A24 eZ re THE WASHINGTON POST.THURSDAy, MARCH 5 , 2020
letters to tHe eDItor[email protected]loCAl oPInIonsresponsibility, whom could Montgomery County’s
citizens rely on for fixing what the county itself has
declared to be a public safety issue?
Kitty Hsu Dana , BethesdaI read with incredulity the March 1 Metro article
“Fallen glass in Bethesda hasn’t been investigated.”
Months after glass pellets fell from three buildings
just blocks apart in downtown Bethesda, Montgom-
ery County’s Department of Permitting Services
(DPS) denied responsibility for determining wheth-
er a broader problem exists.
DPS noted its responsibility goes only as far as
ensuring the buildings’ management fix the prob-
lem, and that “DPS doesn’t have the resources to do
an investigation and put the dots together.”
Isn’t that an essential role of government — to
connect the dots and implement solutions when
dangerous incidents happen multiple times across
multiple properties and businesses? Residents rely
on government to look out for the public good of
communities under its jurisdiction. If the county
department that enforces building codes deniesMontgomery County should take responsibility for falling glass
W
ITH A timely nudge from Gov. Ralph
Northam, Democratic state lawmakers in
Richmond seem poised to make good on
the promise they made last year: to re-
form Virginia’s b latantly p artisan redistricting p roce-
dure so it serves voters, n ot politicians. It’s a bout time.
For years, t he state’s Democrats groused, with good
reason, about the cartographical legerdemain em-
ployed by Republicans to game the electoral map a nd
retain what looked like an unpickable lock on both
chambers of the state legislature. They demanded
redistricting reform to level the political playing field
and e nd what amounted t o a job-protection racket f or
incumbents.
The solution they came up with, in concert with
Republicans in the statehouse, was literally a once-
i n-a-decade opportunity, enacted last year before
legislative elections that could have delivered c ontrol
of either or both houses of the General Assembly to
Democrats or Republicans. Fearing defeat and mi-
nority status, each party wanted protection against
gerrymandering by the other, and devised it in theform of an amendment to the state constitution.
The amendment would e stablish a bipartisan com-
mission of legislators and citizens charged with
drawing up electoral maps for both state legislative
and congressional seats. The ultimate arbiter, in the
event of deadlocks, would be Virginia’s Supreme
Court. The idea was to elevate the process above the
self-interested reach o f elected p oliticians. And while
the system would be imperfect, it marked a clear
improvement o n the s tatus quo.
Then Democrats swept last November’s legislative
elections, gaining majorities in both houses of the
General Assembly for the first time in a generation.
Whereupon some of them balked, including several
African American members of the House of Dele-
gates, who, d istrustful of t he conservative judges who
dominate the state’s high court, preferred that the
legislature, now u nder Democratic control, r etain the
last word o n a map devised b y the bipartisan commis-
sion.
The fact is, there are no redistricting procedures
that are flawlessly fair and free from political influ-ence. The plan laid out in the constitutional amend-
ment is as good or better than those of a dozen other
states that have reformed their map-drawing sys-
tems. For that constitutional amendment to move
fo rward, the legislature must enact it again this year
and p ut it before Virginia voters in a referendum this
fall.
Mr. Northam, a Democrat, hasn’t wavered in his
support for the measure, even as some lawmakers in
his party h ave. ( They i ncluded the n ew s peaker of t he
House of Delegates, Eileen Filler-Corn, who unhelp-
fully remained neutral.) After Mr. Northam threat-
ened to intercede last week, the amendment was
passed by a key legislative committee with bipartisan
support — albeit with eight of 13 Democrats on the
panel v oting against.
Redistricting reform is hard but not impossible.
Virginia Democrats, now in control, can show the
state they are prepared for r eal leadership — a nd that
their demands over the past decade for a bipartisan
approach to redistricting will not fall victim to politi-
cal o pportunism now t hat they are in the d river’s s eat.Time to end gerrymandering in Virginia
Democrats in Richmond, now in the driver’s seat, are on the cusp of real reform.
certain c riteria and after consultation w ith an adviso-
ry committee that includes majority and minority
leadership from the House and Senate. The decision
on whether to accept protection lies with the candi-
dates; by law, only sitting presidents and vice presi-
dents can’t d ecline protection.
The chairman of the House Committee on Home-
land Security on Wednesday called on the Trump
administration to immediately undertake the pro-
cess to determine whether any Democratic candi-dates should be afforded protection, noting that
Mr. Biden a nd Mr. Sanders appear to satisfy several of
the criteria. “Americans deserve to know that the
major candidates for President a re protected f rom all
threats to their safety,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-
Miss.) wrote to acting homeland security secretary
Chad Wolf. In light of Tuesday’s disturbing incident,
the Trump administration should heed Mr. Thomp-
son’s c all for p rompt action a nd take the s teps needed
to ensure t he safety o f the p residential c andidates.“N
OTHING SHORT of genuinely scary.”
I t’s hard t o disagree with that descrip-
tion by former White House press secre-
tary R obert Gibbs o f protesters storming
the s tage Tuesday night a t Joe Biden’s r ally in C alifor-
nia. While Mr. Biden did not appear to be in danger
from the anti-dairy activists, their ability to get so
close to him as he celebrated his wins in the Super
Tuesday Democratic primaries evoked terrible mem-
ories of t he night in 1968 when another candidate for
president, Robert F. Kennedy, was assassinated fol-
lowing his victory in the California primary. What
happened Tuesday underscores the need for the
Trump a dministration to authorize immediate Secret
Service p rotection f or the Democratic candidates.
Mr. Biden was just a few words into his victory
speech w hen a protester waving a placard rushed t he
stage. The intruder came within a few feet of the
former vice president before his wife, Jill Biden,
stepped in and blocked her. Seconds later, another
protester stormed the stage and was pushed back by
Ms. Biden a nd Biden senior adviser Symone D. S and-
ers. “We’re okay. We’re okay,” Ms. Biden said after the
protesters — from the same group that previously
interrupted events of Sens. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt.) a nd
Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass.) — w ere removed.
Who gets Secret Service protection has been a
re curring question in presidential campaigns. After
Kennedy’s assassination, the law was changed to
automatically authorize protection for major presi-
dential and vice-presidential candidates and their
spouses within 120 days of the general election. B ut in
practice, there have been instances of candidates
receiving protection much earlier in the campaign
cycle. Then-Sen. Barack Obama, for example, re-
ceived protection a year and a half prior to the
presidential election.
T he decision is made not by the Secret Service but
by the secretary of homeland security based onYour spouse isn’t
the Secret Service
Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders need
the immediate protection
of professionals to stay safe.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.........................................................................................................arc
KrIstIne CorattI KeLLY...................................................Communications & events
JoHn B. KenneDY.................................................................general Counsel & Labor
MIKI toLIVer KIng........................................................................................Marketing
Kat DoWns MULDer........................................................................Product & Design
sHaILesH PraKasH...............................Digital Product Development & engineering
JoY roBIns ........................................................................................... Client solutions
the Washington Post
1301 K st. nW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-6000Marc A. T hiessen, in his March 3 Tuesday Opinion
essay, “The surging Democratic candidate? ‘No
one.’, ” displayed his usual selective use of facts to
reach his intended conclusion. He contrasted the
systems used by the Democrats and the Republicans
to select convention delegates as “socialist” and
“capitalist,” respectively. The labels are inappropri-
ate, and the reasoning is specious. Winner-take-all is
not synonymous with capitalism, and proportional-
above-a-threshold is not socialism; both are means
of allocating votes and nothing more.
The wisdom of each method depends on the
circumstances. In 2016, a crowded field of contend-
ers vied for the Republican nomination. In that
situation, one candidate with extra name recogni-
tion could sweep the field when a marginal primary
or caucus victory awarded him all the delegates. We
are now living with the consequences of that
system. If this is capitalism, it is the kind that
brought us the 2008 financial collapse. Proportional
allocation might have saved the GOP — and the
country — a lot of grief if it had been used in every
state in 2016.
And, of course, Mr. Thiessen has ignored the third
option (which is currently being pursued by the
GOP): monarchy. T hat is, to hold no primary despite
the possibility of contenders so that the king does
not have to confront any challenge to his delegate
count.
Stephen M. Vajs , AlexandriaSo often I hear from Democrats that there is only
one issue in the coming election: Who can beat
President Trump? We cannot answer that.
Mr. Trump is erratic and unpredictable and will
most probably come up with some outrageous issues
at the last minute.
There is only one judgment we can make as
voters: Who would make the best president? We can
evaluate the candidates in debates and read about
their backgrounds as well as their experience in
politics and in life. We can ask who has the most
knowledge about our governing bodies and world
politics. Who has the best ability to make major
decisions about policy in the huge array of issues
confronting the president — health care, science,
global warming, technology, transportation, educa-
tion, foreign policy, taxes, etc.? Who can bring
disparate parties into successful negotiation toward
compromise? Who is levelheaded in pressure situa-
tions and can make informed decisions? Who can
lead our country, r emaining aware of and concerned
about our diverse populations?
These are the issues we can study to come to our
own conclusions and vote for who is best emotional-
ly and intellectually qualified to be our president.
This is what all our voters need to and can decide.
Vivian Brodsky , Washington2016 and 2020
Regarding the March 1 front-page article “Spread-
ing coronavirus kills first U.S. patient”:
On Sunday, H ealth and Human Services Secretary
Alex Azar was questioned on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
One thing is quite clear. We a re not in good hands.
Mr. Azar is not out in front of this, and it’s putting
Americans at risk. The secretary’s primary agenda
appears to be to defend the performance of his
agency and to tamp down public concern.
He was asked why the United States is not taking
more a ggressive actions as have been taken by other
countries — such as school closures and public-
gathering curtailments. Mr. Azar’s reaction was: “At
this point, we do not have sufficient spread in the
United States that would indicate those measures.”
When asked how many Americans may get sick
from the coronavirus, he refused to speculate,
saying, “The risk to average Americans remains low.”
Mr. Azar is not treating the outbreak proactively.
He i s waiting for thousands of Americans to get sick.
He may not have to wait long.
William Goldman , Palos Verdes Estates, Calif.I would like to know what the presidential
candidates are doing to protect themselves, their
staff, their respective constituents and reporters
from becoming infected by the coronavirus while on
the campaign trail. It seems to me that the candi-
dates could easily and inadvertently infect thou-
sands of people who gather at campaign sites. Are
the candidates making contingency plans in the
event that large gatherings are prohibited in the
future?
Ellen Ann Callahan , Swanton, Md.In his Feb. 28 Friday Opinion commentary ,
“China can fight against the virus or the truth — not
both,” Josh Rogin correctly pointed out that epidem-
ic prevention is a matter of life and death. No one
should tolerate Beijing’s political manipulation of
the World Health Organization (WHO) at the ex-
pense of the health of people around the world.
Excluding Ta iwan’s 23 million citizens is simply
immoral, unjust and dangerous.
Ta iwan’s adequate and timely access to the most
updated epidemic information from the WHO is
urgent and critical. The WHO, however, has obsti-
nately left Taiwan in the cold, resulting in a high rate
of rejection to Ta iwan’s applications to attend the
WHO’s professional and technical meetings. With its
leading health-care system, advanced medical skills
and strong will to help, Ta iwan was only parsimoni-
ously allowed to “participate online,” and only once,
at the WHO’s global research and innovation forum
in mid-February.
Ta iwan has been keeping a close relationship with
the United States via exchange at all levels. Ta iwan’s
admission to the WHO will benefit both the United
States and Ta iwan. In fact, countries around the
world should regard this subject seriously and
support Ta iwan in joining the WHO because it
directly impacts their own health matters.
Disease knows no borders, and the fight to
prevent the spread of coronavirus brooks no ab-
sence. The WHO should work genuinely with all
stakeholders, including Ta iwan, to combat this
global health crisis.
Kueiling Chen , Rockville
The writer is former president of the
T aiwanese Association of America
G reater Washington Chapter.Time to be proactive on covid-19
S
UPER TUESDAY clarified the Democratic
presidential race: The contest is now between
former vice president Joe Biden and Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I). Both candidates
insist that their overriding goal is to beat President
Trump. As the primary battle moves into a new
phase, this commitment will be tested. The candi-
dates should be judged on whether they avoid
scorched-earth tactics that poison the chances of a
Democratic victory in November.
There can — a nd should be — p rincipled disagree-
ment. In a Tuesday evening speech, Mr. Sanders
previewed his line of attack on Mr. Biden, noting the
former vice president’s vote for the Iraq War,
positions on entitlement programs and support for
past trade agreements. That’s fair: Mr. Biden should
have to defend his support for the Iraq War, and the
Democratic Party could use a vigorous debate on
trade, particularly now that Mr. Trump has shown
that the protectionist alternative is a dead end.
Democrats should tangle over how to make entitle-ments such as Social Security and Medicare finan-
cially stable for another generation.
But intimating that Mr. Biden wants to take away
Americans’ Social Security benefits would be a rank
distortion. Likewise, it would be fair for Mr. Biden to
challenge Mr. Sanders’s record on guns but not to
make it seem as though Mr. Sanders is personally
responsible for millions of gun deaths.
If the race were based only on policy, there would
be clear distinctions between Mr. Biden and
Mr. Sanders but also substantial agreement on
where the country should move — in a progressive
direction. But the competition could turn very ugly
if the candidates question each others’ motives and
intentions.
Mr. Sanders said Wednesday that he does not
want a “Trump-type” campaign, but one based on
“serious issues.” Yet in the same news conference, he
implied that Mr. Biden would be controlled by
corporate interests: “Does anyone seriously believe
that a president backed by the corporate world isgoing to bring about the changes in this country that
working families and the middle class and lower-
i ncome people desperately need?”
Earlier this week, Mr. Sanders declared that the
corporate and political “establishment” was uniting
to defeat him, because “they” are nervous that he
would fight for higher wages, battle climate change
and expand health-care coverage. That is a funny
way to describe fellow candidates, all of whom share
these goals, leaving the race and endorsing one of
his rivals. It a lso disregards the hundreds of millions
of rank-and-file voters, many of them African
American, who turned out Tuesday to vote for
Mr. Biden.
Mr. Sanders’s comments suggest he could stoke
his base to believe that Mr. Biden’s selection as
Democratic nominee would be illegitimate. They
dismiss any agenda short of his vision for radical
change as tantamount to favoring the status quo.
Such rhetoric, tellingly echoed by Mr. Trump,
plays right into the president’s hand.Be respectful — or help Mr. Trump
The Democrats’ two-man race should be issues-based, not a scorched-earth war.
ABCDE
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
eDItorIAlstom tolesKatHerIne sHaVer/tHe WasHIngton Post
Workers install scaffolding in August at an
apartment building in Bethesda where glass fell. Letters can be sent to [email protected].
submissions must be exclusive to the Post and should
include the writer’s address and telephone number.
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.