To the editor: There needs to be more discussion of the hypocrisy related to "Brexit" and the issues at the center of the U.S. election. ("Here's what Britain's vote to leave the EU tells us about the U.S. presidential election," June 24)
On one hand, we have Britain, which invaded and colonized countries around the world, enslaving some of their citizens. On the other hand, the United States, a country founded by immigrants and their descendants who traded slaves and indentured servants, took advantage of the labor of undocumented immigrants and meddled in the business of other countries throughout Asia and the Middle East.
Now the potential leaders of these two nations have decided they want to close the borders and throw out the ones who they believe don't belong. If they can't understand the importance of 21st century globalization, maybe they are the ones who don't belong.
Terrie McKinley, Aliso Viejo
To the editor: Brexit also echoes California, whose initiative process exemplifies the dangers inherent in letting the majority shape policy.
In representative democracies, we elect legislators to implement intricate laws rooted in constitutions and subject to executive and judicial scrutiny. What happens when we let the people decide? We vote without equipment to scrutinize the proposition's consequences, which legislators do with the benefit of relevant experience, a full-time staff and often a law degree.
How many British voters considered Brexit's fallout before casting their ballots?
Allowing such a vote is simply a failure of leadership, akin to the California initiative process, with its propositions run amok, skirting the edges of a representative system in which elected officials often lack the courage to carry out the public's best interest.
John Slavin, Venice
To the editor: One would hope (in vain?) that the consciousness that President Obama has brought during his time in office would have raised awareness within our populace. But it appears that narrow self-interest still reigns supreme.
The European Union also gave the world a glimmer of community, so sorely needed in this time of upheaval and terror.
Is Donald Trump, who preaches closed doors and paranoia, the best the U.S. can offer? Whatever became of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's vision of the upward spiral toward inclusion and cooperation?
Here we are with one step forward (the European Union) and two steps back (Trump and Brexit).
Peggy Aylsworth, Santa Monica