The Washington Post - 06.08.2019

A24 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.TUESDAY, AUGUST 6 , 2019

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[email protected]

LOCAL OPINIONS

F

OR A moment on Monday, President Trump

offered a teasing hope that he would jolt the

Republican Party into easing its roadblock on

even the most obvious and popular gun-

control measures. Following a grisly weekend of mass

shootings, Mr. Trump tweeted in favor of “strong

background checks” so that “something good, if not

GREAT, [comes] out of these two tragic events!”

Soon enough, the president subsided to form. He

read a speech that focused on mental health issues,

violent video games and the Internet as major

factors in the nation’s increasingly bloody culture of

gun violence. “Mental illness and hatred pulls the

trigger. Not the gun,” he said.

But mental illness and hatred exist throughout

the world, as do video games. Frequent mass

shootings are unique to the United States. The

reason is guns, and especially semiautomatics.

Unique to the United States is easy access to the

means to commit mass murder.

Congress has improved mental health policies in

recent years. Research shows little connection be-

tween violence found in video games and in the real

world. And while the Internet can accelerate the

spread of extremism, it does not create extremism.

More might be done in all these areas. But the crucial

variable is access to guns.

Mr. Trump did restate his support for one gun-

related measure, so-called red-flag laws that would

allow judges to order the temporary confiscation of

firearms from people who present imminent threats

to themselves or others. If the president actually

lobbied the GOP to follow through on this, it would

be a good step. Though pro-gun groups decry such

measures as avenues for weapon confiscation with-

out due process, judges make the final call based on

evidence of substantial threat. States that have

enacted red-flag laws recently have seen notable

progress on preventing suicide. At least one mass

shooting appears to have been prevented because of

a red-flag statute.

But Mr. Trump has a history of talking a big game

on basic gun control, only to fail to follow through.

And even if he surprises in this case, a new red-flag

law would not be nearly enough. The president’s

apparent first instinct to tighten federal background

checks was right. All firearms sales and transfers

should be subject to checks — not just some, as is

currently the case. The loophole that allowed the

Charleston, S.C., church shooter to obtain weapons

should be closed. And high-capacity magazines such

as those used in this past weekend’s mass shootings,

which allow shooters to mow down victims without

breaking to reload, should be banned. Yet, as the

House has passed bills to do such things, the Trump

administration has signaled opposition, and the

Republican Senate appears uninterested.

No amount of talk about video games can distract

from the fact that the nation’s gun laws are a major,

deadly problem. No amount of sympathy for mass

shooting victims will change the fact that the

country’s cowardly Republican leaders are failing to

address it.

What makes America unique

The president again fails to note that mass shootings are directly linked to lax gun control.

Cathedral clergy have come out publicly against

the president’s words, deeds and actions in an effort

to shine light on the situation the nation now finds

itself in [“Leaders at National Cathedral blast

Trump’s ‘violent dehumanizing words’,” Metro,

Aug. 1]. That comes as no surprise to me.

As a member of the Cathedral congregation, I have

listened to the nuanced sermons that are preached

by all clergy with the theme of the light vs. the dark —

words meant to symbolize good and evil. Since this

president took office, we congregants have heard a

lot about the dark forces in this country and around

the world.

Clergy staff mention no names when they preach,

but the Cathedral has struggled with what to do and

how to do it in response to the “darkness” coming out

of the White House. I know these people. By taking this

bold action of making a public statement, I’m sure the

Cathedral is ringing the bell of truth in hopes of

reaching a nation that has become immune to the

constant negative and dark comments that are tweet-

ed by the leader of our country. This letter is the path

they have chosen to enlighten and warn our nation.

I hope the letter by the clergy will wake up the

nation to the dangerously evil words being espoused

by the president.

Skip Strobel, Washington

ABCDE

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER

O

NE OF the easiest ways to combat climate

change is to stop tearing down old trees. This

is why it is everyone’s problem that new

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro seems

determined to chop away at the Amazon rainforest,

the world’s greatest reserve of old-growth forest.

According to a recent analysis in the New York

Times, “enforcement actions by Brazil’s main envi-

ronmental agency fell by 20 percent during the first

six months of the year, compared with the same

period in 2018.” Fines, warnings and the elimination

of illegal equipment from preservation zones are

among the measures Brazil’s authorities are doing

less often. “The drop means that vast stretches of the

rain forest can be torn down with less resistance from

the nation’s authorities.” The result has been a loss of

1,330 square miles of rainforest since January, a loss

rate that is some 40 percent higher than a year

previous, according to Brazilian government records.

Mr. Bolsonaro has called his own government’s

information “lies,” stripped the environment minis-

try of authorities and slashed the environmental

budget. When eight former environment ministers

protested in May, current environment minister

Ricardo Salles alleged that there is a “permanent and

well-orchestrated defamation campaign by [nongov-

ernmental organizations] and supposed experts,

within and outside of Brazil.”

In its reality denial, Mr. Bolsonaro’s brand of

right-wing populism closely resembles that of Presi-

dent Trump. Both leaders stoke unfounded suspi-

cions that environmental concerns represent foreign

plots to undermine the domestic economy. Both are

committed to breakneck resource extraction while

dismissing expert warnings. And both lead nations

with special responsibilities in the global fight

against climate change. Global warming cannot be

successfully addressed without the engagement of

the United States, the world’s largest historical emit-

ter of greenhouse gases and erstwhile leader. The

Brazilian Amazon, meanwhile, is a unique natural

treasure, its abundance of plant life inhaling and

storing loads of planet-warming carbon dioxide day

and night. Without “the world’s lungs,” life on the

planet is doomed.

Earlier this month, the journal Science published a

paper finding that, if world leaders made reforesta-

tion a priority, the planet’s ecosystems could accom-

modate massive numbers of new trees — perhaps

hundreds of billions more. True, reforestation advo-

cates would no doubt have to compete with those

who would use land for other purposes, particularly

as the world population increases. Even so, the

paper’s authors note, their work “highlights global

tree restoration as our most effective climate change

solution to date.”

This is not to say that the fight against global

warming is as easy as planting a few, or even billions,

of trees, if such a thing were politically or logistically

feasible. As long as humans depend on carbon-

emitting sources of fuel for energy, the atmosphere’s

chemistry will continue to change and the climate

will be in peril. But it does suggest that leaders such as

Mr. Bolsonaro, who are leading in the opposite

direction, can do particularly extreme damage to the

effort to restrain climate change.

Leading in the opposite direction

The Amazon acts as the ‘world’s lungs’ and Brazil’s leaders are letting it be stripped bare.

P

RESIDENT TRUMP controls the greatest

loudspeaker in the world. On Monday, he

said from the White House that “our nation

must condemn racism, bigotry and white

supremacy.” He added, “Hatred warps the mind,

ravages the heart and devours the soul.” Well put.

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump has recklessly used rac-

ism, bigotry and hatred for many years, in coded

formulas and direct speech. To truly honor the

victims of El Paso and Dayton, Mr. Trump should

vow never again to spew his loathing from the bully

pulpit.

Mr. Trump has stigmatized Mexicans since the day

he announced his candidacy for president, and has

spoken as though all Muslims are dangerous. He

denounced Latino migration as “an invasion of our

country,” demonizing undocumented immigrants as

“thugs” and “animals.” At a rally in May in Panama

City Beach, Fla., he asked, “How do you stop these

people? You can’t.” Someone in the crowd yelled back

one idea: “Shoot them.” The audience of thousands

cheered — Trump smiled. Shrugging off the sugges-

tion, he quipped, “Only in the Panhandle can you get

away with that statement.” When avowed white

supremacists marched in Charlottesville in August

2017 and one of them drove his car into a crowd,

killing a peaceful protester, Heather Heyer,

Mr. Trump condemned “hatred, bigotry and violence

on many sides, on many sides,” as though others

besides the white supremacists were to blame.

Mr. Trump wrote in January on Twitter, “More

troops being sent to the Southern Border to stop the

attempted invasion of illegals through large Cara-

vans into our country.” Mr. Trump also wrote last

November that “the U.S. is ill-prepared for this

invasion, and will not stand for it.” Before opening

fire in El Paso and killing 22 innocent people, the

21-year-old alleged shooter wrote, “This attack is a

response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

Mr. Trump said in July, “Allowing the immigration

to take place in Europe is a shame. I think it

changed the fabric of Europe and, unless you act

very quickly, it’s never going to be what it was, and I

don’t mean that in a positive way.” The shooter

wrote, “The natives didn’t take the invasion of

Europeans seriously, and now what’s left is just a

shadow of what was.”

The president’s words have wide and deep conse-

quences. When he smears all Latinos or Muslims,

announcing walls or visa bans to keep them out;

when he denounces the news media as “enemies of

the people,” using Stalinist terms; when he says four

congresswomen of color should “go back” to the

countries they came from — all these spread fear,

exclusion and hatred.

The president cannot be held responsible for

every irresponsible act of citizens. But he can he held

to account for propagating ugly and bigoted notions

in his public remarks. This would be a good moment

to change direction.

The language

of hatred and fear

Mr. Trump must stop using his

bully pulpit to sow bigotry.

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) 334-6000

A ‘darkness’ at the White House

JABIN BOTSFORD/THE WASHINGTON POST

President Trump at the White House on Monday.

Regarding the July 31 editorial “Virginia is in the

fast lane. Maryland, not so much.”:

Privately run toll lanes aren’t a solution to

gridlock; they are a guarantee of gridlock. If the

regular lanes aren’t jammed up, drivers won’t pay

the tolls, and there won’t be any profits.

Wider highways don’t help the economy. In

today’s job market, employers want to locate near

transit. Most new office space in our region is built

near a Metro station.

The Maryland toll lane proposal is beginning to

collapse. Voters realize it won’t relieve congestion

and will damage the state’s economy and environ-

ment. Transurban has already pulled out of the

bidding.

It’s time for the state to abandon this misbegotten

scheme and put its commuters and its economy on a

fast track by investing in rail transit.

Benjamin Ross, Bethesda

The cost of more toll roads

Regarding the Aug. 1 news article “ ‘Public op-

tion’ swerves from far left to middle of the road”:

Many Americans would rather keep their private

insurance than be forced to switch to a Medicare-

type plan. For an issue as important as health care,

one does not want surprises.

To resolve this, one should not view the two

approaches being debated as alternatives but rather

as complementary. Allow market competition with a

public option competing with private insurers. Al-

low this in the Obamacare exchanges and with

employer-sponsored plans. Employers could com-

plement any Medicare-type plan for their core

health-insurance needs with a supplemental plan

from private insurers.

It would just be an option. No one would be forced

to switch to the Medicare plans. But people would

probably save money by doing so. The reason is that

Medicare-managed health insurance is incredibly

efficient, with administrative costs that are only

one-fifth that of private health insurers (in terms of

shares of total costs).

Private insurers will no doubt scream that they

cannot compete. And that would be true — unless

they abandon their high-cost but high-profit busi-

ness model. Over time, unless private insurers push

down their administrative costs to what Medicare

already has achieved, one would see a transition to

what would in effect be Medicare-for-all. And this

would not be done by forcing anyone to switch, but

rather by allowing people to choose.

Frank J. Lysy, Washington

The Aug. 2 editorial “In need of a grounded

vision” was right on target. Running a government is

not just about “Big Ideas”; it is about “Good, Big

Ideas.” Big dreams are not enough. There has to be a

realistic way to pay for them.

The candidates need a “degree of factual plausibil-

ity.” We’ve had enough Big Ideas from President

Trump that he can’t pay for and can’t deliver. The

next president’s job isn’t just to offer Big Ideas; it’s

also to deliver on the ideas he or she offers.

Jim Pickerell, Bethesda

A public option should be an option

Thanks to Michael Gerson for his well-written

Aug. 2 op-ed, “Ignoring racism continues U.S.

cruelty.”

Who will lead — and, especially, when — to help

this nation rise above the awful shame of our current

presidential example? When will individuals take

time to be informed?

Rosemary P. Murray, Alexandria

When will a true U.S. leader emerge?

Robert J. Samuelson’s July 29 op-ed, “Are we

shortchanging the military?,” seemed to have an

underlying assumption that the issue is “the

defense budget vs. the welfare state.” The reason we

exist as a country — reasons succinctly proclaimed

in the Constitution’s preamble and clearly stated as

a major goal of the founders of this union — is to

“provide for the common defense” and “promote the

general Welfare.” It is not either-or, but both-and.

We debate and argue about the details, of course.

But sometimes the pro-defense advocates ignore or

denigrate a basic promise of our Constitution: to

promote the general welfare.

Michael Stout, Washington

Robert J. Samuelson’s July 29 op-ed attacked

my July 18 New York Review of Books article on

defense spending, calling my arguments “false,

deceptive or incomplete.”

He claimed I use a “misleading trick” that only

“budget wonks” would spot. Nonsense. What I

wrote was “the valid measure of affordability is

defense spending’s share of the federal discretion-

ary budget: that is, of all federal spending other

than the mandatory allotments to entitlements

and interest on the national debt. Discretionary

spending is everything else the government does.”

What could be clearer? And, just as I wrote,

defense spending is close to 60 percent of this

discretionary pot on which Congress can, each

year, work its will.

I noted the United States spends more on defense

than the next eight countries combined. Mr. Samu-

elson called this a “statistical fluke” because I failed

to compare countries’ spending using “purchasing

power parity” — estimates based on a theoretical

basket of goods and services that reflect purchasing

patterns in each country. Military spending differs.

The price of conscripts is likely to be lower than

such a typical basket; the price of advanced

weapons systems much higher. Market exchange

rates are therefore more accurate.

Mr. Samuelson called my piece a “tirade” that

peddles an “anti-defense mythology” based on

“mostly fictions.” My facts, from official sources, are

correct. My core arguments, which he ignored, are

worthy of attention.

Jessica T. Mathews, Washington

The writer is a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace.

U.S. defense spending

EDITORIALS

Tom Toles

is away.

Their letter is the path they have

chosen to enlighten our nation.

Letters can be sent to [email protected].

Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and include the

writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers.

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.