In his Jan. 14 op-ed, “Mamdani is showing Democrats the way beyond wokeness,” Shadi Hamid noted the importance that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani places on what Hamid terms “Israel’s war on Palestinians in Gaza” and “Israel’s assault on Palestinians.” Crucially for Mamdani’s election prospects, Hamid explained, “Oct. 7 happened.” Indeed, Mamdani “wouldn’t have gained as much traction had Oct. 7 not occurred.”
The event that began the war thus seems to have merely taken place, like a snowstorm or a lightning strike, rather than a surprise attack by terrorists who used their human agency to carefully plan and savagely execute a series of murders, rapes and kidnappings of more than 1,000 civilians. Those victims were probably counted among, in Hamid’s words, the “staunch supporters of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state,” but they were nonetheless members of the human race. As such, they may well be covered by what Hamid termed “American principles such as the right to life and the pursuit of happiness.” Adhering to those principles regarding Palestinians is a “moral marker,” Hamid added.
Mamdani, Hamid gushed, “found himself on the right side of history.” Is history so simple that it has only one “right” side?
Beryl Lieff Benderly, Washington
Regarding the Jan. 7 editorial “Mamdani’s new tenant advocate wants to seize private property”:
Cea Weaver, whom New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani appointed as director of the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants, is a communist who claims to fight for the people and against capitalism. The jacket she wore the other day while defending her claims that gentrifiers are white supremacists costs $229. I’ve never owned a jacket worth more than $100. Must be nice to be a communist enjoying the perks of capitalism.
Does Weaver, who wrote in 2019 that “private property including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy,” recall that her mother (who, like her, is White) owns a house worth $1.6 million? If “homeownership is racist,” as Weaver wrote in 2018, isn’t there a moral imperative to “dismantle white supremacy” by seizing her mother’s house? Why should they get off?
“Rules for thee but not for me,” this time with a dollop of overt racism.
Kimberly Brockway, Random Lake, Wisconsin
What makes PBS special
In his Jan. 11 op-ed, “Good riddance, Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” Dominic Pino claimed that “the societal improvement from the public broadcasters was supposed to be from giving the people what the government believes they should want, rather than what they actually want.”
It’s not true that commercial broadcasters simply give the public what it wants. Commercial programming decisions are driven primarily by profitability. This is why the airwaves are saturated with reality television. These shows are far cheaper to produce, even if their audiences are often smaller than those of scripted programs.
Taxpayer-subsidized broadcasting, by contrast, is rooted in education. When they created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, policymakers across the political spectrum recognized that television and radio were the most powerful mass education tools available. When I was a child, the local PBS station was commonly referred to as the education channel. From “Sesame Street” to Bob Ross’s painting lessons, public broadcasting made possible a wide range of cultural touchstones that were unlikely to survive in a purely commercial environment. That said, though public programming’s funding model is different, it is still judged by audience engagement. Producers are given a longer runway because funders are not seeking profit, but programs that fail to attract sufficient viewership or listenership are still canceled.
D.G. Matthews, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
I find it astounding that an entire column can be written about public media without mentioning the word “advertising.” On average, one hour of network TV includes 15 to 20 minutes of commercials. My children were able to watch PBS educational shows, such as “Sesame Street,” without having to see ads for sugary cereals or, worse yet, watch shows completely based around selling toys, such as “My Little Pony” and “G.I. Joe.” And let’s all have a good laugh over the fact that when cable TV was first offered, its backers promised no advertising because people paid for these channels with a subscription.
Christine Lawrence, Bethesda
What made FDR special
Regarding George F. Will’s Jan. 11 op-ed, “A president who makes Washington his chew toy”:
There is a small grassy area near the National Archives. It is a peaceful place — few visitors, little noise. There is a small plaque on the grounds, and a small block of marble. The plaque reads:
“In September 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called his friend, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, to the White House and asked the Justice to remember the wish he then expressed:
“‘If any memorial is erected to me, I know exactly what I should like it to be. I should like it to consist of a block about the size of this (putting his hand on his desk) and placed in the center of that green plot in front of the Archives Building. I don’t care what it is made of, whether limestone or granite or whatnot, but I want it plain without any ornamentation, with the simple carving, “In Memory of ____.”’
“A small group of living associates of the President, on April 12, 1965, the twentieth anniversary of his death, fulfilled his wish by providing and dedicating this modest memorial.”
Each time I visit this memorial, I have a chance to consider our current situation and reflect on the virtue of humility in a true leader.
Jerry Brodkey, Los Altos, California
Following Sarah Fletcher’s Jan. 4 Sunday Opinion essay, “The magic has gone out of flirting. Maybe this infamous book had a point.,” Post Opinions wants to know: What should flirting look like in 2026? Send us your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor. wapo.st/flirting
The post It must be nice to be a leftist appeared first on Washington Post.
