Letters to the Editor | July 11, 2023

I read with interest Larry Miller’s op-ed. One reason for my interest was that I also turned 18 in 1973 and registered as a Democrat. The other reason is that I also believe today’s Democratic Party is not the one I joined (but is moving closer to that). Miller complains that the party has become more progressive, but I might remind him that we registered as Democrats the year after the party nominated liberal George McGovern for president. Miller also blames the rise in homicide rates in Philadelphia from 2018 through 2022 on District Attorney Larry Krasner. I take issue with that.

The U.S. homicide rate in 2018 was 5.9 deaths per 100,000 population. In 2021, it was 7.8 deaths per 100,000 population. Certainly, the Philly DA was not responsible for the national rise in homicides. There are other issues that need to be considered for this rise. Perhaps the increasing availability of guns, the lessening of the social safety net, and the increasing public acceptance of discrimination and hatred toward people of color — all of which are supported by the political party (and its most recent president) Miller is thinking of joining. I urge him to reconsider what he is considering.

Jules Mermelstein, Dresher, jules.mermelstein@gmail.com

. . .

I was a lawyer in Philadelphia for 50 years. I have represented most of the Democratic politicians, including Jim Kenny. I love this city and am appalled at what it has become. The op-ed by Larry Miller was excellent and, sadly, probably the way many people feel. We have the perfect storm in Philadelphia for disaster. A mayor who can’t lead, a police commissioner incapable of dealing with the problems, and a district attorney who still thinks he is a civil rights lawyer. Add to this a media that thinks this is OK and we are where we are. Unless we change, Philadelphia, like Portland, Ore., San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, Minneapolis, and many other cities led by progressives, is doomed.

Bob Scandone, Doylestown

Legislatures across the country and the U.S. Congress are fairly evenly split along traditional party lines. The narrative around this has been quite negative, associated with increased polarization and little meaningful legislation. More executive orders are issued, more cases make their way through the courts, and lawmakers are increasingly ineffective at (or unmotivated to) pass solution-oriented policies. Why should they? The current system is set up such that the big issues are worth more to candidates unresolved.

Narrow margins mean that a small number of officials can be quite influential in the legislative process. Think of the Freedom Caucus holding up the GOP House speaker race, or U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema threatening Democratic legislative priorities. It’s easy to view such power in the hands of so few as a negative. However, an opportunity is also evident.

Imagine Forward Party-aligned legislators forming caucuses across the nation. These solution-oriented public servants back collaborative, commonsense bills into law — laws based on the priorities of their constituencies, not party bosses. Positive media attention draws more elected officials to join them. They become the influential swing voters on bill after bill, matter after matter. Positive rhetoric replaces negative rhetoric; win-win replaces winner takes all. America’s best and brightest are once again inspired to go into public service.

If you live in a purple state, the opportunity is now. Pennsylvania has the chance to be a model for the nation, and the work has already begun: two state senators (Lisa Boscola and Anthony H. Williams) have already aligned as Forwardists. A bitter political climate doesn’t have to be the norm. We can change the narrative, course correct, improve, and adapt our democracy as the Founding Fathers intended.

Rachel Shanok, founding member, Pennsylvania Forward Party

The spirit of liberty, in Jonathan Zimmerman’s column, contradicts the spirit of truth. The “central” issue to protesting the Moms for Liberty is not quite as Zimmerman poses. What if the free speech of an organization is not objectively true? That is, evidence exists to prove they are making false and misleading claims. What if the free speech of an organization demeans and demonizes other groups? Do we let members of the Moms for Liberty shout fire in a crowded theater? Once upon a time, the U.S. Supreme Court thought that was not an acceptable use of speech. What then is the proper form of protest against the organization when a public protest is impotent? The organization continues to spew untruths and disinformation, and that is not acceptable.

The proper way to protest constitutionally is to not officially offer such organizations a stage. Don’t inhibit them from making their own stage and shouting their nonsense. Just don’t invite them to my neighborhood museum for an event. Forcing such an organization to defend its claim, such as targeting LGBTQ-themed books as “grooming,” is a debate, not an assertion. Perhaps such literature falls under the notion “all people are created equal”? How do they argue against that? We can debate book censorship when the censorship is based on political, racist, or demeaning points of view. But what we cannot debate is hate and people who hate.

William Saidel, Cherry Hill

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.