As a lifelong Democrat, I was offended by Daniel Pipes's self-serving history of American politics, "Angry conservatives, explained" (Opinion, March 1).
Since the early 20th century, the United States has benefited from the leadership of two political parties: the Republican Party, concerned with trimming the cost and scope of government, and the Democratic Party, concerned with ensuring that government has the scope and power required to confront the country's problems. These are both reasonable philosophies, and neither party need feel defensive about its priorities.
Pipes's supposed history is too filled with reflexive Republican butt-covering to be taken seriously, but I want to confront Pipes over one sentence: He said, "Barack Obama's two presidencies then confirmed the Democrats' leftward turn." This is fallacious. Obama is a moderate Democrat squarely in the mainstream of American politics. His plans for government were less ambitious than those of President Lyndon Johnson, President Harry Truman, or President Franklin Roosevelt. Trying to blame Obama or the Democratic Party for the chaos in the Republican Party is irresponsible.
Many Democrats feel like residents in a small apartment who suddenly discover that their roommate has been overcome by some kind of insanity. We look on as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. becomes head of Health and Human Services, and Elon Musk fires government employees without justification, and we wonder, where is this going? How bad could it get?
Please, do not blame the Democratic Party even indirectly for this mess.
Stuart Gallant
Belmont
MAGA has deep roots in GOP history
Daniel Pipes's op-ed blames the rise of MAGA on Democrats, whose supposed leftward turn after Bill Clinton's presidency radicalized Republicans and drove them to adopt "bad manners" and support "the immoderate Trump."
This argument is astonishingly myopic. Pipes must not remember that Newt Gingrich, US House minority whip during Clinton's presidency, instructed fellow Republican Party members to use loaded terms such as "radical," "sick," and "traitors" to describe Democrats. Perhaps he has forgotten how this harsh rhetoric helped lead Republicans to a lopsided victory in the first midterm election of Clinton's administration. Or how Gingrich's successor, Tom "The Hammer" DeLay, later drove Clinton's impeachment, riding roughshod over colleagues who preferred a compromise censure vote.
Pipes also neglects to mention that since Clinton left Washington, Republicans have held the presidency for 13 out of 25 years, and majorities in both houses of Congress for roughly two-thirds of that period. Republicans have also had the edge in federal judicial nominations. It's hard to see the post-Clinton era as one dominated by a "reinvigorated left."
Pipes predicts the MAGA movement will soon burn out. I hope he is correct, but MAGA's deep Republican roots make me skeptical.
Arthur Goldsmith
Brookline
The writer is a professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Boston.
Tracing Trump's rise, a laughable omission
Any op-ed purporting to explain the rise of President Trump that includes no mention of white supremacy or racism belongs in the comics section, not the Opinion pages. As for Pipes's prediction that this "abnormality" won't last a decade, if you think we can survive 10 more years of this, you really aren't paying attention.
Chris Kelly
Reading
Questionable justifications for backing Trump
Daniel Pipes has joined a growing chorus of "traditional" Republicans who try to justify their decisions to vote for Donald Trump for president. His explanation: "The Left made me do it." A simple "I'm sorry" would have been more acceptable.
Pipes — like many other Reaganite Republicans who were frustrated by that president's inability to fully remake the country — saw in Trump and the MAGA movement an opportunity to get the country they wanted. Instead, they have given the rest of us the nightmare scenario of a moribund democratic Republic.
Pipes — and anyone paying attention — knew who Trump was in 2016. We knew he had called for the execution of five young Black men before they were found guilty of attacking a white woman, and reiterated his call after they were exonerated. We knew he had spent years harassing a sitting president, insisting he wasn't a US citizen. We knew he was a self-aggrandizing, publicity-hungry, bankruptcy-prone businessman.
Any thoughtful person — which I presume Pipes is, and Mitch McConnell, and John Roberts — knew this. And rather than vote accordingly in the voting booth, in the Senate, or on the Supreme Court, they voted to favor the GOP, the unitary executive theory, or whatever other aim they favored. And we, the people, will have to face the consequences for a long time.
Marilse Rodriguez-Garcia
Belmont
Crisis won't end through wishful thinking
While Daniel Pipes now distances himself from President Trump, his admission of voting for Trump twice — despite Trump's corruption — reveals a contradiction he fails to address. By framing MAGA's excesses as a temporary phase that will "burn out" within a decade, Pipes ignores the immediate threat to democratic institutions and the role enablers like him played in emboldening this movement.
Democracy is not self-correcting; it requires urgent, active defense. Pipes's passive assertion that time will restore decency ignores history's lesson: Extremism metastasizes unless confronted. His declaration of independence from the GOP rings hollow without accountability for past complicity or a commitment to resisting authoritarianism today.
Conservatives who reject Trumpism must do more than declare themselves "unaffiliated." True principle demands engagement, not detachment. The crisis Pipes describes will not resolve itself through wishful thinking. It demands immediate action to restore democratic norms, not a decade-long wait for renewal.
Jordan Ryan
Decatur, Ga.
Daniel Pipes replies:
Stuart Gallant takes offense at my statement that "Barack Obama's two presidencies then confirmed the Democrats' leftward turn," calling this "fallacious" and deeming Obama "a moderate Democrat squarely in the mainstream of American politics." In retrospect, I agree, Obama looks moderate in comparison with today's radicals, but at the time of his election, he was correctly seen as a hard-left turn from the moderation of Bill Clinton. Hence, the growth of the Tea Party.
Arthur Goldsmith scolds me for dating Republican bad manners to the Trump era, reminding us that Newt Gingrich (whom he describes as "US House minority whip during Clinton's presidency" but who more notably served as speaker of the House) and Tom DeLay employed "harsh rhetoric." Perhaps they did, but Gingrich and DeLay were both conventional politicians who played by the rules of the game in a way that, obviously, Trump does not.
Chris Kelly relegates my analysis to the comics section because I made no mention of "white supremacy or racism." Even granting his specious argument that the Republicans forward such views, I sought to explain how "a historically staid party associated with boardrooms and country clubs [came to] shun conventional politicians in favor of an immoral, greedy, litigious, egocentric, inconsistent, instinctive, and vulgar outsider?" I fail to see how alleged racist views led Republicans to Trump. For all his many failings, he is not a racist.
Marilse Rodriguez-Garcia accuses me of trying to justify my decision to vote for Trump for president. Wrong: nowhere in the article do I do so. To put it differently, I would always vote against him in a Republican primary but, faced with Kamala Harris, I did pull the lever for Trump. I hated having to do it but have not apologized for that decision.
Jordan Ryan, contradictorily, states that I now wish to distance myself from Trump. That too is inaccurate, as explained in the paragraph above. Curious how one reader finds me justifying my vote for Trump and another finds me apologizing for it. Well, both are wrong; my article is not about Trump but explains him via the rise of angry conservatives.
