Are people threatened by progress on violence?

I have a question about some reactions to my op-ed (“Baltimore’s homicide rate remains steady as others soar: perhaps the country should follow our lead,” June 28). I observed that, last year, while homicides increased an astounding 25% nationwide, Baltimore had a slight decrease, going from 348 homicides in 2019 down to 335 in 2020. Baltimore homicides would have gone up to 439, if Baltimore had followed the national rate of increase. I urged that we work hard and creatively to further reduce homicides.

The pattern of Baltimore’s year-to-year increases falling far below the national percentage has continued into 2021. As of noon July 1, Baltimore had 168 homicides, two more than at the same time last year. That is a 1.2% increase for Baltimore, while the nation is projected to experience another 25% increase. With some luck, Baltimore could have another decrease.

Some of the reactions to the op-ed have raised this question: Why do some people appear hostile toward, and even threatened by, the possibility that Baltimore might be making some progress and might be developing some promising governmental and nongovernmental approaches to our national scourge of violence?

Larry S. Gibson, Baltimore

Why progressives seek ‘nontraditional stuff’

Jonah Goldberg (“Infrastructure battle bodes well for our politics,” July 1) complains that progressives are campaigning for “nontraditional stuff” and is glad that the old political system is stopping them so that we can return to normal. Perhaps Mr. Goldberg hasn’t noticed that the weather is doing some very nontraditional stuff at the moment. Unless we throw some bold nontraditional measures at it, we’ll never have anything near normal again.

David Norbrook, Pikesville

There’s hope for a better tomorrow, Baltimore

In Dan Rodricks’ recent column, he bemoans the overall diminished values found in this country using as an example many people’s hesitancy to get vaccinated against COVID-19 (“Much-admired Greatest Generation values missing in half the country during pandemic,” June 22). One solution can be found in the amazing words of Steven Charleston, a Native American man, in his recently published book, “Ladder to the Light: An Indigenous Elder’s Meditations on Hope and Courage.” It should be noted that the author, whose ancestors have lived here for eons, writes optimistically about our country even though his people did not obtain the right to vote until 1924. The book group I belong to just finished this short paperback and everyone seemed to agree that it has life-changing potential.

These two quotes really spoke to my group: “Even if we do face darkness, that is never the final word” (page 91). “Celebrating what we hope for together is better than fighting over what we believe separately” (page 96). For him, it’s all about how our shared hopes can change history. Our community grows as we embrace this hope together.

Pick up this book, Baltimore. It may even encourage those still holding out to get immunized. The book can be found at the library, but a word of warning. I found myself highlighting and writing in the margins of my copy. When finished, I realized that I had actually underlined almost the whole book. It’s that good!

Kathy Nichols, Baltimore

Why are Republicans afraid of voter turnout?

Richard Webb’s question in his recent letter to the editor (“Requiring photo ID is not voter suppression,” June 25) is a valid one: “What are the Democrats afraid of?” Despite the fact that study after study has come to the conclusion that voter fraud is extremely rare and that more restrictions would not have any appreciable effect on election security, one can legitimately question the motivations behind the rush for such laws, which are almost exclusively coming from Republican states.

History has shown us that voter ID laws have been used to intentionally impede certain voters. But that is all in the past, right? One might wonder, given the types of ID that would be acceptable in these new laws. It’s possible that we could come to agreement on some future ID expectation within a larger voting security and voting rights bill, but it would have to be consistent across jurisdictions and include options that are equally easy to obtain across geographical, racial and socio-economic groups.

That sounds obvious, but some states are proposing or have proposed new restrictive requirements far beyond these. Georgia, for example, has proposed limiting accepted identification to a handful of government issued documents. Other states prohibit college students from voting without a valid driver’s license in the state where they are attending school. So while there is no real threat to the security of our elections, many states — again, almost exclusively Republican — are insisting these laws are needed.

So I ask: What are the Republicans afraid of?

Kevin O’Brien, Baltimore