Letters to the Editor | Sept. 19, 2025

One recognizes the extent to which so many in our country see the world from their side only, wearing blinders.

President Donald Trump was asked by a journalist why, given the lowering of White House flags in honor of Charlie Kirk, the same order did not bring the flags to half-staff for the late Minnesota House speaker, Democrat Melissa Hortman, who was murdered by a madman.

The president’s first response was, “Who?”

When the questioner told him who Ms. Hortman was, he remembered.

I thought he would attack the person for asking that question, but instead, he delivered a weak, defensive response: that he did not make that order because Gov. Tim Walz did not request it. He said that had a request been made, he would have been happy to honor it.

The real answer is that the murder of a Democratic elected official is of little importance to him.

Oren Spiegler, Peters Township

Sen. John Fetterman says Donald Trump is not an autocrat because he was elected. Such a statement demonstrates a shocking level of naivete or historical ignorance, even more so because Mr. Fetterman is a United States senator. Vladimir Putin of Russia was elected, as was Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Neither could be considered a model of democratic leadership. Anyone, elected or not, can behave as an autocrat when he or she is allowed to make decisions and pass rules that exceed their legal authority. When such behavior is rampant, it is reasonable to describe the individual as an autocrat. Applying tariffs without congressional consent, firing heads of independent agencies without cause, and aborting expenditures passed by Congress are just a few examples of Trump’s autocratic regime. It is actions, not elections, that define an autocrat. The current president’s actions fit the definition of autocracy.

C. Oatis, Philadelphia

I have to say that I’m surprised by Sen. John Fetterman’s take on autocracy. While I understand he came to office as a small-town mayor with no legislative experience, no committee experience, and not much more than a dream and a cool hoodie brand, I assumed he knew enough about history not to embarrass himself.

True, Donald Trump is the product of a democratic election. And so were autocrats like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, and Adolf Hitler. Like most autocrats in history, they were elected democratically. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro is an exception. He seized power in a revolution — after being banned from running for Congress by the democratically elected Fulgencio Batista.

Saying Trump isn’t an autocrat because he’s the product of a democratic election is like saying stabbing someone with an icicle isn’t a crime because the weapon started out as a glass of water.

Louis Greenstein, Pleasantville

Under the ruse of making sure federal historic sites present an “accurate” history of “shared national values,” 13 items related to slavery at the President’s House have been flagged for review by the Trump administration. This is an attack on our cultural heritage and should be called out as such.

The Hague Convention of 1954, the international treaty designed to protect cultural artifacts in wartime, positions damage to cultural property as “damage to the cultural heritage of all [human]kind.” In international humanitarian law, cultural property is specifically protected. But only during armed conflict. We must ask: Is this where we’re at?

Using a historical lens informed by white supremacy, Donald Trump’s executive order “Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday” is being used to threaten defacement of the President’s House. This deliberate form of cultural erasure, disappearing references about the brutality of slavery, is an attack directed at our collective cultural histories — our emotions, our human dignity. How do we respond to an administration at war, literally, with its people?

“Art Became the Oxygen” by the U.S. Department of Arts and Culture (not affiliated with the federal government) states, “Every emergency, whatever triggered it, is also a social emergency, and social emergencies demand cultural responses.” Let’s stand united, peacefully, to protect our collective cultural heritage.

Cindy Maguire, Merion Station

Why are Charlie Kirk’s words off limits? In the wake of Kirk’s passing, I googled many of his comments. His bigoted speeches invoke a visceral reaction. “Prowling Blacks,” “Jewish donors,” advocating violence toward President Joe Biden, why is he being viewed as a martyr? And yet, there is a cancel culture being trumpeted by this administration to cancel anyone making adverse statements about Kirk. And its ringleader, the one who petitioned and sued in the name of the First Amendment to get his suspended social media accounts restored last year, is now abusing his presidential powers to silence his critics for exercising their First Amendment rights. How sanctimonious.

K. Mayes, Philadelphia

I did not celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death. Most people accused of celebrating his death did not, either. For example, Matthew Dowd at MSNBC did not celebrate his death; he reported an observation that was wrongly interpreted as a celebration. MSNBC has fueled the misinterpretation by firing him. Shame on MSNBC.

My tax dollars paid to have Kirk’s remains flown on a plane with Vice President JD Vance. That is inappropriate. Also, shame on Gov. Josh Shapiro for ordering flags at half-staff.

Kirk was not a hero; he was a podcaster who spouted some hateful speech.

Perhaps we should lower our flags for all the people who are murdered daily in Pennsylvania.

As the spin continues, we need to step back and evaluate, not attack each other.

I will not mourn Charlie Kirk. I will mourn the loss of truth, decency, due process, and our democracy.

Barney Heller, North Wales

What happened to the young man in Utah was terrible, disgusting, and just plain awful. The “freedom of speech” he championed should allow me to say: I object to the vice president of these so-called United States of America working as a podcaster. It is disgusting that he stated the left has a “much bigger and malignant problem” when it comes to political violence.

I think the country deserves better. Prove me wrong.

Larry Stroup, Warwick

Our elected officials on both sides of the aisle are rightly condemning political violence. One of the loudest voices is from President Donald Trump. Yet, the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, arguably the most serious and devastating act of political violence in this country in decades, was not condemned by the president. In fact, he pardoned all the violent offenders, calling them patriots and heroes, and called Jan. 6 a “day of love.” He is also considering having us, the taxpayers, pay the rioters compensation because they were “treated so unfairly.” The hypocrisy of Trump and his defenders is astounding.

Dave Posmontier, Elkins Park

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.