nothing. Eventually, war broke out, resulting in millions of deaths and a devastated and divided Europe. Today, with thousands of nuclear missiles at the ready, the situation could get even worse.
As the saying goes, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I want peace more than anyone, but not at its cost. Putin must be stopped now, forced to retreat with no gain from aggressive actions, just as his predecessor should have done – if it is not too late already.
Eric B. Lipps
Staten Island
Reasons to avoid becoming a parent
To the Editor:
I read with great interest Anastasia Berg and Rachel Weisman’s Opinion guest essay, “The Liberal Narrative Leaves Little Room for Having Children” (June 16).
I humbly suggest that the reason progressives are not having as many children as expected is not because of an exaggerated fatalism about the future or an intense desire for self-improvement and enrichment, but simply because many progressive couples seek economic security (which is increasingly out of reach in big cities) as the basic foundation of a family, and because many women want a partner who respects their needs and who fully shares the emotional and physical labor of raising children.
Rather than making this into an issue of misguided politics and selfishness, why not explore the underlying reasons why people don't reproduce? That will give us a more meaningful answer.
Monica Bhargava
Berkeley, California
