Letters to the Editor

Democrats don’t dislike Trump just because ‘Hillary lost’ – just watch the president’s actions

President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2019, in Washington.
President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2019, in Washington. AP file photo

It is astounding and laughable that many Republicans believe a dislike of Trump is based on the fact that Democrats are upset that “Hillary lost.”

I can only assume these people never watch the news, read a reliable periodical or watch Trump himself, or they would see beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man is devoid of any qualification necessary to perform his duties.

They proclaim they didn’t agree with Obama’s policies, but never disrespected him, cursed him or called for his impeachment. Forget the fact they did all of these things, but just consider the reality that Obama did not surround himself with criminals or unsavory characters, was not a perpetual liar, did not publicly chastise and name-call members of both parties who disagree with him, was an eloquent and engaging speaker and is an overall likeable, classy, nice person. It will become obvious why he was not deserving of disdain, but Trump most definitely is.

E. B. Horn


Loneliness and solitude are 2 separate experiences

Gina Barreca’s op-ed (“Loneliness is as bad for you as smoking”) in a recent paper (Jan. 29, 2019) would always prove timely. As a retired religious studies professor and former student of Paul Tillich, philosopher of religion, whom she quotes, I was gratified to read her affirmation of the distinction he draws between “loneliness and solitude” – the former being painful, the latter, expressing “the glory of being alone.”

“Glory” may be taking it too far, though of course there will be positive moments in those solitary experiences which do feel like positive “thriving,” to borrow a term from Barreca’s op-ed. What to call them?

I propose a correction to her presentation of our common description of recurring states of loneliness – perhaps inspired by her quotation from Carson McCullers, in which lonely is inappropriately equated with “lonesome.” In Anglo-American speech and literature generally, “lonely” has been differentiated, again and again effectively in country music, from “lonesome.” “Lonesome” is a positive, feel-good experience, as we all know or can be reminded, though it may indeed be fleeting. T.S. Eliot affirmed so over a century ago. Solitude when experienced as at least temporarily fulsome, gifted, when captured before lost to depressive lonely, as often happens, is part of the American experience.

Kevin Lewis


Medicare for all is not a desirable plan

When people begin to talk about “pie in the sky” Medicare for all, I am amazed at the dialogue.

If government-mandated, single-payer health insurance were to become reality, the real name should be “Veterans Health Care for All.”

Currently, our federal government is involved in three health care insurance programs. The only one that covers 100 percent of the patient’s costs is the Veterans Health Administration. So, let’s call the system, “Veterans Health Care for All.” No doctor choices, no hospital choices, no process to protest if a private physician says you need something and the VA says no.

Waits so long that people actually die while in the “queue.” Most of us know that the care afforded veterans through the Veterans Health Administration is less than “state of the art.” Filth, inadequate care, second-rate physicians, including surgeons, internists, OG-GYNs – the negatives are staggering. Let’s have the discussion about “free medical care for all” from a believable perspective – from the only true baseline we have. Let’s talk about “Veterans Health Care for All.” Joe White


The State publishes a cross section of the letters we receive from South Carolinians in order to provide a forum for our community and also to allow our community to get a good look at itself, for good or bad. The letters represent the views of the letter writers, not necessarily of The State.