The Washington Post - 01.08.2019

THURSDAY, AUGUST 1 , 2019. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A

THURSDAY Opinion

I

t’s hard to believe, but it has been less than

three weeks since President Trump told a

group of congresswomen of color to “go

back” to where they came from. It seems

as though it was months ago, because we are

already dealing with the fallout from another

racist attack by the president against another

person of color.

On Saturday, Trump tore into Rep. Elijah

E. Cummings (D-Md.), calling his majority-

minority district “a disgusting, rat and rodent

infested mess,” where “no human being would

want to live.” Trump even labeled Cummings,

who is African American, a “racist.” When the

Rev. Al Sharpton criticized Trump’s language,

Trump tweeted that Sharpton was a “con

man” who “Hates Whites & Cops,” once again

adopting the white-nationalist device of

painting those who oppose racism as anti-

white racists.

Trump and his advisers plainly perceive a

political advantage in such bigoted attacks. As

The Post noted Saturday: “Trump’s advisers

had concluded after the previous tweets that

the overall message sent by such attacks is

good for the president among his political

base — resonating strongly with the white

working-class voters he needs to win reelec-

tion in 2020.”

Yes, racism sells in America. But the politi-

cal advantage from these attacks might be

negated — and Trump might be deterred from

launching more of them — if only his own

party would call him out. The president would

have a more difficult time defending himself

from charges of bigotry if they were leveled by

Republicans rather than just Democrats. But,

with painfully few exceptions, Republicans

have adopted a “see no evil, hear no evil” policy

toward Trump’s racism — one that makes

them complicit in what is undeniably evil. As

former Ohio governor John Kasich noted,

“There is a culture of silence in the party.”

A few decades from now, when the entire

country is majority-minority, the Trump era

will be seen as a sad last gasp of white

resistance — a reprehensible episode that will

be recounted alongside the McCarthy era, the

internment of people of Japanese descent

during World War II and the Palmer Raids. No

one will remember or care who backed a

corporate tax cut. When their grandchildren

ask today’s Republicans what they did to

oppose Trump’s racism, what will they say?

“No comment”?

“I don’t do hallway interviews,” said

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). “I like Baltimore, and

I like it better when the president talks about

policy,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

“Another act of political theater,” said

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) — without offer-

ing any opinion on whether Trump’s com-

ments were racist. “Instead of all of this back

and forth about who everyone thinks is racist

and whose not, the President just offered to

help the people of Baltimore. They should take

him up on it,” former U.N. ambassador Nikki

Haley wrote on Twitter, as though the presi-

dent was trying to be constructive.

“Neither is a racist,” said Rep. Mark

Meadows (R-N.C.), when asked about Trump

and Cummings. Meadows’s lackluster and

delayed defense of Cummings — an echo of

“very fine people on both sides” — is especially

notable in the annals of Republican cowardice

given that when a Democratic member of

Congress accused Meadows of racism, Cum-

mings immediately jumped to his defense.

But, hey, at least Meadows’s comment is better

than Republican National Committee chair

Ronna McDaniel’s gutless response when

asked whether Cummings is a racist: “I don’t

know Elijah Cummings.”

What is going through the minds of these

Republicans? Most, I assume, know the presi-

dent is being racist — something that is

admitted even by onetime Trump friends and

flunkies such as Omarosa Manigault

Newman, Michael Cohen, Geraldo Rivera and

Anthony Scaramucci — and yet they are too

afraid of the president’s wrath to say so.

Others, however, no doubt rationalize by

claiming, as Fox News analyst Brit Hume does,

that Trump is an equal-opportunity, color-

blind offender, that he simply lashes out at

anyone of any race who criticizes him. That

defense does not account for the fact that

Trump uses dehumanizing language (“infest-

ed,” “rat and rodent”) and xenophobic lan-

guage (“go back”) only when discussing peo-

ple of color.

The racist nature of Trump’s attack is

brought into sharp relief by pictures circulat-

ing on the Internet showing unsightly,

garbage-strewn scenes not from Baltimore

but from districts represented by Republican

members of Congress. I can’t vouch for these

photos, but the statistics don’t lie: Cum-

mings’s district, with a poverty rate of

16.6 percent, is far better off than the districts

represented by Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.),

which has a poverty rate of 29.1 percent;

Rep. Ralph Abraham (R-La.), at 25.1 percent;

or Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.Va.), at 23.3 percent.

Indeed, of the 10 poorest states (Louisiana,

Mississippi, New Mexico, West Virginia, Ala-

bama, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina,

Arizona and Georgia), all except New Mexico

are overwhelmingly Republican.

It would not be difficult to find unsightly

pictures of poverty from any of these states.

But, naturally, Trump chooses to focus on

poverty in a largely African American district

represented by an African American member

of Congress. And most Republicans profess to

believe, or at least not contest, the president’s

disingenuous claims that he is “the least racist

person that you have ever met.” In the 165-year

history of the Republican Party, this is its most

ignoble hour. It has become a cult of personal-

ity for a repugnant person.

Twitter: @MaxBoot

MAX BOOT

This is the

GOP’s most

ignoble hour

BY RICHARD NEAL

F

or three decades, the House of

Representatives and its Ways

and Means Committee have

been the site of my life’s work.

I never aspired to be a senator or

governor or president.

Instead, I learned arcane House rules

and sought a position on the Ways and

Means Committee because of its tre-

mendous potential to help my district.

I have listened to my constituents on

matters such as taxes, health care, inter-

national trade and Social Security,

which are within the committee’s pur-

view. Untold hours have gone into de-

veloping legislation and trying to im-

prove, pass or defeat countless bills.

That’s the job.

I’d rather hold a roundtable in Pitts-

field, Mass., or cross-examine Medicare

administrators than pick fights on ca-

ble news. Those arguments tend to

drive people into their corners, shrink-

ing opportunities to accomplish real

results.

I’m an institutionalist. I respect Con-

gress, for all its imperfections. As chair-

man of the Ways and Means Commit-

tee, I am responsible for congressional

oversight of the Treasury Department

and the Internal Revenue Service’s ad-

ministration of the federal tax code. The

tax code gives the committee chairman

the power to request taxpayer informa-

tion from the IRS. The committee has

exercised this power at various times in

the past and has never been denied by

the IRS or the Treasury Department.

In early April, I requested the presi-

dent’s tax returns to fulfill a legitimate

congressional oversight responsibility:

Our voluntary tax-compliance system

hinges on the public’s faith that our tax

laws are administered fairly and with-

out favor to those in power. The presi-

dent is unique: No other American has

the power to sign bills into law and

direct an entire branch of government.

That power, and the extent to which the

IRS can audit and enforce federal tax

laws against a current or future presi-

dent, merits closer legislative scrutiny.

The IRS has a policy of performing

mandatory audits on all sitting presi-

dents and vice presidents. But neither

Congress nor the public knows any-

thing about the scope of those audits

and whether the president can exert

undue influence on the IRS to affect his

or her tax treatment. If, for example, the

president is already under audit at the

time he or she takes office, what hap-

pens to that audit? We don’t know.

My committee will consider legisla-

tion regarding the mandatory audit

program to ensure these audits are

conducted fairly and without undue

influence from the commander in chief.

And, as part of our deliberations, we

must review his tax information to

better understand the audit program

and propose any needed changes.

The law on this is very clear: The

IRS “shall furnish” the Ways and Means

Committee with the requested tax re-

turns. Both Democrats and Republi-

cans have made requests for taxpayer

information under 6103(f )(1) of the

U.S. tax code in the past. The Supreme

Court has repeatedly held that Con-

gress is entitled to a presumption that

its investigatory activities are legiti-

mate, and, in this case, the legitimacy is

self-evident. And yet, the administra-

tion has stonewalled Congress, order-

ing the IRS commissioner not to com-

ply with the plain language of the law

and setting up a pending legal clash.

I did not pick this fight, but I will not

shirk it because it’s about something

much bigger than tax forms. This is not

an exercise in political retribution: I am

not willing to trade the reputation of

the Ways and Means Committee for

cheap political gains.

The committee is a venerable part of

U.S. history, having given the nation

Social Security, Medicare, the entire tax

code, all of our trade agreements, and

numerous programs serving children

and families. This committee financed

America’s role in both world wars, and

its antecedent paid for the Lewis and

Clark expedition. I have no intention of

squandering my chairmanship of this

distinguished panel on petty or malevo-

lent efforts to embarrass the current

president.

But in this country, we take seriously

the Magna Carta’s precept of the rule of

law, not the law of rulers. I will fight

with everything I have to reassert Con-

gress’s constitutional mandate to serve

as an equal branch of government. This

country has thrived through the cen-

turies because we have durable political

institutions with a robust system of

checks and balances.

Our political institutions won’t con-

tinue to function unless we guard them

vigilantly, and my colleagues and I in

the House majority are committed to

doing so. It is the root of our oath to

uphold the law.

The writer, a Democrat, represents

Massachusetts’s 1st Congressional District

in the U.S. House and is chairman of the

Ways and Means Committee.

We need

Trump’s tax

returns.

Here’s why.

T

he digital age, for all its ben-

eficial wonders, has left some

regrettable casualties in its

wake. No loss has been more

troublesome for many of us than the

decline of print journalism as our

principal medium of information. For

all their flaws and variability, newspa-

pers bring a depth of information, a

degree of editorial quality control and

a capacity for self-correction of errors

that are difficult to find in what now

passes for “news” journalism.

With that development, we’re los-

ing something I have always appreci-

ated almost as much. The political

cartoonist, an influential voice in

public debates for centuries, is among

our most endangered species.

According to “Drawn & Quartered,” a

history of American political car-

toons by Stephen Hess and Sandy

Northrop, 2,000 editorial cartoonists

were employed a century ago; esti-

mates of the number of staff cartoon-

ists working today range from

about two dozen to maybe 40.

The famous 1,000-to-1 words-

to-picture ratio may be understated

when it comes to the political car-

toon. A case can be made that public

opinion has, over time, been more

often shaped by these artists than by

the words of their polemicist col-

leagues on the nation’s editorial pag-

es. A salient political point made with

humor can pack more punch than the

same idea draped in invective. Many

citizens who would not take time for a

lengthy essay have learned of an issue

or taken a cue from a well-drawn

sketch and a clever caption.

I confess that, during my younger

days spent in Washington, I read an

occasional op-ed — but I never

skipped a Herblock cartoon in

The Post. If and when the political

cartoonist’s genre goes extinct, we’ll

have lost more than an occasional

chuckle.

The cartoonist I’ll miss most laid

down his pen for the Indianapolis

Star earlier this year. For a

quarter-century, including the eight

years I spent in elective office, Gary

Varvel delighted and illuminated the

fortunate readers of the Indianapolis

Star with his craftsmanship and his

insight in equal measure. To someone

who can’t draw a circle with a com-

pass, Varvel’s seemingly effortless

ability to capture the essence of his

subjects was inexplicable. To some-

one who was working daily in public

life, his grasp of events and clarity of

thinking brought, not infrequently,

second thoughts or even a change of

viewpoint.

Even before newspapers began to

homogenize and wither, Varvel was

an unusual and especially valuable

figure in Indiana life. He carried on

the tradition of cartoonists who, at

their best, have served a particularly

American service by satirizing the

pretensions of the political class.

Our greatest cartoonists have re-

minded us of the foibles, frauds and

failures of those imperfect people to

whom we entrust power over us. They

have helped to maintain the healthy

skepticism that protects liberty

against its enemies, whether would-

be dictators or those who simply

consider themselves our benevolent

betters.

During the current president’s re-

cent trip to Britain, the interest group

Led by Donkeys lampooned him with

sarcastic images projected onto

buildings and billboards. The group’s

leader explained, “By laughing at

them, you can reduce their power.”

It’s a vital role. A Varvel cartoon

almost always poked its fun at those

who would infringe upon rather than

protect our freedoms.

Though it is a common misconcep-

tion that the word “nasty” derives

from the work of Thomas Nast, who is

considered the father of American

political cartooning, the myth did

ring true. In recent years, public

discourse has coarsened unmistak-

ably and drearily, but much political

cartooning was already there. For all

his great wit and artistic skill, Varvel

was always playful but never cruel.

A Varvel caricature stopped short

of ridicule; its caption aimed to make

the reader laugh, not smirk. And

many times — see his post-9/11 draw-

ing of a weeping Uncle Sam holding a

fallen firefighter in his arms, or his

“Bush Reunion” piece after former

president George H.W. Bush joined

his wife, Barbara, in death, portray-

ing the couple embracing on a cloud

— he made us shed a tear.

The best cartoonists can be appre-

ciated for the smiles, the artisanship

or the principled philosophy that

usually underlie their oeuvre. One

needn’t agree with their opinions to

appreciate the skill of those who see

public debates and participants

through more imaginative eyes than

our own. That is especially so when

their work is drawn in a spirit of

genuine humor and goodwill. Like

the tough copy editors and correc-

tions columns of yesteryear, they’ll be

hard to replace.

Mitch Daniels, a Post contributing

columnist, is president of Purdue

University and a former governor of

Indiana.

MITCH DANIELS

Political cartooning

is becoming a lost art

GARY VARVEL/THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR

Gary Varvel’s post-9/11 cartoon.

BY ANTHONY R. PALUMBI

E

very parent wants to do right by

their child. Developing these

bewildered little primates into

kind, admirable human beings

is hard work, and curating your young-

sters’ exposure to popular culture will

always be part of that task. In 2019, one

of the most powerful cultural forces in a

young person’s life is likely to be the

online video game “Fortnite,” and never

more since last weekend’s Fortnite

World Cup, in which a 16-year-old boy

named Kyle “Bugha” Giersdorf walked

away with the top trophy and $3 million

in prize money.

As in any sport, most players will

never sniff the professional ranks,

though Giersdorf ’s success will doubt-

less inspire young people to follow, if

they haven’t already. A survey conduct-

ed by Common Sense Media last year

found that 75 percent of teen boys and

47 percent of teen girls had played

Fortnite, and a quarter of their parents

worried about the time their children

spent with the game. Parenting and

child psychology websites abound with

articles geared toward grown-ups wor-

ried about what their children might

learn spending hours immersed in

environments defined by looting and

deadly melees. Any activity that domi-

nates kids’ free time naturally spurs

parental concern. But Fortnite and

games like it are actually a valuable

antidote to worrisome trends such as a

decline in unstructured playtime in

open spaces and an international epi-

demic of loneliness.

It’s no surprise that Fortnite has

become so popular among children and

teenagers. It’s a bloodless third-person

game, which means players see the

action through a broader perspective

rather than just the point of view of the

character they are inhabiting. Fortnite

has a bright and clean visual style, a

wealth of unlockable dances and cos-

metic accessories players can use to

express themselves in-game, and un-

limited, cost-free gameplay. Using the

enormously successful “Battle Royale”

model, in which up to 100 players roam

across a vast landscape shooting each

other until one stands triumphant,

Fortnite has more than 250 million

registered players and brings in

$3 billion a year for its developer, Epic

Games, largely on sales of cosmetic

items.

The most important thing to know

about games such as Fortnite, however,

isn’t how much time your kids spend

online, it’s what they’re doing there.

Kids gather with their friends in Fort-

nite the same way prior generations

might have mustered themselves into

an “E.T.”-style cycling gang — occupying

sectors of the game’s ever-changing

island map the way they once monopo-

lized backyard courts and diamonds.

They team up to make their way across a

landscape of other players who may

fight or flee or fortify, who represent

challenges conquerable through im-

provisation and teamwork. Each round

becomes a fresh story, a new adventure

not unlike a session of “Dungeons &

Dragons” or any other system of impro-

vised narrative.

In the nearly two years since “Fortnite

Battle Royale” launched, the nature of

the game has markedly changed. Soft-

ware companies lose control of online

structures the moment they become

popular; the best developers furnish

their communities with tools they can

use to challenge themselves and grow.

Epic Games’ early innovations, such as

guided missile launchers, fell flat before

a youthful audience less interested in

efficient killing than in new experi-

ences. Since then, the developers have

focused on jump pads, teleportation

rifts, and drivable vehicles such as golf

carts and airplanes. Fortnite players

want new ways to interact with and

traverse the environment, not new ways

to kill one another. The best players

distinguish themselves not only with

pristine aim but cunning and creativity.

The end result is a prime example of

what game critics and academics refer

to as a “third place”: locations, in the

real world or online, separate from

home, school or work, where people

choose to spend their time. Online

games allow children to express them-

selves without fear of supervision from

parents who value academics over self-

expression or the censure that powers so

many social media networks and makes

even ephemeral embarrassments feel

chiseled in stone. Faced with increasing

pressure from their elders and dimin-

ished social resources in their neighbor-

hoods, children who feel isolated by the

modern world often find valuable re-

sources in online games.

If you’re a parent inclined to limit

screen time, it’s worth taking a deep

breath. Rather than treating games such

as Fortnite as the enemy, make time to

ask your kid to show you what they’re

building there. Ask about the friends

they’ve made and the skills they’ve

learned. The problem isn’t Fortnite, and

it never has been. Rather, if you want to

get your kids offline, the best way to do it

isn’t to ban a video game but to supply

alternative “third places” for youngsters

desperate, as many of us once were, to

safely spread their wings.

Anthony R. Palumbi is an author and game

writer based in Sacramento.

Hey, parents, stop worrying

and learn to love ‘Fortnite’