The Wall Street Journal - 09.03.2020

A16| Monday, March 9, 2020 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

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are subject to editing, and unpublished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.

“Between being totally aloof or

obsessively curious, it’s a full day.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Back to the Future 10 Years After Deepwater?

April marks the 10-year anniversary

of the Deepwater Horizon oil-spill di-

saster off the Gulf Coast. The environ-

mental catastrophe, which caused more

than $65 billion in damage and eco-

nomic losses for families and busi-

nesses from Florida to Texas, was the

result of poor adherence to existing

safety rules. In its wake, new standards

were implemented to improve the

safety of deep-water extraction. Now

the Trump administration is literally

allowing the industry to rewrite those

rules and deleting evidence that federal

engineers opposed the industry’s roll-

back wish list (“Warnings on Oil-Drill-

ing Rule Deleted,” U.S. News, Feb. 27).

This comes as no surprise. Key

agencies such as the Environmental

Protection Agency and the Depart-

ment of Interior are run by former en-

ergy-industry insiders. The Trump ad-

ministration has rolled back more

than 100 public-health and environ-

mental protections on the books. This

rollback of offshore-drilling standards

is cruelly timed to coincide with the

10th anniversary of the worst indus-

trial disaster we’ve seen. Millions of

Americans living along the Gulf Coast

still recovering from the Deepwater

Horizon disaster will now again be ex-

posed to the risk of another disaster

that could destroy their income, their

jobs and the environment.

CAROLM.BROWNER

East Wallingford, Vt.

Ms. Browner is former administra-

tor of the Environmental Protection

Agency and former director of the

White House Office of Energy and Cli-

mate Change Policy.

Real Diversity: More Than One Dimensional

Regarding Barton Swaim’s review

of Russell Jacoby’s “On Diversity”

(Bookshelf, March 3): Diversity today

usually means little more than skin

color. Such emphasis ignores true va-

riety within and between human

communities. Recently my brother

commented to me that our high

school had not been at all heteroge-

neous. Well, in skin pigmentation, no.

In terms of class, absolutely. Our edu-

cational milieu ran the socio-eco-

nomic gamut from old Yankee money

and Ivy League-bound progeny to

those pupils whose parents had eked

out a living at the paper mill or the

fish factory—as they themselves were

destined to do.

Similarly, the chattering class be-

stows my adopted New Hampshire a

quadrennial first-in-the-nation pri-

mary, ignoring its alleged lack of di-

versity, meaning melanin deposits

only. Yet this state owns the highest

per capita percentage of college stu-

dents and, not surprisingly, the asso-

ciated ratio of student debt. The pro-

portion of military veterans is much

higher than in New York or Califor-

nia. New Hampshire is one of the

states with the highest proportion of

elderly residents, one of the least

churchgoing and most heavily for-

ested. There are many ways of mea-

suring diversity.

RAYMONDJ.BROWN

Londonderry, N.H.

There’s a time for diversity and a

time for uniformity—except in pro-

gressive thought. It is antithetical to

have diversity in perfection.

STEPHENBORKOWSKI

Pittsburg, Texas

Pepper ...

And Salt

Modi Is Transforming India’s Foreign Affairs

Jairaj Devadiga overlooks foreign

policy as a watershed of rupture be-

tween the worldview of India’s first

prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru,

and of its current prime minister, Na-

rendra Modi (“Modi Bashes Nehru,

but Rejects Only His Good Ideas,” op-

ed, Feb. 24). Nehru’s India historically

prided itself as a quixotic vanguard of

the Nonaligned Movement, frequently

subordinating its own geopolitical in-

terests to ethereal notions of antico-

lonial, Third World brotherhood.

Nehru gave a swift diplomatic recog-

nition to Mao’s China in 1950 only to

witness the Chinese annexation of Ti-

bet and, later, part of Kashmir.

Under Mr. Modi, India is increas-

ingly comfortable with great-power

competition, subscribing to hard-

nosed realpolitik. Mr. Modi has en-

sconced the primacy of an open and

free Indo-Pacific maritime area by

joining the Quadrilateral Security Di-

alogue, an informal defense arrange-

ment consisting of the U.S., Australia

and Japan. As a growing sign of In-

dia’s commitment to preserving the

regional balance of power, the Indian

military thwarted Chinese encroach-

ments into Bhutan in 2017.

Additionally, despite decades of re-

flexive acrimony between Israel and

the Palestinians, India is now Israel’s

largest arms importer. The South

Asian nation has even voted at the

United Nations to isolate Palestinian

groups with ties to the terror organi-

zation Hamas.

For these reasons, Narendra Modi

should be deemed a deeply transfor-

mative figure in foreign affairs.

NATHANPUNWANI

Los Angeles

The Senate and the Judiciary

C

huck Schumer says he regrets the words
he used to threaten Supreme Court Jus-
tices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh
last week, but perhaps we
should thank him for the mo-
ment of candor. The Senate
Minority Leader has reminded
the country of the threat that
a Democratic Senate poses to
judicial independence.
Mr. Schumer’s threats were cruder than
most, but they are part of a larger Democratic-
progressive project to politicize the judiciary
and delegitimize the current Supreme Court.
The effort has included opposing nearly all of
Donald Trump’s judicial nominees, threatening
Justices with punishment if they issue certain
rulings, stigmatizing judges who belong to the
Federalist Society, and even threatening to
change the structure of the High Court.
iii
This goes well beyond the familiar criticism
of Supreme Court rulings they don’t like. And
well beyond the popping off that President
Trump has done about specific judges in spe-
cific cases. Mr. Trump is wrong to do so, but like
so much of what he says it has had no legal ef-
fect. The judges ignore him, as they should, and
so do Senate Republicans.
The GOP has reshaped the federal judiciary
in the last three years the constitutional way.
Mr. Trump has nominated competent judges,
and the Senate has confirmed most of his
choices. No one should be surprised since Mr.
Trump promised to do this during the 2016
campaign, relying on the advice of conservative
legal advisers.
Democrats are still angry that Mitch McCon-
nell denied a Senate hearing to Merrick Gar-
land, President Obama’s nominee to replace An-
tonin Scalia, in 2016. That was political
hardball. But no less than Mr. Schumer tipped
in 2007 that he would have done the same had
George W. Bush had a Supreme Court opening
to fill in his final year as President.
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee
to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary
circumstances,” Mr. Schumer declared in a July
2007 speech to the American Constitution Soci-
ety. Mr. McConnell followed that Schumer prec-
edent. He gambled the seat on the results of the
2016 election, when voters knew the future of
the courts was on the ballot.
That future is again at stake, and Senate con-
trol arguably matters more to the judiciary than
does the presidential race. Even if Mr. Trump
is re-elected, a Senate Democratic majority
would end the confirmation of judges who be-
lieve in constitutional originalism. Senate Dem-
ocrats would refuse to confirm anyone associ-
ated with the Federalist Society or other
conservative groups. And a Democratic Presi-
dent and Senate might not settle merely for
nominating and confirming liberal judges.

The best indicator of Democratic intent is

Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island Senator

famous for excavating Brett Kavanaugh’s high-

school yearbook. In January

2019, Mr. Whitehouse wrote to

Chief Justice John Roberts to

protest that the Court ac-

cepted friend-of-the-court

briefs from “special interest

groups that fail to disclose

their donors.” He said if the Court didn’t cease

and desist, “a legislative solution may be in or-

der.” That’s a political threat.

Mr. Whitehouse repeated the charge last

month in an amicus brief with three other Sena-

tors in a case challenging the structure of the

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The

brief includes an appendix list of “a small and

powerful cabal of self-interested entities” that

dare to file amicus briefs disagreeing with Mr.

Whitehouse on legal and policy issues.

Meanwhile, the Committee on Codes of Con-

duct of the U.S. Judicial Conference issued a

draft opinion in January that would bar judges

from belonging to the Federalist Society but not

to the American Bar Association. A member of

that committee is John McConnell, a federal

district judge in Rhode Island who was pro-

moted for the bench by none other than Shel-

don Whitehouse.

In August last year, Mr. Whitehouse and four

other Senators—three on the Judiciary Com-

mittee as he is—escalated the political intimi-

dation. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they

wrote in an amicus brief on a gun-regulation

case. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before

the public demands it be ‘restructured in order

to reduce the influence of politics.’”

iii

What does “restructured” mean? It could

mean packing the Court by creating seats for

more than nine Justices. Democrats would have

to kill the Senate’s legislative filibuster so they

could pass legislation without 60 votes. But that

is what Senate Democrats did in 2013 to the fili-

buster rule for judicial nominees. They did so

in order to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Ap-

peals with a liberal majority to protect Mr.

Obama’s aggressive use of regulation.

Why would anyone think Senate Democrats

wouldn’t do it again if they had the power? Eliz-

abeth Warren promised during her presidential

campaign to kill the legislative filibuster, and

the party’s left might insist on it. One reason

Mr. Schumer went off the deep end last week

is that he knows he may face a primary chal-

lenge in 2022 from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cor-

tez. Would he stand in the way of the Senate left

on a filibuster change?

The Democratic goal here isn’t merely to re-

balance the courts with more liberal nominees

the democratic way. The goal is to intimidate

the judiciary into ruling the way Democrats

want—or else.

A Democratic majority

threatens judicial

independence.

An Antitrust Attack on Coal

D

emocrats have declared in no uncertain
terms they want to kill the coal indus-
try. They are receiving help from the
Federal Trade Commission, which has blocked
a joint venture between Arch Coal and Peabody
Energy.
Arch and Peabody last summer announced
plans to combine assets in Wyoming’s South Pow-
der River Basin to improve efficiency. Coal’s share
of U.S. electric generation has plunged to 24%
from 48% in 2008. While more regulation is one
culprit, utilities have also been replacing coal
with cheap natural gas and renewables.
Powder River Basin surface mines are more
productive than those in Appalachia, and their
coal also burns more cleanly. But a cascade of
coal plant retirements has put financial pres-
sure on producers. Although both Peabody and
Arch restructured in Chapter 11 bankruptcy four
years ago, they have continued to struggle amid
declining demand.
Hence their plan last summer to share equip-
ment, warehousing, rail transportation and
profits, which they claimed would improve “the
competitiveness of coal against natural gas and
renewables, while creating substantial value for
customers and shareholders.” Don’t they know
coal isn’t supposed to exist?
That may happen sooner if the FTC has its
way. The commission in late February filed a
complaint to block the joint venture. A “single
producer,” the FTC says, would have “a greater

incentive and ability to reduce output or in-

crease prices.” If Arch and Peabody decide to

reduce production, the FTC says their smaller

competitors could not compensate and power

plants would be stranded.

The FTC as usual is defining the competitive

market narrowly, excluding natural gas and re-

newables, as well as coal produced outside of

the Powder River Basin. In any case, Arch and

Peabody benefit from selling more coal. Why

would they reduce production? They would

hurt themselves if they made their customers

less competitive by raising prices.

Perhaps the FTC is worried about smaller

competitors? No. The FTC frets companies

would be emboldened to raise prices because

Powder Riven Basin producers face a “relatively

inelastic demand.” Really? Output from the ba-

sin has fallen by a third since 2008, and mines

are running at two-thirds capacity. Two large

Powder River Basin producers filed for bank-

ruptcy last year.

After the FTC sued to block the Arch-Pea-

body joint venture, Moody’s warned that it ex-

pects business conditions for coal producers in

the basin to remain “extremely challenging” be-

cause of “ongoing secular decline in the demand

for thermal coal.” It’s hard not to surmise the

FTC’s bureaucrats are doing the bidding of the

anti-coal climate lobby. The FTC is an indepen-

dent agency, but didn’t Donald Trump promise

to revive the coal industry?

The World’s Hardest Job

P

resident Trump dumped acting chief of
staff Mick Mulvaney late Friday evening
in favor of North Carolina Rep. Mark
Meadows, who will be the fourth White House
chief of his Presidency. By now Mr. Trump’s han-
dling of his leading aides resembles the way
Henry VIII treated his wives. He’s enthusiastic at
first, then sours on them for reasons known only
to the President, and the next thing you know the
guy is banished to Northern Ireland.
That’s where Mr. Mulvaney is going as a spe-
cial envoy, a slot the White House was trying
to fill for some time. It’s doubtful Mr. Mulvaney
was yearning for this opportunity.
Tumult in this White House is no surprise,
and Presidents are entitled to the advisers they
want. Mr. Trump is effectively his own chief of
staff, he hates to be tied to a daily schedule, and
he likes to keep his advisers on edge about their
jobs. He never removed Mr. Mulvaney’s “acting”
title despite 80-hour workweeks serving a diffi-
cult client.

Cabinet members live in fear of appearing

to have a sliver of public difference with Mr.

Trump on any issue lest they become persona

non grata. Appearing to upstage the President,

however unintentionally, can be fatal. Mr.

Trump has also had four national security ad-

visers in three years because he thinks of him-

self as his own chief strategist.

Mr. Trump’s partisans are saying the staff

change is part of his preparation for the elec-

tion campaign. But it’s hardly reassuring to the

public to sack the chief White House aide in the

middle of the coronavirus epidemic. It plays

into Joe Biden’s campaign theme, which is es-

sentially to stop the turmoil emanating from

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. Meadows has been a dogged defender of

the President, which is no doubt part of his ap-

peal. We wish Mr. Meadows luck, though we

suggest he not bring anything to his White

House office that he can’t take with him at the

close of any business day.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OPINION

Welch Pumped Up GE but Left Mixed Legacy

Regarding your editorial “The

House That Jack Welch Rebuilt”

(March 3): Jack Welch was, at once,

a managerial genius and an SOB. He

gave direct answers to direct ques-

tions. He neither prevaricated nor

minced. I’m a long-retired newspa-

perman, and I loved him for that.

When he was named GE CEO in

1981, I requested an interview and

was granted 30 minutes. Deal.

My one-on-one

interview with Jack

lasted nearly three

hours, driving his

press aide nearly

nuts. Jack and I

talked about myriad

things (when I

asked about GE’s

Utah International

acquisition, he

laughed, gave a

thumbs-down, si-

multaneously spat-

ting raspberries.

Jack was nothing if

not direct.)

He then asked

me about my kids.

When I got to my son Drew, a con-

firmed stutterer, Jack stopped me.

“I’m a stutterer.” We then talked, at

length, solely as ordinary folks.

That’s the Jack Welch I remember.

MIKEKALLAY

Louisville, Ky.

You point out that Welch cut costs

by firing the lowest 10% in each cate-

gory every year. That’s doom in a

high-tech company. Designing the

next generation of jet engines or

power-generation equipment re-

quires a great deal of trust and coop-

eration between engineers. His 10%

cutoff for survival destroyed cooper-

ation—what if you helped someone

and his elevation pushed you below

the survival threshold? Mr. Welch cut

costs by cutting back on R&D, which

was doom in a business which

needed competitive advantage to

earn high margins to support its ex-

pensive stateside

workforce. He cut

costs by eating the

seed corn. Not

good.

BILLTAYLOR

New Hampton, N.H.

I was living in a

neighborhood of GE

managers while

growing up, and

when young, freshly

minted manager

Jack Welch moved

in across the street,

he asked me to

mow his lawn. He

asked me how much

the other guys were paying me and I

told him $3.25. He told me: “I’ll pay

you $4 but I want my lawn to look

better than theirs.”I took the job and

absorbed a simple and memorable

primer about leveraging assets to

push results, a valuable Business 101

lesson for a 14-year-old. Whether it

was business, golf or lawns, Jack was

always an enthusiastic and efficient

competitor.

TERRYHOLLAND

Pittsfield, Mass.

The late Jack Welch of GE.

MIKE COPPOLA/GETTY IMAGES