How to Deal With the National Trauma of Jan. 6

To the Editor:

Re “In Search of the Lost Altar of Oblivion,” by Linda Kinstler (Opinion guest essay, June 16), about how America is still processing the events of Jan. 6 and other traumas:

Like Dr. Kinstler, I too have been unable to find any surviving trace of an “altar of oblivion” at the Acropolis in Athens. Perhaps the plain answer is that there never was one. After all, the ancient Athenians were far too smart to erect an architectural contradiction in terms — a memorial to the very act of forgetting.

But forgetting is what oblivion is all about, and oblivion — not for themselves but for inconvenient truths — is what careerist politicians then and now have always craved, eager as they are to sweep embarrassing facts under history’s carpet.

Indeed, the oblivion that Dr. Kinstler celebrates, claiming that it would serve as a fitting model for our own political behavior today, led to the execution of Socrates, a man many Athenians wanted out of the way because he believed in truth and didn’t readily suffer phoniness and fools.

Remembering the Jan. 6 insurrection in all its ugliness, not forgetting it and naïvely moving on, is precisely what America needs if we are to preserve a democracy worth saving.

Stephen Bertman
West Bloomfield, Mich.
The writer is professor emeritus of classics at the University of Windsor in Ontario and the author of “Cultural Amnesia: America’s Future and the Crisis of Memory.”

To the Editor:

While Linda Kinstler’s essay is creative, it isn’t quite persuasive for several reasons. One is scale: Two examples she cites — the Revolutionary War and the Civil War — were yearslong conflicts that directly affected the entire country, so an act of oblivion could justly be seen as the only way that the nation could move on.

A second concerns the nature of media. While memories and contemporaneous newspaper accounts about such events were available, today’s internet means that almost anyone, anywhere, can access information, keep it alive and comment on it indefinitely. While Dr. Kinstler holds that memory “is not infinite,” the internet certainly is, and it easily becomes a placeholder for both individual and societal memory.

When she speaks of Clean Slate laws, the “altar of oblivion” can truly come to life. Even so, implementation of such laws depends upon the gravity of the offense (e.g., misdemeanors, not felonies), changing times (e.g., anti-marijuana laws now being repealed) or other circumstances that “ensure that punishments are not perpetual.”

In short, the spirit of her argument can and should live on, but only in particular circumstances that apply largely to individuals, not to entire societies.

Bill Dingfelder
Philadelphia

To the Editor:

It is strange that Linda Kinstler never mentions “reconciliation” — as in South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The only problem is the perpetrators, including former President Donald Trump, who must admit to the truth.

Nelson Mandela’s vision for South Africa certainly differed from the continuing mantra of lies that would disappear into oblivion in America.

Edward W. Earle
Belfast, Maine

Trump’s V.P. Factors

To the Editor:

Re “Trump Puts a Premium on Debate Skills as He Sizes Up Potential Running Mates” (news article, June 15):

How telling that Donald Trump’s three key factors in determining whom he shall select as his vice-presidential candidate are fund-raising, campaigning discipline and debating skills.

What happened to fitness to succeed the president and foreign policy or legislative experience? Why isn’t there the same discussion about Mr. Trump’s age and health as there is with the media’s obsession with President Biden’s?

Gregory J. Stamos
Woodbridge, Conn.

An Age Limit for Presidents

To the Editor:

As an 81-year-old who has had a distinguished career in the computing sciences, I can testify that President Biden, 81, is likely to be too old to capably serve out the demands of another term.

But so is former President Donald Trump, who is 78.

Perhaps it is time for a constitutional amendment along these lines:

“No person shall be elected president who shall have reached the age of 75 upon the date of inauguration. This amendment shall not apply to any person elected president before its ratification.” (The second sentence should remove the discussion from the immediacy of current politics.)

We can debate whether the age should be 70, 75 or some other age, but it seems that we are increasingly likely in the future to contend with presidents who are too old to fulfill the responsibilities of office. This is a far cry from the debate in 1960, when some thought that John F. Kennedy, at 43, was too young to be elected.

Hugh C. Lauer
Concord, Mass.

Ukraine Peace Talks?

To the Editor:

Re “Over 80 Countries Urge Talks to Bring End to Russia’s War With Ukraine” (news article, June 17):

The problem with holding peace talks between Ukraine and Russia is that the latter has already grabbed territory that it claims is part of Russia by right and that its dictator, Vladimir Putin, therefore insists he will fight — possibly with nuclear weapons — to keep.

Mr. Putin has also hinted that he considers at least portions of the Baltic republics and even Poland to be sovereign Russian territory. If allowed by negotiations to keep what he has stolen at gunpoint, as he’s been allowed to keep Crimea, what will he demand next? What will he seize at gunpoint next?

We have been here before. More than 80 years ago, another dictator began seizing territory he insisted rightfully belonged to his country. Time after time he claimed that his latest demand would be his last; time after time that turned out to be a lie.

The West sat on its hands, unwilling to risk war to protect small, weak nations from being subjugated. It got war anyway, ending in many millions dead and a ravaged and divided Europe. Today, with nuclear missiles by the thousands at the ready, it could be even worse.

As the saying goes, those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. I want peace as much as anyone, but not at that price. Mr. Putin has to be stopped now and forced to back down with no gains whatever to show for his aggression, just as that earlier tyrant should have been — if it’s not already too late.

Eric B. Lipps
Staten Island

Reasons for Avoiding Parenthood

To the Editor:

I read with great interest Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman’s Opinion guest essay “Liberal Narratives Leave Little Room for Having Kids” (June 16).

I humbly offer that progressives aren’t having as many children as expected not because of some exaggerated fatalism about the future, or a consuming desire for self-advancement and enrichment, but simply because many progressive couples require financial stability as a basic family foundation (increasingly out of reach in the bigger cities) and because many women desire partners who are respectful of their needs and fully share the emotional and physical labor of raising children.

Instead of making this an issue of misguided politics or selfishness, why not explore the deeply practical reasons that people aren’t reproducing? It will yield more meaningful answers.

Monica Bhargava
Berkeley, Calif.