Opinion

How to talk about the differences between Harris and Trump

• Mr. Trump wants to extend the gigantic tax cuts for billionaires that he pushed through Congress, and he has suggested making those cuts even larger. Ms. Harris’s plan is to revise the tax code so the super-wealthy pay more than the middle class, not less.
• Earlier this year, Mr. Trump said of Russia, “I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want” to NATO member countries that don’t spend what he thinks they should on their own defense. Most NATO leaders deeply distrust Mr. Trump and are apprehensive about the prospect of another Trump term. Ms. Harris, on the other hand, has demonstrated her enduring commitment to strengthening the NATO alliance.
• Mr. Trump continues to urge Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act — including provisions that expand Medicaid, prevent denial of health insurance due to preexisting conditions and reduce overall costs — and replace it with what appears to be nothing at all. Ms. Harris is committed to retaining the ACA and improving it.
• Ms. Harris has voiced her support for strong labor unions and has received endorsements from many prominent unions. Mr. Trump wants to weaken unions and has spoken approvingly of employers who fire striking workers (which is illegal).
• Mr. Trump refers to the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, with the intent of overturning the election results — some of whom intended to harm Congress members and assaulted dozens of Capitol police officers — as “patriots.” He has promised to consider pardoning all the convicted rioters. Ms. Harris knows how close the mob came to killing people and shredding our Constitution, and she will not pardon them.
• Mr. Trump added Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, both of whom embrace discredited conspiracy theories and bizarre, harmful policy notions, to his transition team. Mr. Trump’s inner circle also includes key advisers who have recently been in jail. Ms. Harris rejected overtures from Mr. Kennedy’s campaign when he sought a Cabinet position in exchange for an endorsement.
• Mr. Trump himself has been convicted of 34 crimes and found responsible for committing sexual assault. He is facing several additional criminal trials in the future. Ms. Harris has not entered a courtroom as a defendant.

Robert Tiller, Silver Spring

Why character matters most

Although The Post was trying to be helpful to readers by comparing the policies of our presidential candidates, I believe the Editorial Board missed the main point of this election. Most people I know care more about other dimensions of this race than policy, among them the candidates’ psychological and emotional stability, leadership ability, trustworthiness, compassion, decision-making skills in crises, and commitment to the Constitution and rule of law. Voters can lobby the next president over policies they don’t like. But we can’t change those other dimensions of a candidate’s personality and core character.

Keith Kozloff, Takoma Park

Don’t forget Congress’s role

I disagree with the premise of The Post’s recent editorial comparing former president Donald Trump’s and Vice President Kamala Harris’s policy proposals and suggesting Ms. Harris differentiate herself by providing detailed positions. Voters do not pore over white papers outlining policies, and the cynical among us largely discount announcements such as Mr. Trump’s declaration that he would make insurance companies pay for IVF as empty campaign promises.

More fundamentally, outlining a specific legislative program — as opposed to articulating principles such as that women deserve control over their bodies, gun safety is a priority, the NATO alliance with U.S. leadership is vital to world safety, climate change needs to be a priority, border security is important, as is a legal path to citizenship, etc. — perpetuates the misapprehension that the presidency is a more powerful position than it is in our democratic system. There is much that is beyond a president’s control, and it is important to articulate this fact.

I would prefer to hear candidates describe policy areas they would champion, such as building more housing and working on ways to make the right to a roof overhead available to all. But these goals need to come with an acknowledgment that Congress plays a critical role. Pledging to sign a bill into law if elected recognizes that work is needed to create such a law, and that work involves compromise.

The administration can start the process. But a Congress willing to work to get things done is a critical element in any president’s agenda. The 2022 gun-control law called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was not perfect, but something was actually done. Had the bipartisan immigration bill been passed, the changes wouldn’t have been sufficient, but incremental change advances goals. Recognizing the need to get something done is an important admission from any candidate and would attract my interest far more than outlining a detailed program.

Dori Zaleznik, Plantation, Fla.

Normalizing the abnormal

The Post’s editorial comparing Donald Trump and Kamala Harris perfectly illustrates the conundrum facing the news media in this election: How can they bring normality to this most abnormal of elections? Most outlets talk about Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump as The Post does here, as if they were essentially equivalent. This candidate thinks this, that one thinks that. One says “tomayto,” the other says “tomahto,” but they’re both speaking English.

But despite The Post’s best efforts to turn the election into a dispute over policy issues, the fact is that the election is not about that. Much as we might wish otherwise, it’s not about where the candidates stand on tariffs or NATO or climate. Here is what matters: Ms. Harris is a sane, principled, decent and honest person. Mr. Trump is a felon who is sleazy in his business dealings and without any discernible moral rudder.

The question is not which candidate has better policies. Ultimately, it’s how millions of Americans could vote for the worst human being who has ever stood for election.

Bruce Carnes, Fairfax

Cheney’s Endorsement

Regarding The Post’s Sept. 4 online article “Republican Liz Cheney says she’s voting for Kamala Harris”:

My mother was a Wyoming woman, and I’ve always admired Liz Cheney’s similarities — honesty, willingness to question “authority” when needed and an unwillingness to be “dismissed” — whether because of class, education or wealth. I also admired her father for his integrity, even if I did not always agree with his views.

I registered as a Republican the day I turned 18 years old in 1970, but I did not vote for Richard M. Nixon because I knew he was a crook from his time in California — my birthplace. But I favored Republicans in all the presidential elections until they nominated Donald Trump.

If the “Access Hollywood” tape didn’t convince you the guy was a jerk — and neither did his felony convictions, the events of Jan. 6, 2021, or his decision to take secret documents that didn’t belong to him — then I feel there is really no use talking to you about “truth, justice and the American way.”

After Mr. Trump’s election in 2016, I re-registered to vote as an independent. I still don’t favor Democratic agendas. But just about anyone is better than having the current Republican Party agenda as an influence on our direction as a nation.

D.W. Brown, Clatsop County, Ore.

A national housing policy

In the Sept. 5 letters, Alyssa McGuire described her difficulty in buying a home. Barfonce Baldwin suggested policy changes and “rapid rehousing” as a strategy to combat homelessness. But the fact is that the cost of land and construction for housing that is commuting distance by public transit from jobs is the underlying problem. I worked as a city planner in the Great Society program during the Johnson administration, and the only way to provide affordable housing was to subsidize land purchasing and mortgages to enable homeownership. Later, subsidies were provided to apartment renters in buildings approved by the city government and the property owner that allowed the poor to rent. Now both land values and construction costs are even higher, new shotgun housing still cannot reach the very poor, and these developments are more often than not in places without the public transit that would make it possible for people to get to work.

The middle class cannot afford most market-rate housing. As in Vienna, subsidies are provided for many different classes of renters. But in this country, subsides to disadvantaged renters are too often labeled “socialism” or “communism.” And nothing so radical as what was provided in the Great Society will even be considered in a divided Congress. Although relaxed regulations and down-payment assistance can help, at bottom, there needs to be a comprehensive, countrywide effort to put tax dollars toward affordable housing.

Konrad Perlman, Washington