The Washington Post - 28.08.2019

A20 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28 , 2019

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[email protected]

LOCAL OPINIONS

Join the debate at washingtonpost.com/local-opinions

A

FRENCH attempt to jump-start talks be-

tween the United States and Iran got plenty

of attention over the weekend at the Group of

Seven summit, but it might have been less

serious than it seemed. Though President Trump

agreed with French President Emmanuel Macron

that a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rou-

hani could happen within weeks, Iran’s foreign minis-

ter dismissed the prospect on Tuesday as “unimagina-

ble.” Meanwhile, the hype over a possible diplomatic

breakthrough obscured a much more ominous devel-

opment: another escalation in Iran-related tensions

across the Middle East, this time driven by Israel.

Since July, Israel has quietly expanded its air

campaign against Iranian assets and allied militias

from Syria to Iraq, with potentially far-reaching

consequences for U.S. forces in the region. U.S. offi-

cials have said a July 19 airstrike on a weapons depot

north of Baghdad was carried out by Israel, which has

launched hundreds of strikes in Syria in recent years

but had not targeted Iraq since 1981. Three other

recent attacks on arms storehouses controlled by

Iranian-linked militias are also believed to have been

Israeli operations.

On Sunday, a drone attack on a Shiite militia convoy

in western Iraq reportedly killed a senior commander

and up to eight others. The previous night, an Israeli

air raid in Syria killed two operatives of the Lebanese

group Hezbollah, which also blamed Israel for a drone

that crashed near its media center south of Beirut. The

government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

claimed credit only for the Syria operation, saying it

had preempted an Iranian-directed drone attack on

multiple military and civilian targets inside Israel.

Israel clearly has a right to defend itself from

Iranian attacks, and there should be no objection to

its action in Syria, a lawless country where Tehran

and its allies operate with impunity. But the expan-

sion of what has been a mostly measured and covert

Israeli campaign to Iraq comes with considerable

risks — including for the United States. Some

5,000 U.S. troops are still based in the country — and

could be targets for Iranian reprisals; at the same

time, the Iraqi government, which remains allied

with Washington, is highly vulnerable to pressure

from the Shiite militia groups, which among other

things control a large bloc in parliament. That faction

reacted to the attack on the militia convoy Sunday by

blaming both Israel and the United States and calling

for U.S. forces to leave the country.

The Pentagon’s response was notable: A statement

strongly denied any involvement in the convoy or

arms depot attacks and went on to condemn “any

potential actions by external actors inciting violence

in Iraq.” That would certainly appear to include air

raids by Israel. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,

meanwhile, was working to prevent an escalation

between Lebanon and Israel; according to Lebanese

reports, he offered the government assurances that

Israel did not intend to rupture a de facto cease-fire

with Hezbollah.

Mr. Netanyahu faces a tough election next month,

and he has been a staunch opponent of any U.S.-

Iranian rapprochement. He might consider this a

good moment to escalate with Iran; he may also

believe that Mr. Trump will not object, even if the

result is damage to U.S. interests in Iraq and a greater

risk of a full-scale war. Unfortunately, on the latter

point, he’s probably right.

Israel’s ominous escalation

Airstrikes raise tensions with Iran and pose new risks for the United States.

The Aug. 23 Metro article “Blunder cited in death

of Marine” described in detail the errors made by

one Marine that led to the death of a fellow Marine.

A secondary headline said “Fellow guard fired

accidentally.”

Please do not perpetuate the idea that when

something occurs that could have been prevented,

it can be called an “accident.” In the Air Force,

I taught a class on how to clear a semiautomatic

pistol. I pointed out, with emphasis, that if you

don’t perform two critical steps — removing the

magazine and then pulling back the slide — in the

proper order, the pistol will be unsafe and may fire

if the trigger is pulled. Thus, the additional

admonition to never point even an unloaded

weapon at anyone. Basic safety.

There is no reason a properly trained person

cannot handle a firearm safely. Anyone who doesn’t

follow the simple rules of firearm safety should not

possess a firearm. Anyone who does possess a

firearm is responsible for the safe handling and

storage of that firearm and should be prosecuted if

anyone, including the possessor, is injured or killed

if an “unintentional” shot is fired. In my experience

with many types of pistols, firearms are generally

safe. If they malfunction, the result is more often

that they don’t fire rather than allowing an

“accidental” shot. If a firearm itself is unsafe, it

should be disposed of.

Stephen Marschall, Burke

Safety training can prevent nearly all gun-related ‘accidents’

ABCDE

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER

T

HE NUMBERS are alarming enough. The

District last year had an all-time high of

204 hate crimes, accounting for the highest

per capita hate-crime rate of any major city

in the country. Peel back the numbers, and the

details are equally disturbing. A 12-year-old black

girl was accosted on her way home from school by a

white man who called her a racial epithet. A gay

woman was shot at her construction job by a

co-worker who had harassed her for being a lesbian.

A Gallaudet University student was relentlessly

stalked online by a man who ridiculed her for being

Muslim and said she would be killed.

Most troubling, though, is the question of just how

seriously these crimes — which affect not only the

victim singled out for bias but also entire communi-

ties — are being treated in the nation’s capital.

An investigation by The Post’s Michael E. Miller

and Steven Rich detailed how prosecutions of hate

crimes have plummeted in the District, even as the

number of people arrested on those charges has

soared. The problem is not so much with D.C. police,

which, after a slow start in enforcing the 1989 law

that allows enhanced sentences for bias-related

crimes, has become among the country’s most

aggressive departments in identifying and investi-

gating potential hate crimes.

The issue seems to be with the U.S. attorney’s

office, which, according to The Post’s analysis, filed

hate-crime charges in just four of the 113 bias-

motivated cases it received from police for 2017 and

2018. That contrasts with prosecutors filing hate-
      crime charges in 44 of the roughly 100 cases received
      from police between 2012 and 2015 (in addition to
      hate-crime charges filed in seven cases that were not
      flagged by police as bias-motivated).
      U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, who took office in
      September 2017 after being named by President
      Trump, has declined to talk to the media and, to date,
      has not responded to a letter from D.C. Del. Eleanor

Holmes Norton (D) requesting information about

prosecution of hate crimes against LGBTQ people.

No doubt these crimes are often difficult to pros-

ecute because the government must establish be-

yond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was

motivated by prejudice. That, though, doesn’t ex-

plain the nosedive in prosecutions, which stands in

contrast to the records of other cities in which local

crimes are prosecuted by local officials rather than

the U.S. attorney. Why, for example, was the man

who shot his construction co-worker given a lenient

plea deal that even the judge said is “not the right

sentence”? Ms. Liu needs to be more forthcoming

about decisions made by her office.

It’s encouraging that she has added another

coordinator for hate-crime prosecutions and last

month promised that the District’s Hate-Bias Task

Force would be more engaged on the issue. Let’s

hope the result is tangible action that will help to

deter hate crimes.

A record of hate crimes

The U.S. attorney’s office needs to explain its lack of prosecutions in the District.

A

MERICA’S CAPTAINS of industry are politi-

cal orphans. Until relatively recently, both

political parties struck a respectful, indeed

solicitous, posture toward companies and

the chief executives who ran them. The near-collapse

of the economy in 2008 shook the legitimacy of both

capitalism and its corporate stewards, however, with

lasting repercussions — prominent among them a

bipartisan swing toward populism.

In 2020, the nominees of both parties could be

anti-business in the sense that they may feel little

deference to the independent judgment of corporate

leaders. That includes President Trump, who has

launched a tariff war in defiance of traditional

business lobbies and claims the power to “order”

U.S. companies to prepare an exit from China.

Among Democrats, the top contenders include a

socialist and a Harvard law professor emerita who

proposes a new federal corporate charter requiring

firms to put unions and environmentalists on their

boards.

There is, accordingly, just a trace of anxiety in the

Business Roundtable’s newly issued “Statement on

the Purpose of a Corporation,” an update on the

corporate mission statement the influential associa-

tion of chief executives last put out in 1997. Back

then, the Business Roundtable emphasized that “the

paramount duty of management and of boards of

directors is to the corporation’s stockholders.” Today,

“shareholders” don’t rate a mention until about

250 words into a 300-word promise that defines the

corporate raison d’être as “an economy that serves all

Americans.” It promises diversity and inclusion,

environmental sustainability and other laudable

objectives usually considered the province of explic-

itly socially responsible institutions — such as gov-

ernment. Yet the 181 signatories are eager to remind

the public of their long-standing sense of responsibil-

ity, so as to help restore public trust in capitalism

generally and big companies specifically. (Jeff Bezos,

who owns The Post, was among those who signed, in

his capacity as chief executive of Amazon.)

The document might help depending on how and

when it’s translated into action. While there is great

potential for mischief when the president bosses

companies around based on the ideological or politi-

cal interest du jour, we see no particular harm if the

business community wants to articulate and pursue

its own voluntary social impact. Economics even has

a name for such byproducts of profit-seeking activi-

ty: “positive externalities,” an example being the

friendly communal meeting place that spontaneous-

ly forms along a thriving Main Street. Still, conscious-

ly producing social benefits alongside profits might

be easier said than done. Society is not a monolith, so

what one segment finds beneficial might offend

another, and the real test of any company’s social

commitment comes when that agenda conflicts with

the bottom line. Any firm that consistently favors the

former over the latter won’t be a firm much longer.

That’s capitalism. What business leaders can do,

perhaps, is put their lobbying muscle behind actual

legislation that empowers government to pursue

social objectives more successfully. Income inequali-

ty is an inherent hazard of the capitalist system; we

might have less of it, though, without the individual

tax cuts in the 2017 Trump-backed tax bill, which the

Business Roundtable supported because of its corpo-

rate reforms. A more humane capitalism would be a

more legitimate capitalism and, ultimately, a more

secure environment for business, too.

Can capitalism be

socially positive?

CEOs should use their power for

legislation, not dubious promises.

ABCDE

FREDERICK J. RYAN JR., Publisher and Chief Executive Officer

News pages: Editorial and opinion pages:

MARTIN BARON FRED HIATT

Executive Editor Editorial Page Editor

CAMERON BARR JACKSON DIEHL

Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor

EMILIO GARCIA-RUIZ RUTH MARCUS

Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor

TRACY GRANT JO-ANN ARMAO

Managing Editor Associate Editorial Page Editor

SCOTT VANCE

Deputy Managing Editor

BARBARA VOBEJDA

Deputy Managing Editor

Vice Presidents:

JAMES W. COLEY JR. ..................................................................................... Production

L. WAYNE CONNELL..........................................................................Human Resources

KATE M. DAVEY .................................................................................. Revenue Strategy

ELIZABETH H. DIAZ ................................................. Audience Development & Insights

GREGG J. FERNANDES........................................................Customer Care & Logistics

STEPHEN P. GIBSON...................................................................Finance & Operations

SCOT GILLESPIE .......................................................................................... Engineering

KRISTINE CORATTI KELLY...................................................Communications & Events

JOHN B. KENNEDY.................................................................General Counsel & Labor

MIKI TOLIVER KING........................................................................................Marketing

SHAILESH PRAKASH...............................Digital Product Development & Engineering

JOY ROBINS ........................................................................................... Client Solutions

The Washington Post

1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-

Michael Gerson apparently believes his par-

ty’s refusal to confront the “moral and political

chaos” that define President Trump’s White

House is “abetting the country’s decline into farce”

[“Unhinged beside the helicopter,” Friday Opinion,

Aug. 23].

In 2017, The Post published my letter to the

editor asking then-House Speaker Paul D. Ryan

(R-Wis.) and his peers when would they start

standing up to the president. Because 30 years from

now, when their grandchildren learn in school

about abuses of power during the Trump adminis-

tration, Republicans could share with sixth-grade

civics classes how they defended the Constitution

they had sworn to uphold. But today’s GOP yields to

Trumpian ethics, turns away from daily mendacity

and discards the standards it demanded of previ-

ous presidents.

With each new outrage, editorial boards and media

roundtables ask whether congressional Republi-

cans ever will draw a line in the sand. At this point, the

inquiry seems futile; the Republican Party has al-

ready given Americans their answer.

Maryellen Donnellan, Falls Church

The GOP’s hypocritical standards

The Aug. 23 front-page article “On animal safe-

ty, USDA takes industry-friendly approach” painted

a disturbing picture of a federal agency failing in its

responsibility to protect animals, with enforcement

that is lax at best and willfully irresponsible at worst.

While the article focused on caged raccoons neglect-

ed in Iowa’s merciless heat, Agriculture Department

policies allowing such neglect and abuse have

similarly severe consequences for a range of animals

the agency is charged with protecting, including

dogs suffering in unchecked commercial breeding

facilities.

Senior USDA officials overruling their own veteri-

narians at the behest of agriculture industry inter-

ests is another shocking indication of systemic

failure. To make matters worse, since 2017, the USDA

has routinely withheld critical information from the

public, heavily redacting inspection records and

reframing instances of neglect and cruelty as “teach-

able moments” — instead of the actionable abuses

they are — to avoid responsible documentation. If

the USDA can’t or won’t perform this legally pre-

scribed and taxpayer-funded role, Congress must

demand it. Our dedication to ensuring the USDA

remains accountable to both the law and the

voiceless animals it is obliged to protect speaks

volumes about our values as a nation.

Matt Bershadker, New York

The writer is president and chief executive

of the American Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals.

It truly appears that cruelty and viciousness are

the hallmarks of the Trump administration, whether

it concerns defenseless animals, people of color,

women, religious minorities or the LBGTQ commu-

nity. It made me ill and angry to read of the

callousness and disregard for the creatures we

should be protecting against abuse to foster finan-

cial gains for big business and corporations that

grow rich from the suffering of animals.

This horrible situation began early in this admin-

istration when the Agriculture Department cut off

the availability of those in the animal rights commu-

nity to monitor circuses, zoos and research facilities.

I hope every major group charged with protecting

animals begins lawsuits immediately against the

heartless activities of Agriculture Secretary Sonny

Perdue and the USDA.

Peggy M. Spates, Hyattsville

Failing to protect animals

While I, too, would like to see President Trump’s

tax returns, the current push to obtain them is

clearly a partisan “fishing expedition” [“House un-

likely to get Trump tax returns before 2020 vote,”

news, Aug. 23]. I would like to see a law whereby all

public servants must provide their tax returns for

the two years before being elected or appointed,

every year while in office, and for two years after

leaving public service. And I’d make it retroactive for

all those currently serving in public office. I’m

certain that many in the House would not look

favorably on such a law, but if it’s good for the goose,

it’s good for the gander.

Patrick McGinn, California

Though there has been a trend by presidents to

disclose their personal tax returns to the public,

since the time of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, it

has been a healthy American habit to secure citizens

from having to provide their federal tax returns to

prying eyes.

President Trump should feel free to maintain his

tax returns as a private matter between himself and

the Internal Revenue Service.

Mike Stollenwerk, Alexandria

Do we need Mr. Trump’s tax returns?

Kudos to Monica Hesse for clearly stating in her

Aug. 24 Style column, “DWTS’s big misstep in

casting Sean Spicer,” a crucial point that so many

respected and popular pundits are constantly miss-

ing: There is no “meeting in the middle” with

adherents of President Trump. For example, in the

same issue of The Post in which Ms. Hesse’s column

appeared, Derek Brown’s op-ed, “Politicians should

drink across the aisle,” stressed continuing convivi-

ality between political opponents.

You can’t offer your hand to those who marched

in Charlottesville or chanted “send her back.” And to

those who argue that not all Trump supporters are

racist bigots, the obvious reply is that they want one

to remain as president. So what does one do with

those on the other side of an unbridgeable moral

and political gap? As is always the case when

confronting the intolerable, if you can’t join them,

beat them.

Alan Ferber, Alexandria

Dancing or drinking won’t help

EDITORIALS

TOM TOLES

 Letters can be sent to [email protected].

Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should

include the writer's address and day and evening

telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and

abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments.

Because of the volume of material we receive, we are

unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters

are under consideration for publication will be contacted.