This is the second of two rounds of letters in response to an Opinion article about ideas for the new Democratic-controlled Congress. The first round was published on Thursday.
To the Editor:
Re “8 Big Ideas for the Next Congress” (Opinion, Nov. 8):
You listed eight things the new Congress should do, and each is worthy. Let me add a ninth: Congress should work with the states to create local citizens’ assemblies that decide how we want to benefit from artificial intelligence and how to avoid its many dangers.
These assemblies would be made up of ordinary citizens chosen at random. They would be nonpartisan and free from political pressure. Members would hear from experts, question them, deliberate with one another and make recommendations.
This idea is neither new nor utopian. For nearly two centuries, Athenian democracy chose its governing council, its juries and most public officials by lottery. In our own time, Ireland has used assemblies made up mostly of randomly selected citizens to take up same-sex marriage and abortion, questions politicians had avoided for decades. Voters approved the referendums that followed.
An issue as fundamental as A.I. should not be left in the hands of a few billionaires, or even of politicians. It belongs to all of us.
The political scientist Hélène Landemore’s new book, “Politics Without Politicians: The Case for Citizen Rule,” is a good primer on how this could work.
Paul McIsaac
Sagaponack, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Democrats owe a special debt of gratitude not only to the blue cities that turned red states but also to those rural voters long overlooked, who are now demanding change. Coastal urbanites have little insight into the long deprivation of America’s heartland communities. They discount the fact that the productivity of rural regions makes urban life possible. This obligates Democrats to focus more on the welfare of non-metro America.
Rural economic revitalization will entail repopulation of many small cities and towns. This may happen, given increased climate instability in the decades ahead, forcing many to move to safer ground — not just cities in “climate safer” regions, but also into many willing smaller communities, thanks to remote work.
These seemingly separate challenges — rural renewal and population displacement — offer an opportunity for a shared solution, the first reducing the predicament posed by the second. Sustainably rebuilt economies and population replenishment would help reduce financial inequality and help heal today’s unsettling urban-rural divide.
Hillary Brown
Bronx
The writer is a fellow of the American Institute of Architects and the author of “Revitalize/Resettle: How Main Street U.S.A. Can Offer New Beginnings for America’s Climate-Displaced.”
To the Editor:
Describing all these ideas as big or bold may be a bit generous, but most were good. For me, the boldest and the most positive move for our entire country — and, frankly, for the world — would be to impeach the president. He still has two more years in office; the damage he will be able to do is significant. The most positive idea we could enact would be to get this man out of the White House.
Now.
John H. Clark
Charlotte, N.C.
To the Editor:
Great ideas, but none address our most intractable affordability problem: the fact that longstanding pay disparities have made women the biggest underpaid work force in the nation. Simple, overdue fairness is within grasp.
Now that more than three-quarters of all states (38 of 50) have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, our new Congress should quickly pass a resolution recognizing this and clear the way for its publication as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If President Trump wishes to improve his legacy with women, he can reverse his opposition to this. Over time, the E.R.A. would increase women’s income and alleviate the disproportionately large share of money woes they bear.
Making the E.R.A. into an amendment would also bring our Constitution into the 21st century and remove the originalism ruse conservative judges routinely deploy to deny women justice. It’s time to correct our founding fathers, who, despite their bold vision, actually believed that women and girls were the property of their fathers and husbands, not equal citizens.
Roberta Riley
Seattle
The writer is a former women’s rights lawyer.
To the Editor:
Re “Democrats Need a Bold Governing Agenda” (editorial, Nov. 8):
This editorial expertly sets out the rationale for Democrats creating a vision for policies and ideas the public can embrace, but it assumes that Republicans won’t support the proposals, and that Democrats can persuade the public to embrace them — and ultimately elect more Democrats.
Here’s a less risky approach: compromise. Develop proposals with the strategy of attracting enough Republicans to override any veto by President Trump. The numbers needed are low, given the recent Democratic rout. And smart Republicans, some of whom barely hung on to their offices, should be thinking of reaching across the aisle to save their careers.
Instead of scoring points against Republicans as the editorial counsels, Democrats can put real wins on the board by seeking areas of compromise.
Joseph P. Petito
Sarasota, Fla.
To the Editor:
Your editorial says the Democrats “must show that they are relentlessly working to get results.” Clearly there is much to be done.
What better way to signal a willingness to work toward that end than for the leadership to announce that both chambers, starting in January, will be in session Monday through Friday? Keeping the status quo, three to four days per week in session, would not send the same message.
The people voted for change, and a five-day workweek for Congress (standard for millions of Americans) would be a welcome start.
Marvin Kaplan
Westfield, N.J.
Trump’s Threat
To the Editor:
Re “Administration Issues a Threat About Inquiries” (front page, Nov. 12):
It’s always hard to know whether President Trump, or anyone else in his administration, actually believes the things he says. It seems incredible that any lawyer, even Attorney General Todd Blanche, could think that oversight by the House Oversight Committee could be a crime.
However, the threat is real. Mr. Trump’s promises may be empty, but he always means what he says when he threatens us. And by threatening a congressional committee, he is threatening all of us.
Let’s hope that now that we the people have spoken and rejected Mr. Trump’s dream of America as a gold-plated autocracy, the incoming Oversight Committee will feel free to do its job and not sit idly by and allow Mr. Trump to tear down our country’s institutions with impunity, as he has done for the past two years.
Tim Shaw
Cambridge, Mass.
To the Editor:
The White House’s threat to Congress for investigating its corruption takes its corruption to a new level.
Paul Sailer
Los Angeles
