The New York Times - 06.08.2019

A18 TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2019

N

TO THE EDITOR:

Regarding “Trump Condemns

White Supremacy but Doesn’t

Propose Gun Laws After Shoot-

ings” (nytimes.com, Aug. 5):

While President Trump was

correct to condemn white suprema-

cy and racist hate, his failure to call

for significant new gun control

measures is distressing. It took just

minutes for the gunman in El Paso

to kill 22 people and as little as 30

seconds for the Dayton gunman to

kill nine. Both gunmen used assault

or semiautomatic weapons that are

designed for use on battlefields, not

hunting or recreation.

Sadly, Mr. Trump, like so many

other Republicans in Washington, is

apparently more beholden to the

gun lobby than humanity itself.

CODY LYON, BROOKLYN

TO THE EDITOR:

While our country has grown tired

of hearing “thoughts and prayers”

every time a mass shooting occurs,

we must also reject the too simple

explanation of the shooter’s mental

illness. President Trump offered

that very excuse with respect to the

shooters in El Paso and Dayton.

We are facing an epidemic of hate

and racism fueled by Mr. Trump

and others high in his administra-

tion. His rantings of hate and dis-

paragement offer fringe groups and

their followers the license to engage

in these terrible acts. Leadership is

required, not demagogy.

Mr. Trump should insist that

Mitch McConnell immediately

recall the Senate for a special ses-

sion to pass common-sense back-

ground checks, close gun show

loopholes and ban all assault weap-

ons. Our leaders must also face

down the N.R.A. and its bought

stooges and at a minimum elimi-

nate its tax-exempt status.

To keep our children safe and

protected, our schools must be

secure, but, most important, our

teachers must convey our everlast-

ing belief in equality for all and

respect for each person’s race,

religion, gender and nationality.

That is the only way to protect our

democracy.

PHILIP COLTOFF, NEW YORK

The writer is a senior fellow at New

York University’s Silver School of

Social Work and former chief executive

of the Children’s Aid Society of New

York.

TO THE EDITOR:

“In one voice our nation must con-

demn racism, bigotry and white

supremacy.” This seems an odd

sentiment, coming as it does from a

president who is the exemplar of all

of those things.

Actually, President Trump draws

a very fine line here: For him it is

quite all right to appeal to racism,

bigotry and white supremacy to get

out the vote, but it goes too far

when it gets out the gunmen to take

action in line with what the presi-

dent espouses every day.

DON DOERNBERG

PENN VALLEY, CALIF.

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Mass Shootings Are Terrorism”

(editorial, Aug. 5):

You’re right. If the perpetrators

of this weekend’s mass shootings

had been Islamist and/or foreign

terrorists, the United States gov-

ernment’s full resources would

have been instantly, vigorously

mobilized to counter them. No

wasting time on “thoughts and

prayers.”

So yet again this nation endures

carnage, and yet again key political

“leaders” will do essentially noth-

ing. Can our increasingly dysfunc-

tional democracy no longer protect

us from within (never mind from

without)?

Lunatics and socially deranged

people exist in every country in the

world. What makes America differ-

ent from every other advanced

country is that we allow easy ac-

cess to guns. Let’s stop wasting

time analyzing their motives, be-

liefs, warped childhoods, etc. It’s all

irrelevant! We just need to stop

them from getting their hands on

mass-murder weapons. And most

N.R.A. members support this, even

if its leadership cannot.

MICHAEL NORTHMORE

STATEN ISLAND

TO THE EDITOR:

While some are trying to make a

causal link between mass shootings

and President Trump and his rheto-

ric, it’s too simplistic. Some cases

are driven politically, but both sides

are guilty of vitriolic speech. My

political feelings are strong, but I’m

not about to pick up a gun to kill

anyone.

At the heart of these events are

disturbed people who are easily

provoked by their own demons and

by what they hear. We need to

lower the temperature of our politi-

cal rhetoric and pursue all ways to

keep guns out of the hands of the

unstable.

PHIL SERPICO

KEW GARDENS, QUEENS

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “One Shooting Massacre Fol-

lows Another, Shaking a Bewildered

Nation to Its Core” (front page,

Aug. 5):

Bewildered? I don’t think so.

That word implies that the nation

doesn’t understand why these

chilling, spirit-killing events are

occurring. Had I been the headline

writer, I would have chosen “horri-

fied,” “outraged” or “furious” as

more appropriate adjectives.

It’s not confusing or bewildering

at all. This country has an obses-

sion with guns, permits stunningly

easy access to them, has a leader

who spews hate and division all day

long, and has a Congress that lacks

the courage to do anything about

any of these facts. These simple

realities are obvious to anyone who

cares to actually pay attention.

No, I’m not bewildered at all. But

I am one extremely angry citizen.

CAROL NADELL, NEW YORK

TO THE EDITOR:

Today I woke up with an aching

heart. Thirty-one people were mur-

dered. One of the massacres was

committed by a white supremacist.

He had targeted El Paso since

many of its inhabitants are Latinx.

As a teacher in a school in North

Carolina with several Hispanic

children, I find this terrifying. I fear

for my students’ safety and their

families’ safety. I have seen some of

these loving children crying be-

cause they fear that their parents

or even they themselves can be

detained and sent to a country they

have never known. And now, they

are afraid that a white supremacist

may kill them.

As Latinx, we feel that President

Trump has placed a target on our

backs based on his inflammatory

and racist remarks. We feel our

North Carolina senators are more

concerned about hurting the presi-

dent’s ego than protecting us.

We Latinx deserve better.

ALIRIO ESTEVEZ, CHAPEL HILL, N.C.

LETTERS

America’s Response to the Latest Carnage

WHY HAS THERepublican Party become a
systematic enabler of terrorism?
Don’t pretend to be shocked. Just look
at G.O.P. responses to the massacre in El
Paso. They have ranged from the ludi-
crous (blame video games!) to the almost
honest (who would have expected Ted
Cruz, of all people, to speak out against
white supremacy?). But as far as I can
tell, not one prominent Republican has
even hinted at the obvious link between
Donald Trump’s repeated incitements to
violence and the upsurge in hate crimes.
So the party remains in lock step be-
hind a man who has arguably done more
to promote racial violence than any
American since Nathan Bedford Forrest,
who helped found the Ku Klux Klan, a ter-
rorist organization if there ever was one
— and who was recently honored by the
Republican governor of Tennessee.
Anyway, the party’s complicity started
long before Trump came on the scene.
More than a decade ago, the Department
of Homeland Security issued a report
warning about a surge of right-wing ex-
tremism. The report was prescient, to say
the least. But when congressional Repub-
licans learned about it, they went on a

rampage, demanding the resignation of

Janet Napolitano, who headed the agency,

and insisted that even using the term

“right-wing extremism” was unaccept-

able.

This backlash was effective: Home-

land Security drastically scaled back its

efforts to monitor and head off what was

already becoming a major threat. In ef-

fect, Republicans bullied law enforce-

ment into creating a safe space for poten-

tial terrorists, as long as their violent im-

pulses were motivated by the right kind

of hatred.

But why did they do that? Is the G.O.P.

now a party of white nationalists?

No, not exactly. No doubt some mem-

bers of Congress, and a significant num-

ber of Trump administration officials,

very much including the tweeter in chief,

really are white supremacists. And a

much larger fraction — almost surely

bigger than anyone wants to admit — are

racists. (Recently released tapes of con-

versations between Ronald Reagan and

Richard Nixon reveal that the modern

G.O.P.’s patron saint was, in fact, a crude

racist who called Africans “monkeys.”)

But racism isn’t what drives the Re-

publican establishment, and my guess is

that a majority of the party’s elected offi-

cials find it a little bit repugnant — just

not repugnant enough to induce them to

repudiate its political exploitation. And

their exploitation of racism has led them

inexorably to where they are today: de

facto enablers of a wave of white suprem-

acist terrorism.

The central story of U.S. politics since

the 1970s is the takeover of the Republi-

can Party by economic radicals, deter-

mined to slash taxes for the wealthy

while undermining the social safety net.

With the arguable exception of George

H.W. Bush, every Republican president

since 1980 has pushed through tax cuts

that disproportionately benefited the 1

percent while trying to defund and/or

privatize key social programs like Social

Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Af-

fordable Care Act.

This agenda is, however, unpopular.

Most voters believe that the rich should

pay more, not less, in taxes, and want

spending on social programs to rise, not

fall.

So how do Republicans win elections?

By appealing to racial animus. This is

such an obvious fact of American politi-

cal life that you have to be willfully blind

not to see it.

For a long time, the G.O.P. establish-

ment was able to keep this game under

control. It would campaign using implicit

appeals to racial hostility (welfare

queens! Willie Horton!) but turn post-

election to privatization and tax cuts.

But for some reason this bait-and-

switch started getting less effective in

the 2000s. Maybe it was the reality of

America’s growing racial diversity; may-

be it was the fact that American society

as a whole was becoming less racist,

leaving the hard-core racists feeling iso-

lated and frustrated. And the election of

our first black president really kicked ha-

tred into overdrive.

The result is that there are more and

more angry white people out there will-

ing to commit mayhem — and able to do

so because those same Republicans have

blocked any effective control over sales

of assault weapons.

A different, better G.O.P. might have

been willing to acknowledge the growing

threat and supported a crackdown on vi-

olent right-wing extremism, comparable

to the F.B.I.’s successful campaign

against the modern K.K.K. in the 1960s.

A lot of innocent victims would be alive

today if Republicans had done so.

But they didn’t, because admitting

that right-wing extremism was a threat,

or even a phrase law enforcement should

be allowed to use, might have threatened

the party’s exploitation of racial hostility

to achieve its economic goals.

In effect, then, the Republican Party

decided that a few massacres were an ac-

ceptable price to pay in return for tax

cuts. I wish that were hyperbole, but the

continuing refusal of G.O.P. figures to

criticize Trump even after El Paso shows

that it’s the literal truth.

So as I said at the beginning, the G.O.P.

has become a systematic enabler of ter-

rorism. Why? Follow the money. 0

PAUL KRUGMAN

Trump, Tax Cuts and Terrorism

Why do Republicans

enable right-wing

extremism?

Over the two years and three meetings that President

Trump has engaged with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean
leader may have produced fissile material for as many as a

dozen more nuclear weapons, according to expert esti-
mates.

That’s hardly the total denuclearization of North Korea
that Mr. Trump promised.

Would his Democratic challengers do a better job?

Despite former President Barack Obama’s warning upon

leaving office that North Korea presented the most urgent
national security threat to the United States, the Democrats
competing for the 2020 presidential nomination rarely

mention North Korea, and the debates so far have given all
foreign policy matters short shrift.

When the Democrats do talk about North Korea, they are
more apt to pillory Mr. Trump for currying favor with Mr.

Kim than to present alternative policies.
So we asked the seven candidates who scored two per-

cent or more in the RealClearPolitics public opinion poll
index to answer questions about how to handle North Ko-
rea.

All stressed diplomatic solutions and working closely

with allies.
Senator Bernie Sanders said that while it was unlikely

North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons in the short
term, it could be persuaded to do so in the future, and “we
need to test the proposition” with a step-by-step process,

which would “take some time.”
He doesn’t rule out the possibility that the world may

eventually have to accept and manage North Korea as a
nuclear weapons state. But he warned that accepting that

reality could prompt other countries to develop nuclear
arms and lead to a breakdown in international efforts to
restrain such weapons.

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., said he
rejected the idea of a “zero-sum insistence on full and com-

plete denuclearization before any peace is possible,” as Mr.
Trump has demanded. He instead favored a process of

“small steps leading to bigger ones.”
He said it’s unrealistic to think North Korea would imme-

diately give up the nuclear weapons it sees as the key to its
survival.

Mr. Buttigieg outlined a process by which the North
would take concrete and verifiable steps toward denuclear-
ization by ceasing production of nuclear weapons materials

and forgoing nuclear and missile tests, then dismantling
production facilities and test sites, and finally destroying

the weapons themselves.
In return, the United States would grant incremental

relief from sanctions, encourage peace between North
Korea and South Korea and normalize relations with North
Korea, he said.

Making a case for engaging adversaries, Mr. Buttigieg
said he would meet Mr. Kim to close a possible framework

agreement setting the terms for negotiations but would not

“bathe him in unwarranted compliments,” as Mr. Trump

has done.

Senator Elizabeth Warren said she would put her imme-

diate focus on an initial, verifiable agreement to prevent the

expansion of North Korea’s arsenal and the transfer of its

weapons to other countries. Real reductions in nuclear

weapons and missiles and addressing human rights abuses

would come later. She said she would meet Mr. Kim “if it is

important to advance a substantive negotiation.”

Senator Cory Booker said that while he would empower

American diplomats to negotiate with North Korea, “there

is no indication that the current relationship between the

U.S. and North Korea merits a meeting of the heads of

state.”

And if such a summit were contemplated, North Korea

would first have to meet conditions, such as dismantling

the nuclear complex at Yongbyon, agreeing to formally end

the Korean War and returning military remains, he said.

The responses from Joe Biden, Senator Kamala Harris

and Beto O’Rourke added little new to the debate.

In one sense, that is predictable. It’s still early in the

campaign and candidates often don’t do the heavy thinking

about policy positions until forced to debate them publicly.

For the moment, the North Korean threat seems to have

receded in the public consciousness. According to new data

from the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of Americans

saw North Korea as a major threat in 2017 when Mr. Trump

was threatening “fire and fury” against the country, but

today only 53 percent do.

Mr. Biden’s reluctance to address North Korea beyond a

perfunctory promise in his July foreign policy speech to

“empower our negotiators and jump-start a sustained,

coordinated campaign with our allies and others — includ-

ing China” toward a denuclearized North Korea is not en-

couraging given the fact that he has more experience than

the others. The Obama administration identified North

Korea’s nuclear weapons program as a major threat but

failed to find a solution. It tightened sanctions and, after a

disappointing diplomatic effort in the first term, effectively

gave up on negotiations in the second.

Despite Mr. Trump’s assertions to the contrary, the dan-

ger remains real, and many experts, and even some Trump

administration officials, worry that the window for progress

on a deal is fast closing.

While Mr. Trump continues to act as if his friendship with

Mr. Kim has moderated his behavior, two North Korean

missile tests in recent weeks suggest that Mr. Kim may be

running out of patience with diplomacy — or never in-

tended to curb his weapons programs at all.

Mr. Kim, whose intransigence is largely responsible for

the current stalemate, has said he will give Washington

until the end of the year to return to the negotiating table.

At that point, the American presidential campaign will be in

full swing, making serious deal-making even less likely

than it already is.

EDITORIAL OBSERVER CAROL GIACOMO

Can Democrats Do Better on N. Korea?

ILLUSTRATION BY NICHOLAS KONRAD; PHOTOGRAPHS BY THE NEW YORK TIMES