Letters to the Editor: Biden should follow example of other US presidents
Lyndon Johnson, right, kisses his wife Lady Bird in Washington on May 8, 1956. Picture: AP Photo
While the concerns in the US are ongoing as to whether US president Joe Biden, in allegedly serious cognitive decline, should continue to run for a possible second term in the White House — there are previous US presidents who chose not to run for a second term.
The most famous if these is Lyndon B Johnson, who, feeling the pressures of a very unpopular war in Vietnam by 1968, and sensing his chances of re-election to a second term slipping away, said near the end of a long televised speech from the White House on March 31, 1968: “I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties than the awesome duties of this office — the presidency of your country.
"Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”
After the speech ended, a visibly relieved LBJ, was warmly greeted by his supportive wife and daughters waiting nearby.
They did not know until well into the speech if he would announce not running for a second term. He freely made the decision on his own.
LBJ is reported to have said that when he saw America’s most respected news TV broadcaster, Walter Cronkite, doubting if the Vietnam War could be won, he sensed he had lost the support of the country. It was time to hand over to a new leader.
Biden and his aides can also look at how Harry S Truman chose not to run in 1952 for a second term as he believed he would not be re-elected. LBJ and Truman were Democrat presidents, as is Biden. He has examples to follow from his own party.
The ’s reaction after Biden’s first election TV debate with former president Donald Trump on June 27 was that he should announce he will be a single-term president and “he can do so with honour, but he is the only person who can do so. Certainly, his family can help. But, again he is the only one”.
I believe, if any US president is not able, as they once were, to fully fulfill their duties, it is wise not to run for a second term and to generously give the opportunity to another from their party to run for the Oval Office.
As one who has, for over a quarter of a century, advocated that to be proactive on waste creation, taxation should be at the point of production in contrast to the present reactionary method, where taxation on waste is not contemplated until it is about to disposed.
I must now express my delighted at the recent proactive remarks made by Minister Ossian Smyth, where he confirmed that a levy would be imposed on the cigarette industry to acknowledge the costs associated with cigarette related litter.
The minister positivity was reiterated, when he confirmed that some of the revenue created would go directly to local authorities and Tidy Towns groups to enable both, to enhance their campaigns in the fight against litter.
Being a volunteer over the years and regularly on litter patrol, I am in no doubt that in excess of 60% of all litter items dropped on our streets are cigarette butts.
This is why the significance of the above minister’s remarks cannot be overstated as they are proactive rather than reactionary in the fight to reduce the negative environmental impact that litter has had on our society down through the years.
Finally, two concepts I have advocated for years that have to date fallen on deaf ears, may eventually be considered by Mr Smyth.
One is that the Government lead by example in the fight against litter by erecting cigarette receptacles outside all state agencies and local authorities buildings up and down the country, and two, that local authorities erect cigarette receptacles on request from ratepayers outside their relevant premises.
If these suggestions were implemented by the statutory authorities, then such proactive activities would reciprocate the initiative taken by numerous voluntary organisations who have erected cigarette receptacles in public places and the large number of business owners, who have put theirs hands in their own pockets to fund the erection of cigarette receptacles outside their premises.
The horseshoe theory in politics asserts that the far-right is similar to the far-left and vice versa.
People who believe in the horseshoe theory argue that the far-right and the far-left are closer to each other than either is to the centrists.
I was asked a question recently by a friend as to whether I feared the far right or the far left?
My answer was to say that I feared extremism equally. There are so many different aspects of both creeds and beliefs that I find frankly repulsive.
I am the quintessential political centralist.
I do think that countries that elect these sort of extreme governments will actually end up in an anarchic place resulting in appalling economic and social political outcomes.
That’s derived from my belief in the horseshoe theory of politics.
Let’s not forget that the extreme left and the extreme right are both admirers of Putin and Putin’s Russia.
I fear for the future of any country that elects one of these governments.
I do believe that the political centre should do its best to hold its ground during these capricious times.
It’s vitally important that sensible people actually stand up and make sure that the centre hold is kept as strong as possible.
I fully acknowledge that the centrist model, that many countries have operated, is deeply flawed, but show me a political and economic system that is not profoundly perfect?
There is no such thing as political nirvana. It’s my assertion that what’s really important, is that a political system rationally recognises what the problem areas are and addresses same.
The letter of Lucy Boland of Rebels for Choice (July 8) in the unfairly links anti-migrant and anti-LGBTQ+ issues with the Rally for Life that took place on Saturday, July 6, in Dublin.
The two successful election candidates referred to were invited to speak because of their courageous anti-abortion stance and no other issue.
And as Ms Boland so stoutly defends the campaign to repeal the 8th Amendment that led to the legalisation of abortion in Ireland, it would be interesting to know her present response to the staggering 10,000+ abortions that took place in 2023, despite all the promises given by politicians in 2018 that abortion would be rare if the 8th were scrapped.
Can Ms Boland defend the spiralling abortion rates that now show almost 16% of pregnancies (excluding cases of miscarriage) ending in abortion
With 64,711 births in Ireland in 2023 (according to the Central Statistics Office) and 10,033 abortions, it’s clear that roughly one in six unborn babies (or foetuses if that terminology is preferred) has his or her life deliberately ended.
By their presence at the rally, the successful election candidates were protesting against this great injustice which another speaker, Independent TD Carol Nolan, rightly called “a national scandal”.
Is Alice Leahy failing to see the distinction between sociological and social problems in her observations on the homelessness crisis? ( ‘There are no easy solutions to the scourge of homelessness, , July 11).
Sociological problems are intellectual. Social problems are more specific, focusing on a particular aspect of society that can be said to be problematic and in need of a solution.
Often these two kinds of problems overlap when explaining a social issue and the housing crisis is a good example of this.
In the case of a very small minority of people, the cause of their homelessness can be complex, but for the vast majority it is simply a case of being unable to access a place to live.
Addressing the homelessness crisis requires us to consider how the housing shortage arose. We must consider the failure to build sufficient social housing and how the housing market was facilitated by current economic policy to broadly manufacture a general shortage by artificially inflating house prices, controlling available land, and engaging in market speculation.
Social problems arose as a direct consequence and for the preponderance of those currently suffering the misery of homelessness the solution is not complex at all — build sufficient social and affordable house.
