The Boston Globe - 07.08.2019

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2019 The Boston Globe Opinion A

Inbox

Theuglylegacy

ofRonaldReagan

Letters should be written exclusively to the Globe and

include name, address, and daytime telephone number.

They should be 200 words or fewer. All are subject to

editing. Letters to the Editor, The Boston Globe, 1 Exchange

Pl, Ste 201, Boston, MA 02109-2132; [email protected]

Policiesthat Reaganput in place

are unforgivable

Taymullah Abdur-Rahman’s op-edin Friday’s Globe(“It’s

actions, not words, that made Reagan a racist,” Aug 2)

stood in stark contrast to the column published just the day

before by Patti Davis, Ronald Reagan’s daughter, for The

Washington Post. Stunningly stark contrast, actually.

I can hardly be critical of Davis for remembering her

father as she does (don’t most of us want to remember our

parents fondly?), and saying that he would have asked for

forgiveness for the remarkhe made in conversation with

RichardNixon in 1971.

But what cannot be forgiven, ever, as Imam Abdur-Rah-

man enumerates, is what Reagan launched: the demoniza-

tion of government and the summary and deliberate dis-

mantling of the American social safety net — strategies

that, for generations now, have disproportionately affected

families and individuals of color. Sadly, we have Davis’s fa-

ther to thank for the crisis in our democracy today. It has

been buildingfor a long time, and it began with Reagan.

MAIAFARISH

Providence

In East Africa in ’71, goodworks and

goodwill were answer to bad leaders

In October 1971, when Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon

had their little racist chat, several members of Teachers for

East Africa and Teacher Education in East Africa were in

Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda for the US Agency for

International Development, teaching their students,who

(notwithstanding Reagan’s remark about footwear) were

delightfully shoe-shod. Participants in the Peace Corps and

otherinstitutions whose social relevance far exceededthat

of both Reagan and Nixon were doingthe same.Whilethey

and their fellow teachers had gone into the field on the

wingsof John F. Kennedy’s idealism, they labored on, not

giving a hoot about Nixon and Reagan. We learned at the

time, and then on repeated visits, that the legacies of JFK

and Barack Obama are the only presidential legacies that

linger.

E. BROOKS GODDARD

President

Teachers for East AfricaAlumni/TEAA

Needham

El Paso, Dayton — two massshootings in 24 hoursin the

so-called greatest country on earth. Uh-huh.

John Paul Stevens,the longtime Supreme Court justice

who died last month, at 99, had the only realistic answer:

Repealthe Second Amendment.

That will not meanno guns. If you can demonstrate a le-

gitimate needor reason, you’d still be able to own a gun,

but as a privilege subject to rules.

It’s the way people live in more civilized countries. We

have nothing to lose but our massacres.

FAYE GEORGE

Bridgewater

Repeal the Second Amendment

In his article about an op-ed I wrote 22 years ago regarding

lowering the age of consent, Martin Finucanequotes critics

who say my ideas are “off the deep end” (“Alan Dershowitz

defendsop-edsuggesting that age of consent for sex should

be lowered,” BostonGlobe.com, July 30). Finucanenever

asked me to respond. Had he called me, I wouldhave

explained the background and context of my op-ed.

It grew out of a case in which a college freshman had a

relationship with a high school senior two years his junior.

Her parentsdisapproved and called the police. His

girlfriend refused to testify against him and was threatened

with contempt. He asked for my advice, and I told him that

I thought a constitutional argumentcould be madebased

on the age of consent for choosing whether to have an

abortion or a baby. Proponents of women’s rights were

appropriately pushing for a reduction in the age of consent

for abortion. I suggested that if the right to choose is

constitutionally based on procreative freedom,then it

might follow, as a matter of constitutional law, that a

female old enoughto have the freedom to choose abortion

should be deemedold enoughto decide whether to have

sex. The lawyer used my argument, and the case ultimately

was resolved in his client’s favor.

This case led me to think in general termsabout the age

of consent, which varies fromstate to state. States in which

18 is the age of consent accord prosecutors enormous

discretion to selectively prosecute young men based on

race and economic status. A high percentage of teenagers

engage in sex before the formal age of consent. Many

prosecuted cases involve minority men. Somestates have

enacted “Romeo and Juliet” statutes, whichdecriminalize

sex below the age of consent when the older person is close

in age to the younger one. That is the right approach as a

matter of policy. But as a matter of constitutional law, it

would be difficult to justify a statute that gave a 17-year-old

the right to choose to have sex, but denied her the right to

have sex with a 30- or 40-year-old.

I wrote my op-ed as a provocative think piece, designed

to stimulate debate. I have written morethan 1,

articles, many of themaboutcontroversial subjects such as

torture warrants. Some people agree with my arguments

while others disagree, but no one criticized me personally

or challenged my motives until now.

So let’s continue to debate these issues on the merits.

Let’s stop the ad hominem attacks. And let’s stop trying to

manufacture false motives for why I wrote that and other

articles. Instead, let’s focus on what the best approach is for

women, men, and the rule of law.

ALANDERSHOWITZ

Martha’s Vineyard

Alan Dershowitz wants

his ’97 op-edseen in context

O

n Aug. 12, 2017in

Charlottesville, Va., an avowed

neo-Nazi plowed his car into a

crowdof anti-racist protesters,

killing Heather Heyer. A white

man killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh

synagogue last October. In March, a white

Australian man massacred more than 50

people at two mosques in New Zealand.

Last weekend, a 21-year-old white man

allegedly drove10 hoursto a Walmart in El

Paso, opening fire on shoppers. At least 22

people weremurdered, most of them

Hispanic.

These are all the sons of President

Trump.

So, too, is Cesar A. Sayoc Jr., sentenced

this weekto 20 yearsin prisonfor sending

homemade pipe bombs to prominent

figureshe deemed enemiesof the president.

That noneof the bombsdetonated is beside

the point. Sayoc wantedto maimand kill

peoplethe president often criticizedand

mocked.

What linksthese men to the president is

deeper than biology, thoughI suspect they

likely have similar hearts devoid of empathy

and brains atrophied from racist animosity.

Men who murder in the name of white

nationalism shareTrump’s ideological DNA.

They are bound to him by foundational

beliefs about race and supremacy that have

been sustained for centuries by rhetoric and

laws, the lash and noose, and bombsand

bullets.

On the Sunday morning talk shows, Mick

Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff,

claimed the suspected El Paso shooter

harbored racist thoughts “for a long time,

even before President Trump got elected.”

While that may be true, this is also a fact:

Trump’s own words echoed in the accused

murderer’s desultory manifesto.

It’s one thingto holda personal

grudge against blackand brownpeople.

It’s quite anotherwhenthe president

articulates thosefearsand resentments,

intoningin uncoded

language that for America

to be great again, these

peopleshould“go back”

wherever they came from.

The El Paso shooter railed

against “fake news” and

warned of what he called a

“Hispanicinvasion.” According

to a Boston Globeanalysis,

Trump has used variationsof

“invasion” at least 33 timesin

tweets, interviews, and

speechessince last fall. On

Facebook,Trump’s reelection

campaignhas posted more

than 2,000 ads with the word“invasion.”

The New Zealand massacre suspect

called Trump “a symbolof renewed white

identity and commonpurpose.” The man

accused of targeting Jews in Pittsburgh

spoke of a “caravan” of Central American

migrants threatening this country, the same

term Trump used to whip up anti-

immigrant panic before the 2018 midterm

elections.

This is why the president’s recent

condemation of racism and white

supremacy was such an empty exercise.

Reading words crafted by some

speechwriter, he meant none of it. If he did,

he would have specifically mentioned and

lifted the Latinx communities in El Paso and

beyond, shaken to their core by this

devastating hate crime. Of course, he didn’t

because that is not what his base wantsto

hear.

Every wave of violent white terrorism

is predicated on the idea that America

was created by and for white people.

This ignores the fact

that ours is a stolen

land, one built on the

brutalsubjugation of an

entire race for nearly

350 years. With Trump

illuminating their path,

his ideological kin are

acting out their

patriarchal pathology,

putting lives and

democracy at risk.

At a May rally in

Florida, Trump asked

how migrants could be

stopped from crossing the

southern border. Whensomeone shouted,

“Shoot ’em,” Trump smiled, then joked,

“That’s only in the Panhandle can you get

away with that statement.” The crowd

whooped and cheered.

Remember thosecheersthe next time —

and in this nation, there’s always a next time

— a white man hearsTrump’s ugly words as

a call to action. Hate may have “no placein

this country,” as Trump said after the El Paso

massacre, but as his “sons” recognize, it sure

has madeitself mighty comfortable in the

White House.

Renée Graham can be reached at

[email protected]. Follow her on

Twitter @reneeygraham.

RENÉE GRAHAM

Trump’s ideological sons

background gun-check system to cover private

sales. One of the senators voting no was

Florida’s Marco Rubio.

In an interview the next morning on CBS,

he explained that such a law wouldn’t have

prevented the latest massshooting. Neither of

the San Bernardino killers was on any data-

base; their backgroundchecks had been clean.

When cohost Gayle King asked him about the

B

arely had the massacres in El

Paso and Dayton ended than

the clamor began for the gov-

ernment to “Do Something”

about weapons used in mass

shootings.

Once again there wereimpassioned

calls for “common-sense” gun control,

above all for more sweeping background

checks before guns are purchased. “Back-

ground checks,” declared Michael

Bloomberg, the former New York mayor,

are “the two most important words in this

debate.” Leading Democrats, including

Senators Sherrod Brown, Chuck Schumer,

and Bernie Sanders, demanded that Con-

gress pass a law mandating a “universal”

background check on all gun purchases. So

did President Trump,tweeting that both

political parties must “come together and

get strong backgroundchecks.”

In reality, the overwhelming majority of

gun sales already require a background

check. Anyone who buys a gun froma li-

censed dealer — whether in person or on-

line, in a store or at a gun show — must be

cleared by the FBI before the weapon is de-

livered. Every year the federal government

conducts more than 25 million such back-

ground checks. The only time the require-

ment doesn’t apply is when someone ac-

quires a gun locally froma private individ-

ual, such as a friend or relative. That’s the

so-called “gunshowloophole,” which has

nothing to do with gun shows and isn’t a

loophole, since it doesn’t apply to anyone

in the business of selling guns.

Enacting “universal” background

checks would mean forcing private citizens

who aren’t gun dealers to go through the

FBI before they can sell a gun to their next-

door neighbor or their sister-in-law. That

would impose a considerable burdenon

the personal affairs of private individuals.

But would it “do something” about mass

shootings?

This isn’t a new question, and the an-

swer shouldn’t be in doubt. Yet somehow it

remains a mystery to a lot of people, even

those concerned with public affairs.

In December 2015, two terrorists

carrying rifles and semiautomatic pistols

murdered 14 victims in a massshooting at

the Inland Regional Center in San

Bernardino, Calif. The next day, the US

Senate voted on a bill to expand the federal

bio was exactly correct. No proposed new

law could have prevented those massacres.

Mass shootings are not caused because

Congress hasn’t passed “universal” back-

ground checks. In almost every instance,

the killers buy their guns legally. “Would

stronger background checks have stopped

El Paso and Dayton?” asked CNNon Mon-

day. Based on everything known so far, no.

Everyone is horrified when a gunman

goes on a rampage and turns a school, a

church, or a nightclub into a bloodbath.

Everyone wants to “do something” to make

it stop. But guns are already among the

most intrusively regulated products in

American life, and only a vanishingly tiny

fraction of the firearms owned in the Unit-

ed States are ever used to commit a crime.

Mass shootings themselves account for on-

ly a minuscule fraction of US homicides —

and gun violence in America is muchless

common than it was 25 yearsago.

If there were a “common sense” gun

regulation that could unfailingly foil mass

shootings, we would have adopted it long

ago. There isn’t. We are morally bound to

try and prevent such carnage, but common

sense — and history — says more gun con-

trol won’t do it.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at

[email protected]. Follow him

on Twitter @jeff_jacoby.

“many other cases” where such a

law could have prevented a massa-

cre, Rubio politely replied that such

cases don’t exist.

In “none of the major shootings that have

occurred in this country over the last few

months or years that have outraged us,” he

said, “would [new] gun laws have prevented

them.”

A Washington Post staffer urged the paper’s

Fact Checker to scrutinize Rubio’s claim, “sug-

gesting that it was almost certainly incorrect.”

So the Fact Checker pored through “reams of

data,” examining every massshooting since

the Sandy Hook school slaughter in Newtown,

Conn., in December 2012. Its conclusion: Ru-

JEFF JACOBY

No, expandedbackground checks

wouldn’t prevent mass shootings

GLOBESTAFF; ADOBE

Men who

murderin the

nameof white

nationalism

shareTrump’s

ideological

DNA.

GLOBEFILEPHOTOS

JamesFieldsJr., accusedin Charlottesvillecarattack;Robert Bowers,accusedin thePittsburghsynagogue

shooting; PatrickCrusius,accusedEl Paso shooter; and Cesar SayocJr., convictedforsendingpipebombs.