The Wall Street Journal - 19.10.2019 - 20.10.2019

A14| Saturday/Sunday, October 19 - 20, 2019 **** THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Many Say ‘Good Riddance’ to U.S. in Syria

Peggy Noonan’s suggestion that the

Trump administration’s foreign-policy

decisions are the misguided pinball of

a delusional player frantically flipping

the paddles is apt but misses the

larger point: The pinball of foreign-pol-

icy has been traveling this way across

administrations for decades (“Trump’s

Reckless Rush to Withdraw,” Declara-

tions, Oct. 12). This particularly diffi-

cult withdrawal decision began in 2011

after President Obama’s administration

teamed with the Kurds—a group that

we knew our NATO ally Turkey re-

garded as domestic terrorists—in

haste after embarrassingly realizing

that ISIS wasn’t, in fact, a “junior var-

sity” threat. Had the Obama adminis-

tration taken the threat of ISIS more

seriously than its own misguided de-

sire to turn our country toward Iran,

then we might not be faced with the

painful situation we find ourselves in

now—the friend of two parties who

hate one another. The Trump adminis-

tration has many faults but this prob-

lem wasn’t created by it. Insinuating

that it is and reporting the story as a

vexing problem with an easy solu-

tion—that we should remain in Syria

indefinitely—does little to sway the

minds of citizens who are exhausted by

such a suggestion and only adds to the

overwhelming erosion of trust in the

experts who guide these decisions.

If we’re constantly outraged by how

succeeding administrations handle a

foreign-policy quagmire, then maybe

we should be more judicious in our

foreign affairs, or we shouldn’t be

shocked when a populist tide begins to

embrace isolationist positions.

JOHNNYPARISEAU

Los Angeles

It is strange. Two presidents’ for-

eign policies stumbled in Syria. Presi-

dent Obama fell for the thug in Mos-

cow and allowed Russia to obtain a

firm foothold in the strategic area of

the Middle East. President Trump lis-

tened to the whispers of the “sultan”

in Ankara and sold out the only com-

mitted Muslim friend we have in that

part of the world. Decades of U.S. in-

volvement is on the verge of collaps-

ing. It may take 10 years for the U.S.

to recover from this debacle. At any

rate, the winner of the 2020 election

will inherit a heavy mortgage. My

hope is that we haven’t lost our influ-

ence forever.

H.K.RAHLFS

Irvine, Calif.

So exactly when would be the

“right” time to withdraw? Maybe at

the same time we withdraw from Af-

ghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, the Bal-

tics, Somalia and all the other places

we never leave. Funny how the left

couldn’t wait to leave Iraq under Presi-

dent Obama, but it’s a different story

with President Trump. I say, good deci-

sion, Mr. President. Afghanistan should

be next.

CHUCKMCGEE

Moultonborough, N.H.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letters intended for publication should

be addressed to: The Editor, 1211 Avenue

of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,

or emailed to [email protected]. Please

include your city and state. All letters

are subject to editing, and unpublished

letters can be neither acknowledged nor

returned.

“Ask him where he hid all his bones.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Moral Foundations of Economic Theory

Peter Boghossian and James Lind-

say’s call for listening to social-jus-

tice warriors (“Social-Justice War-

riors Won’t Listen, but You Should,”

op-ed. Oct. 12) is, in many ways, a re-

statement of the classical liberal

method for integrating values into

economic theory, which involved en-

gaged open discussion to arrive at

policy conclusions. That open discus-

sion was central to classical eco-

nomic methodology. When, in the

1930s, economists gave up that “en-

gaged discussion” approach, and re-

placed it with seemingly scientific

methods and partisan argumentation

(on both sides of the policy debate),

they undercut the moral foundations

of the classical liberal approach. It

needs to be added back.

In “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill

makes the argument for engaged dis-

cussion most eloquently; he writes:

“He who knows only his own side of

the case, knows little of that. Nor is

it enough that he should hear the ar-

guments of adversaries from his own

teachers...Hemust be able to hear

them from persons who actually be-

lieve them...elsehewill never re-

ally possess himself of the portion of

truth which meets and removes that

difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred

of what are called educated men are

in this condition, even of those who

can argue fluently for their opinions.

Their conclusion may be true, but it

might be false for anything they

know: they have never thrown them-

selves into the mental position of

those who think differently from

them, and considered what such per-

sons may have to say; and conse-

quently they do not, in any proper

sense of the word, know the doc-

trine which they themselves pro-

fess.”

PROF.DAVIDCOLANDER

Middlebury College

Middlebury, Vt.

Government Policy Worsens Global Poverty

Regarding David R. Henderson’s

“Nobel Laureates Aim Too Low on

Global Poverty” (op-ed, Oct. 15): Imag-

ine if these Nobel laureates had writ-

ten a paper saying results for the

poor could be greatly improved if

government workers with too much

absenteeism were fired. It’s hard to

imagine that happening, isn’t it?

Teacher absenteeism is a huge

problem in India’s schools and are

why public schools in Abhijit Baner-

jee’s home country are a disaster.

Poor Indians with little money spend

their meager savings to send their

children to private schools with teach-

ers present, instead of the free gov-

ernment ones with absent teachers.

ROBERTC.RAY

Irvine, Calif.

Mr. Henderson dismisses the small-

ball ideas and praises a large-ball sug-

gestion to relax immigration regula-

tions to let millions of people improve

their economic well being by leaving

their home countries to move else-

where.

Which countries are willing to

loosen immigration rules to admit

millions of undereducated, largely un-

skilled people who would increase the

difficulty so many “modern” countries

face providing for their own citizens?

Maybe the focus of those who expend

a great deal of energy to improve

poverty should be on reforming the

corrupt governance of these under-

performing countries. Improving hon-

est governance would allow these citi-

zens to stay and help improve their

own country.

JIMBISCEGLIA

Tacoma, Wash.

Pepper ...

And Salt

Chinese Get Much U.S. Technology Spy Free

Regarding William J. Holstein’s

“China’s Techno-Kleptomania” (op-ed,

Oct. 15): Much is being made of China’s

theft of America’s technology. Nothing

is being mentioned about the fact that

American industry is giving this tech-

nology away free of charge. My experi-

ence as a midlevel manager at a semi-

conductor firm with subcontractors in

Asia and Europe allowed me to wit-

ness firsthand how this happens.

Manufacturing sophisticated tech-

nical products for American compa-

nies overseas requires that detailed

process specifications get transferred

to the new overseas manufacturing

site. These specifications are then

translated into the host countries’ lan-

guage. Managers, engineers and as-

sembly people are then trained to

these processes by Americans. Process

equipment of a highly technical, and

often state-of-the-art, level is trans-

ferred to the host country along with

detailed instructions on how it func-

tions. Once satisfied that the required

skill levels have been attained, much

operational control is transferred to

local employees.

It doesn’t take much imagination to

determine what happens next. Newly

trained high-level technical and man-

agement talent possessing pilfered

documentation and backed by a finan-

cial angel, perhaps the government,

are free to leave and assemble their

own startup company. No need for

R&D. The processing equipment that is

also state-of the-art is available to re-

verse engineer—all compliments of the

good old U.S.A.

RICHARDMARTIN

Mission Viejo, Calif.

The Price of the Union at GM

R

emind us again why the United Auto
Workers went on strike for five weeks
against General Motors? The terms of
the tentative deal struck this
week show that the union
made itself look relevant at
the cost of lost wages and per-
haps future profit-sharing for
workers.
UAW leaders this week
agreed to a new four-year labor contract with
GM, though 46,000 workers won’t return to
work unless they ratify the deal by next Friday.
Most will have lost more in pay during the
strike than they appear to have gained in the
new contract.
The strike caused more than 75,000 workers
at GM suppliers across North America to be laid
off or lose pay, which underlines how auto sup-
ply chains are globally interconnected. The
union also forced GM to idle production at
plants in Canada and Mexico where it manufac-
tures trucks that are highly profitable.
By some estimates the strike has cost GM
$2.5 billion in profit, which will reduce the an-
nual profit-sharing bonuses that go to workers.
While the labor deal includes an $11,000 per
worker ratification bonus—$3,000 more than
what GM originally offered—we calculate that
workers lost between roughly $5,100 to $8,
in pay during the strike, based on their hourly
wage rate.
The UAW says it won a faster wage progres-
sion for newer hires and a path to permanent
status for temporary employees. Workers with
fewer than 10 years of employment will make
$32 an hour after four years instead of eight
years under the old contract. It also obtained
two 4% annual lump sum bonuses and 3% an-
nual wage increases, but it’s not clear whether
this is better than GM’s earlier offers.
GM plans to offset these higher labor costs
by offering buyouts and incentives for early re-
tirement to thousands of higher-paid workers.

This will allow GM to become leaner amid a

global slowdown in auto sales, as well as invest

more in electric and self-driving cars.

But the contract is still

likely to make GM less globally

competitive. The company’s

labor costs average $63 per

hour, compared with an aver-

age of $50 for non-unionized

foreign auto makers that oper-

ate in America’s southern states. Higher labor

costs haven’t hurt GM much in recent years,

since Ford and Fiat Chrysler have similar deals

with the UAW. Foreign auto makers also make

mostly small cars, which account for a tiny

share of GM profits.

But foreign companies are trying to become

more competitive in SUVs and trucks. So are

Tesla and electric-truck startups such as Rivian

and Workhorse. GM has committed under the

new deal to build an electric truck at a plant

slated to close in Detroit, though the UAW had

pushed for commitments to produce more in-

ternal combustion vehicles that require more

parts and labor.

The deal includes a moratorium on plant

closings and a new labor-management commit-

tee that will review new technologies. The union

will also be able to veto the use of temporary or

part-time workers. None of this will help GM to

adapt to changes in technology and consumer

preferences or to future economic slowdowns.

GM will have to keep running factories even if

the cars they make don’t sell, though perhaps

it is betting government electric-car mandates

will ensure steady production.

The UAW’s leaders wanted to make the show

of a strike to reestablish some credibility with

workers amid a federal probe into union cor-

ruption. GM is betting that labor peace for four

years is worth the price, but then that’s what

it said about the deals that helped drive it into

bankruptcy a decade ago. Don’t think it can’t

happen again.

The UAW made itself

look relevant but

workers get little.

Florida’s Reform Momentum

F

or policy consequences, the most impor-
tant election in 2018 might have been
Florida’s contest for Governor. Now
we’re seeing the results, as Re-
publican Ron DeSantis ex-
pands school vouchers and has
already remade the state Su-
preme Court.
With little fanfare this au-
tumn, another 18,000 young
Floridians joined the ranks of Americans who en-
joy school choice. More than 100,000 students,
all from families of modest means, already at-
tend private schools using the state’s main tax-
credit scholarship. But the wait list this spring
ran to the thousands, so in May the state created
a voucher program to clear the backlog.
Last week Mr. DeSantis said the vouchers
have hit their initial cap of 18,000 students, but
the law includes an automatic escalator. Starting
in 2020-2021, the cap can rise each year by
0.25% of Florida’s total public-school enroll-
ment. That figure, at last count, was roughly 2.
million, meaning perhaps another 7,000 vouch-
ers annually.
This is a huge victory for school choice. The
first cohort of voucher recipients is 71% black
and Hispanic, according to state data. Eighty-
seven percent have household incomes at or be-
low 185% of the poverty line, or $47,638 for a
family of four. The law gives priority to these
students, although eligibility reaches to 300%
of poverty, or $77,250 for a family of four.
Also notable: These are vouchers funded di-
rectly by state money, which is a challenge to
Florida legal precedent. In 2006 the state Su-
preme Court struck down then-Governor Jeb
Bush’s voucher law, which specifically aimed
to get students out of bad schools. A 5-2 major-
ity said the plan ran afoul of the Florida Consti-
tution’s guarantee of “uniform” public educa-
tion. Tax-credit scholarships are a legal work-
around: Companies donate to a private

nonprofit scholarship fund, and then the state

gives them a tax credit.

There’s no data yet for the first vouchers,

but 80% of tax-credit students

choose to attend religious

schools. Voucher opponents

say state money shouldn’t go

to parochial education. “It’s a

plainly unconstitutional pro-

gram,” one secularist said this

spring. Florida, like other states, has a Blaine

Amendment in its Constitution, which bars

public spending “in aid of any church, sect, or

religious denomination or in aid of any sectar-

ian institution.”

Curiously, no big court challenge to the

vouchers has appeared. Maybe the teachers

unions are biding their time. Then again, maybe

the hesitation is related to Mr. DeSantis’s ap-

pointment this year of three new conservative

jurists to the state’s high court. There is now a

6-1 conservative majority, which might show

more sympathy for religious liberty.

As it happens, the U.S. Supreme Court this

term will hear a challenge to Montana’s Blaine

Amendment. The ruling could take away the

Blaine justification, which was born out of anti-

Catholic bias in the 19th century, for striking

down Florida’s vouchers. Meantime, the pro-

gram will get harder to kill politically as more

families sign up and see the benefits.

This was already evident in the 2018 guberna-

torial election. Mr. DeSantis’s opponent, Demo-

crat Andrew Gillum, said he would wind down the

scholarships. CNN’s exit poll says 18% of black

women voted for Mr. DeSantis, as William Mattox

of the James Madison Institute noted last year

in these pages. That’s decisive, since the Gover-

nor won by fewer than 40,000 ballots.

School choice boosted Mr. DeSantis into of-

fice, and now he is delivering for 18,000 more

Florida families. Add another 7,000 next year,

and then another 7,000, and...

School choice expands

with a new Governor

and new Supreme Court.

The G-7 Needs a Different Hotel

D

emocrats say President Trump is using
his office for personal gain, so why is he
handing them another golf club to whack
him with? On Thursday the
White House said the U.S. will
host next year’s G-7 summit at
the Trump National Doral re-
sort in Miami. This isn’t illegal,
but it’s a PR triple bogey.
Start with the purportedly
neutral selection process. Acting Chief of Staff
Mick Mulvaney said the White House began with
a list of 12 contenders and visited 10. The Trump
property, amazingly, happened to be perfect,
with no concern given to whose name is on the
deed. “It’s almost like they built this facility to
host this type of event,” one aide gushed, accord-
ing to Mr. Mulvaney.
How did it stack up against Sea Island, Ga.,
where President Bush held the G-8 summit in
2004? What were the criteria that could demon-
strate a fair process? “I don’t talk about how this
place runs on the inside,” Mr. Mulvaney said. “If
you want to see our paper on how we did this,
the answer is: Absolutely not.”
Who does the White House think is going to
believe this? It’d be better to argue flat-out that
the President wants to show off Trump hospital-
ity—while giving taxpayers a discount. The
Doral, Mr. Mulvaney said, will host the event “at
cost,” making it “millions of dollars cheaper”

and creating “roughly 50% savings.” As for book-

ings by visiting bigwigs, Mr. Trump has pledged

to donate his profits from foreign governments

to the U.S. Treasury.

The Constitution says fed-

eral officeholders can’t “accept

of any present, Emolument, Of-

fice, or Title, of any kind what-

ever” from a foreign state. This

clause probably doesn’t apply

to regular business transactions. There’s an argu-

ment, too, that it covers only lower officials.

That said, the Doral has struggled since Mr.

Trump’s election. Last year the county agreed

to drop its property-tax value by almost $5 mil-

lion, or 4%, the Miami Herald reports. Absent the

G-7, rooms might go empty in the sweaty Florida

summer. If so, then an “at cost” event could still

benefit the Trump Organization.

At the very least, holding the G-7 at a Trump

property is poor political judgment. It plays into

the hands of Democrats, who are already saying

Mr. Trump should be impeached for abusing his

public office for personal benefit. It undermines

the President’s case against Joe and Hunter Bi-

den’s ethical sins. And it guarantees that Mr.

Trump’s press coverage next June, five months

before the 2020 election, will include constant

accusations of self-dealing.

Mr. Mulvaney, call Sea Island. It might still be

available.

Hosting the summit at a

Trump resort is, at best,

poor political judgment.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OPINION