To the Editor:
Re “Cornyn’s Loss Further Rankles Republicans in Senate” (news analysis, May 28):
President Trump’s successful intervention in Republican primaries across the country indicates that the United States no longer has an independent conservative political party.
On the right side of the political spectrum there is only a Trump party, which is characterized not by specific policies or a coherent political philosophy but rather solely by loyalty to Mr. Trump personally.
Politicians who show insufficient fealty to the leader risk being purged from the party, even after having spent decades promoting conservative policies.
Jay Geller
Shaker Heights, Ohio
To the Editor:
Re “Paxton Ousts Cornyn, Solidifying Trump’s Grip on G.O.P.” (news article, nytimes.com, May 26):
Ken Paxton didn’t just oust Senator John Cornyn, the incumbent; he crushed him by 28 percentage points in the Texas Senate primary Tuesday. While this was another win for Donald Trump as he continues his campaign of retribution, Mr. Paxton’s victory could cost Republicans a vital Senate seat in November.
Mr. Paxton, the scandal-ridden Texas attorney general, is a terrible candidate. The only thing going for him is Mr. Trump’s endorsement. James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for Mr. Cornyn’s seat, is a bright, young and extremely popular Texan who is in a dead heat with Mr. Paxton in early polling. Mr. Talarico is considered the best chance for Democrats to win a Senate seat in Texas since Lloyd Bentsen in 1970.
For Republicans, this race may turn into the most expensive in the nation, depriving the G.O.P. of funds it will need in other razor-thin races in states like Maine and Alaska.
Henry A. Lowenstein
New York
To the Editor:
After John Cornyn’s loss in the Texas Republican primary, I would urge Republican politicians who value honesty and oppose corruption to consider running as independents rather than conceding the field.
A significant number of conservative voters feel abandoned by their party’s current direction. An independent candidacy would offer them a meaningful choice at the ballot box — one grounded in integrity rather than loyalty to any one faction.
The voters who believe in honest governance deserve representation. Someone must be willing to step forward and provide it.
To the Editor:
Re “Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry of E. Jean Carroll Over Trump Lawsuits” (news article, nytimes.com, May 28):
Reports that the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, whose civil suit against Donald Trump resulted in a substantial judgment, should trouble every American who cares about the rule of law. The supposed basis for this investigation is that Ms. Carroll inaccurately stated that she had no outside funding for her legal expenses. At worst, this is a technical discrepancy with no meaningful bearing on the merits of her case.
Let’s be honest about what is happening. This is not about justice. It is about retribution. Mr. Trump has long demonstrated that he views federal law enforcement not as an independent institution but as an extension of his personal will and whims. Anyone who challenges him — politically, legally or even rhetorically — risks becoming the target of state power deployed for his benefit.
There is no serious expectation that this investigation will lead to charges, let alone a conviction. But it’s the process itself — the stress, the cost, the public scrutiny — that’s the punishment. It is meant to send a message of intimidation: Cross this president and you will pay.
This is not how a healthy democracy behaves. It is how autocrats operate. Americans must recognize the danger in normalizing a president who uses the Justice Department as a weapon against private citizens. If we fail to push back now, we may soon find there is no line left to defend. It’s time for ordinary citizens to rise, speak up, push back and resist the autocratic impulses and behaviors of Donald Trump.
Ken Derow
Swarthmore, Pa.
To the Editor:
What an obscene abuse of power! Talk about the weaponization of the government! A citizen (Donald J. Trump) is found guilty of sexual abuse and defamation, and he is ordered to pay his victim (E. Jean Carroll) a total of $88.3 million. Now, as president, he turns “his” Justice Department on this brave 82-year-old, cooking up ways to make her life miserable and conceivably buying himself time so that he’ll never have to pay her.
He should fork it up now (he certainly has made billions since the court mandated that amount), and if his slush fund goes through, E. Jean Carroll should demand and receive an additional $88.3 million for all she has suffered.
Sarah Crichton
Brooklyn
Mets and Knicks
To the Editor:
Re “If You’re a Yankees Fan, I Don’t Want to Hear From You,” by Devin Gordon (Opinion guest essay, May 27):
As a lifelong Mets fan, I share Mr. Gordon’s pain and hopes for another miracle by the fall. As a psychiatrist, I feel some guilt about the emotional distress I feel following the Mets, considering that the people I treat have far more serious or important problems.
In the past weeks, I found the perfect medicine for me: the Knicks. I remember the excitement in New York when they won their first championship in 1970, just months after the Mets’ first one in 1969. Like the Mets, the Knicks have repeated that feat only once — and long ago.
For my own sanity, I need to take a brief break from the currently unwatchable Mets and continue to enjoy, with their long-suffering fans, the thrilling run of the Knicks.
Jeffrey B. Freedman
New York
Religion and A.I.
To the Editor:
“The Atheist and the Machine God,” by Ross Douthat (column, May 10), led me to think that in a future shaped by advanced artificial intelligence, religion may not diminish but instead acquire renewed relevance. Religion may gain new footing, not as a retreat from science, but as a response to it.
The more fully human cognition is modeled, the more attention may turn to what cannot be captured in those models: my subjective experience, moral awareness, spiritual longing, private thoughts, feelings and awareness that cannot be fully explained by biology or any other means.
Far from being displaced by technological progress, religious thought could be reasserted as a framework for interpreting what machines cannot verify or reproduce. Faith, ritual and metaphysical belief may function less as inherited tradition and more as a conscious affirmation of human distinctiveness in an increasingly synthetic world.
Paradoxically, the advance of artificial intelligence may intensify rather than dissolve questions of meaning, purpose and transcendence, leaving religion positioned not at the margins of modernity, but directly at its center.
Steve Wenick
Voorhees, N.J.
