Private citizens behind 'America's best idea'
I, too, have been watching Ken Burns' PBS series on our national parks and was surprised at the tone of Mr. Van Alfen's letter of Oct. 1.
He states, "See how Roosevelt and all the socialists back in the 1930s put our nation back to work by building and protecting the natural beauty of our country."
I believe one of the main points of the documentary was to show that many of our first national parks were due to the efforts of private citizens.
These were the progenitors of "America's best idea." These were private citizens who pushed for awareness by the people and the government of the unique qualities of various areas. These were private citizens that gave, and sought additional private funding for the acquiring of lands for the national parks. These were private citizens that fought for the designation of "National Park," often from a reluctant Congress, so the areas would be preserved and protected for use by current and future generations.
I believe the documentary made a point of the fact no federal funds were used to acquire lands for national parks until FDR's administration.
Then federal funds were used to acquire lands that were added to those already acquired, through private contributions, for the Great Smokey Mountains.
It was largely through the efforts of private citizens that many of the national parks existed and were available for putting people to work on federal projects in the 1930s.
Sanford E. Deyo
Minden
Enough consensus-building, it's time to act
A mistake? As a registered Democrat, I preferred Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for two reasons:
1. A president who was a relative Washington outsider would mean someone not immersed in the hypocrisy and self-indulgence of Washington, and the best opportunity for real change as opposed to superficial changes driven by special interests controlling our elected government.
2. My concern with Hillary was that she would have brought a history of divisiveness with her that would have hampered any possible spirit of cooperation.
We have an intelligent and articulate president, but is he a leader? Any competent manager knows that situations arise wherein a point is reached when continuing a consensus-building approach is detrimental.
A leader recognizes reaching that point and is willing to risk disapproval in the interests of achieving the goal. That's when a command decision encompassing the essential problem-solving elements should be made.
It's not happening with health care, and I'm concerned about how other national and international issues will be handled by this president. Do we have a real leader or is he someone whose overriding concern is a need for approval?
The Washington player's chief interest is to make the other side look bad as opposed to getting together to work for the common good.
Having Hillary Clinton as president would not have caused any more divisiveness than we are now seeing, and I think that she is not afraid to take charge.
Elmer Wolf
Dayton