Las Vegas Review-Journal (Sunday)
Editorial Roundup
Recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:
The New York Times on the responsibility of Republican voters (Jan. 15):
Iowa Republicans who will gather on Monday to cast the first votes of the 2024 presidential campaign season, and voters in New Hampshire and the states that will follow, have one essential responsibility: to nominate a candidate who is fit to serve as president, one who will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Donald Trump, who has proved himself unwilling to do so, is manifestly unworthy. He is facing criminal trials for his conduct as a candidate in 2016, as president and as a former president. In this, his third presidential bid, he has intensified his multiyear campaign to undermine the rule of law and the democratic process. He has said that if elected, he will behave like a dictator on “Day 1” and that he will direct the Justice Department to investigate his political rivals and his critics in the media, declaring that the greatest dangers to the nation come “not from abroad, but from within.”
Mr. Trump has a clear path to the nomination; no polling to date suggests he is anything but the front-runner. Yet Republicans in these states still have their ballots to cast. At this critical moment, it is imperative to remind voters that they still have the opportunity to nominate a different standard-bearer for the Republican Party, and all Americans should hope that they do so. This is not a partisan concern. It is good for the country when both major parties have qualified presidential candidates to put forward their competing views on the role of government in American society. Voters deserve such a choice in 2024.
Mr. Trump’s construction of a cult of personality in which loyalty is the only real requirement has badly damaged the Republican Party and the health of American democracy. During the fight over the leadership of the House of Representatives in the fall, for example, Mr. Trump torpedoed the candidacy of Tom Emmer, a lawmaker who voted to certify the 2020 election results, to ensure the ascendancy of Mike Johnson, a loyalist who was an architect of the attempt to overturn that election. (Mr. Emmer has since endorsed Mr. Trump.) But some Republicans have set an example of integrity, demonstrating the courage to put their convictions and conservative principles above loyalty to Mr. Trump. Examples include people whom he once counted as allies, like former Attorney General Bill Barr, former Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats.
Voters may agree with the former president’s plans for further tax cuts, restrictions on abortions or strict limits on immigration. That’s politics, and the divisions among Americans over these issues will persist regardless of the outcome of this election. But electing Mr. Trump to four more years in the White House is a unique danger. Because what remains, what still binds Americans together as a nation, is the commitment to a process, a constitutional system for making decisions and moving forward even when Americans do not agree about the destination. That system guarantees the freedoms Americans enjoy, the foundation of the nation’s prosperity and of its security.
Mr. Trump’s record of contempt for the Constitution — and his willingness to corrupt people, systems and processes to his advantage — puts all of it at risk.
Upholding the Constitution means accepting the results of elections. Unsuccessful presidential candidates have shouldered the burden of conceding because the integrity of the process is ultimately more important than the identity of the president. “The people have spoken, and we respect the majesty of the democratic system,” George H.W. Bush, the last president before Mr. Trump to lose a bid for reelection, said on the night of his defeat in 1992. When Mr. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, he sought to retain power by fomenting a violent insurrection against the government of the United States.
It also means accepting that the power of the victors is limited. When the Supreme Court delivered a sharp setback to President George W. Bush in 2008, ruling that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay had the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Bush administration accepted the ruling. Sen. John Mccain, then the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, said that he disagreed with the court, “but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made, and now we need to move forward.”
By contrast, as president, Mr. Trump repeatedly attacked the integrity of other government officials, including members of Congress, Federal Reserve governors, public health authorities and federal judges, and disregarded their authority. When the court ruled that the Trump administration could not add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, for example, Mr. Trump announced that he intended to ignore the court’s ruling. After leaving the White House, Mr. Trump refused repeated demands, including a grand jury subpoena, to return classified materials to the government. As the government investigated, Mr. Trump called on Congress to defund the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice “until they come to their senses.”
Voters inclined to support Mr. Trump as an instrument of certain policy goals might learn from his presidency that changes achieved by lawless machinations can prove ephemeral. Federal courts overturned Mr. Trump’s effort to deny federal funding to “sanctuary cities.” Campaign promises to roll back environmental regulations also came to naught: Courts repeatedly chastised the Trump administration for failing to follow regulatory procedures or to provide adequate justifications for its decisions. Mr. Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, announced on Twitter in 2017, was challenged in court and reversed on the sixth day of the Biden administration.
In 2016, Mr. Trump appealed to many caucus and primary voters as an alternative to the Republican establishment. He campaigned on a platform that challenged the party’s orthodoxies, including promises to provide support for domestic manufacturing and pursue a foreign policy much more narrowly defined by self-interest.
Voters who favor Mr. Trump’s prescriptions now have other options. The Republican Party of 2024 has been reshaped by the former president’s populism. While there are some meaningful differences among the other Republican candidates — on foreign policy, in particular — for the most part, Mr. Trump’s “America First” agenda has become the new orthodoxy.
Mr. Trump is now distinguished from the rest of the Republican candidates primarily by his contempt for the rule of law. The sooner he is rejected, the sooner the Republican Party can return to the difficult but necessary task of working within the system to achieve its goals.
The Dominion Post of Morgantown, W.VA., on civility in political discourse (Jan. 13):
We have officially entered 2024 election season (even though it feels like the 2022 election season never ended)— and the rhetoric from politicians and pundits is already heated. Unfortunately, it will only get worse.
Mudslinging has long been a feature of politics, with verbal and written attacks on everything from an opponent’s policies to their appearance. Sadly, research has shown that potential voters are more engaged by “dirty” fights, such as negative advertising and personal attacks during debates, than by positive promotions.
However, anyone would be hard pressed to deny that politics has gotten a lot nastier in the last decade. It’s not just saying mean things about opponents or people they don’t like; it has evolved to subtle (and not-so-subtle) threats and violent imagery. Take, for example, the Missouri Republican Senate candidate who ran a campaign ad last election of himself toting a shotgun and saying, “We’re going RINO hunting ... Get a RINO hunting permit” — encouraging violence against those he deemed “Republicans in Name Only.”
Or, more locally, consider the photo shared by Derrick Evans, the former West Virginia delegate and convicted Jan. 6 rioter, of figurines of top national Democrats — including President Joe Biden and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi — hanging from a Christmas tree’s branches by nooses around their necks.
We understand that politics rarely bring out the best in any of us. And it’s fine to be frustrated or straight-up infuriated by what a politician says or does. But threats of or calls for violence — even ones as subtly implied as figurines hanging from nooses — is not acceptable. We cannot normalize such messaging, whether it comes from campaigns, politicians or even everyday people. Politics has rarely been a picture of decorum, but some political rhetoric has gone too far.
We can all help return civility to political discourse by criticizing ideas or actions, not people. This applies to politicians, elected or appointed officials, candidates for office and their supporters. Keep criticisms directed at actions, words or policies instead of saying something negative about the person or calling them names. Criticisms of public figures get a little more leeway, but attacks on private individuals should not be tolerated.
The Free Press of Mankato, Minn., on the Supreme Court rejecting Big Oil (Jan. 17):
While progress on climate change legislation has come relatively slowly over the last decade, in a hopeful sign, state courts may be able to make it happen quicker.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected a petition by oil companies to move a high profile Minnesota case on the damage of climate change to federal courts. The Minnesota case alleges oil companies and others defrauded consumers by not warning them of the well-known hazards to human health that burning fossil fuels causes.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and at least seven other states have filed suits that allege oil companies knew long ago of the damage to human health cause by the burning of fossil fuels and did nothing about it.
It’s a case similar to the one brought by 46 states against the tobacco companies in the 1990s that resulted in a settlement of $206 billion in 1998 that helped fund state government and tobacco cessation programs for decades. So current courts have a blue print by which to judge the climate case.
We suspect oil companies want the cases in federal court to apparently get a more favorable ruling from lower courts and the Supreme Court that has been decidedly moving toward rejecting such lawsuits to move forward if they don’t have an “originalist” connection, meaning some kind of law dating back to the 1890s.
Minnesota’s case filed in June 2020 alleges Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and the American Petroleum Institute engaged in false advertising, consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices.
It relies on internal documents showing the companies knew back in the 1970s how fossils fuels increased greenhouse gases and led to climate change. The companies made efforts to publicize information and buy advertising that attempted to discredit the emerging evidence on fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect, according to a report by Minnesota Reformer.
Dozens of other suits have been filed now and in the past, some even from former shareholders of Exxon alleging that it hid the risks of its businesses’ damage to the environment, deceived them and ultimately devalued their shares.
Ellison’s suit alleges the oil companies had “superior” knowledge of climate change but choose to deceive consumers.
“Despite their superior understanding of climate change science ... Defendants did not disseminate this information to the public or consumers. Instead, they engaged in a conspiracy to misrepresent the scientific understanding of climate change, the role of Defendants’ products in causing climate change, the potential harmful consequences of climate change, and the urgency of action required to mitigate climate change,” the suit says.
It is some consolation that at least some courts are seeing the consequences of climate change not only as a scourge on the earth, but a liability for those who would bring it about.
The Guardian on the Houthi strikes (Jan. 12):
The reality is that the war in Gaza has already spread through the region. The question is how far it extends and how intense it grows. Those involved are calculating and calibrating; they have in mind small blazes, rather than a regional conflagration. But their confidence that they can take containable risks may prove misplaced. Crises are feeding into each other, and the likelihood of missteps is rising.
Thursday night’s U.S. and U.K. strikes on Houthi positions in Yemen were taken after diplomacy and threats failed to halt sustained attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea and the naval taskforce protecting them. They were not token measures — the US says it launched 60 strikes at 16 locations, the U.K. that it hit two — but were intended to reestablish deterrence and degrade military capability rather than destroy the Houthi threat. The U.S. blames Iran – which supplies and enables but does not control the Houthis — for assisting the Red Sea attacks. But neither Washington nor Tehran wants direct conflict. For Iran, it’s better to allow the rest of the “axis of resistance” to advance its position at minimal cost.
Both Washington and London presented the military action solely in terms of protecting international shipping, with Rishi Sunak’s visit to Ukraine framing a broader narrative of moral strength in upholding security. But the Red Sea crisis cannot be separated from the war in Gaza. The Houthis claim — others disagree – that they are only attacking ships with links to Israel. They are positioning themselves as the foremost champions of Palestinians. There are plenty in Yemen and the region who detest their ruthless and authoritarian record, but will still view the U.S. and U.K. as fighting for Israel — or at least as prepared to ignore (and even provide arms for) Israeli strikes killing thousands of children in Gaza, but quick to defend their own economic interests.
Direct confrontation with the U.S. consolidates the Houthis’ power domestically and boosts recruitment, while raising their status regionally. No surprise that they have already vowed retaliation, perhaps targeting US military assets. The U.S. and U.K., in turn, will surely feel required to hit back. When parliament debates this action, critical questions include how far the UK is prepared to go, and what alternative means it can pursue.
The Houthis appear only strengthened by the long years of war which saw Saudi Arabia drop billions of pounds worth of bombs on Yemen. They have been accused of being at best indifferent to civilian costs. It is hard to believe that these much more limited strikes will have significantly reduced their capacity or will to fight. On the verge of legitimizing their de facto political authority they will not want to risk the gains they have made at home. But their success against Riyadh may well have bred hubris.
Meanwhile, there is a growing danger that pro-iranian militias in Iraq and Syria may step up attacks on U.S. forces. Hezbollah in Lebanon is deeply angered by Israel’s assassination of a Hamas leader in Beirut. Others are capitalizing on the crisis: Islamic State has claimed responsibility for last week’s bombing in Iran. So far, the rising tensions on each front have been contained. But they will not calm while bombs are still falling on Gaza. A ceasefire and release of all hostages is needed for the whole region..