The Washington Post - 06.08.2019

(Dana P.) #1

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.
Free download pdf