PAGE A4, KEIZERTIMES, APRI2 1, 2016
KeizerOpinion
KEIZERTIMES.COM
Anti-Muslim rhetoric profits the enemy
By MICHAEL GERSON
After the Brussels murders, and the
Paris murders, and the San Bernardino
murders and dozens of previous, tragic
iterations of innocent
blood on the sidewalk, the
two leading Republican
candidates for president
propose to finally get
tough on terrorism.
In Ted Cruz’s view,
America is “voluntarily
surrendering to the enemy to show
how progressive and enlightened we
are.” He would have us “carpet bomb”
the Islamic State and “patrol and secure
Muslim neighborhoods before they
become radicalized” here at home.
“Look,” says Donald Trump, “we’re
having problems with the Muslims.”
He would “knock the hell out of ISIS,”
close the border to Muslim immigrants
“until we figure out what’s going
on,” “do a lot more waterboarding,”
and purposely target the families of
terrorists (at least until he seemed to
backpedal).
The argument advanced by Cruz
and Trump is straightforward. Out
of an excess of political correctness,
America has not recognized and
confronted the Islamic nature and
motivation of terrorism.
This, according to the
candidates, has hamstrung
U.S. law enforcement,
counterterrorism
and
border-control
efforts,
which should include the
heightened scrutiny of
Muslims. The migration of Muslims
presents a particular, Trojan-horse
threat, illustrated by the European
experience of segregation and
radicalization. “This all happened,”
argues Trump, “because frankly there is
no assimilation.”
The emotional urgency of
the Republican front-runners is
understandable, particularly in light of
President Obama’s underreaction— a
statement about the Brussels attacks
of less than a minute, followed by
some Cuban baseball. The terrorists
-- who worship death, fashion bombs
out of young men and women and
guest
column
exploit Islam for totalitarian political
purposes— deserve our outrage.
But here is the problem. Rhetoric
that targets “the Muslims” and singles
out Americans for suspicion based on
nothing more than their faith seriously
complicates the war against terrorism,
for these reasons:
(1) Anti-Muslim rhetoric strains
relations with Sunni Muslim countries,
which we are trying to convince to do
more to combat the Islamic State. “The
leadership of these countries,” former
acting CIA director Mike Morell told
me, “understand American politics
enough to know that, for now, this is
just rhetoric. But their publics do not
get that. And it is the perception that
acts to limit what these nations can do
overtly to support the U.S.”
(2) It amplifies Islamic State
propaganda that the West is conducting
a religious war against the “caliphate,”
which is a source of terrorist morale. “It
certainly feeds extremist recruitment,”
says Morell, “but it also makes even
moderate Muslims wonder if the
extremists may be right.”
(3) Anti-Muslim rhetoric needlessly
disrupts relationships with American
Muslim communities that are often
the first to recognize and report
radicalization in their midst. “From
the perspective of American Muslims,”
according to former national security
adviser Stephen Hadley, “the rhetoric
creates a sense of alienation from
their fellow citizens and makes them
more susceptible to the [Islamic State]
argument that they have no real place
in American society -- and that their
true ‘home’ is in the caliphate.”
In a sense, Trump is right.
Assimilation is the key. But by what
possible theory of assimilation
should America declare Islam to be
inconsistent with its ideals?
If our objective were to replicate
Europe’s dangerous social segregation,
what would we do? Maybe conduct
the war against terrorism through
war crimes; screen for Muslims at the
airport (by some mechanism that still
escapes me); declare the Muslim faith a
target of heightened suspicion; occupy
Muslim neighborhoods with a heavy-
handed police presence; encourage
anti-Muslim attitudes that could easily
devolve into hate crimes and violence.
It is no mystery how resented
people become resentful. “This ugly
rhetoric risks stoking the kind of
alienation here that we have seen in
some European Muslim communities,”
former Secretary of Homeland
Security Michael Chertoff told me.
There is room to strengthen the
U.S. immigration system in light of
terrorist threats -- to tighten the visa
and passenger-list systems, and ensure
FBI access to information on the
smartphones of terrorists. “But let’s not
forget [that] what makes us vulnerable,”
says Peter Feaver, a former adviser at the
National Security Council, “is not the
presence of immigrants in our midst.
Rather what makes us vulnerable is
the degree of alienation within any
community, including immigrants.”
Alienating
Muslim
allies,
scapegoating Muslim citizens and
resigning ourselves to a global religious
conflict would grant the terrorists a
victory without a battle. Which makes
Trump and Cruz either quite cynical
or alarmingly oblivious.
(Washington Post Writers Group)
Would The Donald govern like Arnold?
By DEBRA J. SAUNDERS
They’re both iconic figures in
American culture who are known
by their first names. California’s
former governor is Arnold. The
GOP presidential front-runner is
The Donald. We Californians who
lived through Arnold’s two terms in
the governor’s office have watched
The Donald’s presidential campaign
unfold with a sense of deja vu.
Donald Trump starred in the
TV show “Celebrity Apprentice.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger will replace
him. Both men can boast supersize
personalities and bulging bank
accounts. Both bombasts ran for a top
office with no political experience
whatsoever -- which turned out to
be a plus, as they tapped into a tidal
wave of voter resentment. Both are
more pragmatic than ideological.
Schwarzenegger’s
supporters
thought he could not win a GOP
primary -- and he didn’t
have to, because he ran and
won in California’s free-
for-all recall election of
2003. Trump’s front-runner
status in the 2016 primary
-- also the beneficiary of a
crowded field -- likewise
has
confounded
the
professional political class.
Over the past week, I talked to
four former Schwarzenegger aides
(only two of whom would say
anything on the record) about what
Trump and Schwarzenegger have in
common, how they are different and
other
views
the years why they don’t
build in Keizer, and they
always tell me WinCo owns
property by Keizer Station,
but Keizer still won’t allow
us to build on it.
First we had kids, and
every dollar counted. Then there were
a few years when the prices weren’t so
important, but the people were nice
and we had built the habit. Now we
live on Social Security, food stamps and
food boxes from a local food pantry,
and every dollar -- indeed, every cent
-- counts. And by making a point of
traveling all the way to Winco only
once or twice a month, even with
the recent very high gas prices, we
have continued to spend less, overall,
when we shop at WinCo. If we have
to buy things in between, we usually
go to Fred Meyer, for the same reason-
it tends to be less expensive and has
quicker checkout service than Safeway.
We don’t use Facebook -- it is
a time-waster. And we have never
belonged to the board or agency or
commission that decided what stores
to include and what stores to exclude
from Keizer Station. But we have
always wanted a WinCo in Keizer,
and still do. I don’t care if it’s at Keizer
Station, or where Roth’s or Albertsons
were, or someplace else in the greater
Keizer area. If WinCo builds in (or
closer to) Keizer, that’s where we’ll
shop. That’s where most of us older,
money-strapped Keizer residents will
shop -- or the younger ones with kids
and tight budgets, for that matter.
You want to keep us shopping in
Keizer? Let WinCo open a store in
Keizer!
Bahbi Stanton
Keizer
Build a WinCo
letters
here and we
will come
To the Editor:
My husband and I just read the
“One Grocery Store” article in the
Keizertimes of March 18.
I am 70 years old and my husband
is 89 years old. I have lived in Keizer
since 1970. When we first moved to
Keizer, Orcutts was open, and we
shopped there without regard to prices,
because we liked the people and the
store was convenient to get to. After
Orcutts closed, we shopped around,
and discovered that we regularly paid
less, overall, even with the cost of travel,
at what is now WinCo.
When they talked about building
Keizer Station, the only reason either
I or my husband really cared was that
we read that WinCo would most likely
be putting in a store there. So we voted
for Keizer Station in the public input
surveys. Then station neighbors and
the Roth family made a stink, and
WinCo was refused entry. We rarely
shop at Keizer Station, but we do drive
by there once or twice a month on
our way to the freeway, in order to go
to the WinCo off of Mission Street/
Highway 22.
I don’t know how many times
(many!) I’ve run into Keizer neighbors
and friends at WinCo, and we almost
always comment to one another that
we heartily wish there were a WinCo
in Keizer, so we could shop there and
not travel so far. It would cost less, take
less time and be more convenient and
practical all the way around. But I have
asked at WinCo several times over
Keizertimes
Wheatland Publishing Corp. • 142 Chemawa Road N. • Keizer, Oregon 97303
phone: 503.390.1051 • web: www.keizertimes.com • email: kt@keizertimes.com
SUBSCRIPTIONS
NEWS EDITOR
Craig Murphy
editor@keizertimes.com
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Eric A. Howald
news@keizertimes.com
One year:
$25 in Marion County,
$33 outside Marion County,
$45 outside Oregon
PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY
ADVERTISING
Publication No: USPS 679-430
Paula Moseley
advertising@keizertimes.com POSTMASTER
Send address changes to:
PRODUCTION MANAGER
Andrew Jackson
Keizertimes Circulation
graphics@keizertimes.com
142 Chemawa Road N.
LEGAL NOTICES
Keizer, OR 97303
legals@keizertimes.com
EDITOR & PUBLISHER
2yndon Zaitz
publisher@keizertimes.com
BUSINESS MANAGER
2aurie Painter
billing@keizertimes.com
Periodical postage paid at
Salem, Oregon
RECEPTION
2ori Beyeler
facebook.com/keizertimes
what Schwarzenegger’s tenure might
tell us about a Trump presidency
should he win in November.
One former adviser, Adam
Mendelsohn, who wanted
nothing to do with a
negative assessment of
Schwarzenegger’s
time
in office, told me he sees
“absolutely no similarity
between the two” men.
All appreciated that the
biggest difference is that
Trump is running for president --
as a naturalized citizen, the Austrian
Oak is not eligible to be president
under the Constitution -- and there
should be a higher bar for the man
who wants to have his hand on the
nuclear button.
Looking back, Schwarzenegger’s
first term was highly successful in
many ways.
True to a campaign promise,
Schwarzenegger renegotiated terms
with major tribal casinos, which netted
state coffers a $1 billion windfall. He
also ushered much-needed workers’
compensation reform through a
reluctant Legislature by threatening
to put a measure on the ballot if
Sacramento did not pass a bill.
Later, the Governator overreached
twitter.com/keizertimes
when he placed four different
ballot measures before voters.
When Californians rejected all four,
Schwarzenegger’s aura of invincibility
crumbled.
Many had feared that if
Schwarzenegger failed to live up to
his promise, it would be because he
needed to be liked. And that’s exactly
what happened. Schwarzenegger
told voters he heard their message
and promised to work with the
Legislature. That signaled a lurch
to the left. He won re-election. In
term two, Schwarzenegger enacted
a landmark law to curb greenhouse
gases, a move very popular among
Democrats. On the way out the door,
Schwarzenegger issued a pardon that
shaved nine years off a 16-year term
for voluntary manslaughter, which
benefited the former Assembly
speaker’s son.
Schwarzenegger entered politics
with the sort of great American
success story that only an immigrant
can tell. He dreamed of becoming
an American, and he did. He
worked hard. His belief in the free
market steered him to the GOP. He
worshipped conservative economist
Milton Friedman. He had tried to
push through meaningful pension
reform and pare back state spending.
But saddled with a Legislature loaded
with Democrats, even with his
sharp political instincts, he did not
succeed. When conservative political
neophytes fail, their path to salvation
is to list left. And there he stayed.
Trump has fewer conservative
credentials. He supports the use of
eminent domain to seize property for
private development. He has lavished
money on Democratic candidates. If
he should win the White House and
find himself flailing in the polls, then
he would know where to go.
It is instructive to note that
for all they have in common,
Schwarzenegger chose to endorse not
Trump but Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Daniel
Ketchell told me it’s because Kasich
knows how to work in the center.
Former Schwarzenegger aide
Sean Walsh, however, thinks
Schwarzenegger chose Kasich over
Trump precisely because Trump is
too much like Schwarzenegger. Let
me add another trait The Donald and
Arnold share: They’re both salesmen
first. And salesmen usually aren’t
around when you need to fix the
refrigerator.
(Creators Syndicate)
Seeking sanity from sea of hyperbole
I’ve a hunch in this season of
political campaigning, that many
an American seeks sanity from the
storm of hyperbole that’s out there
every day now. A lot of concern has
to do with the rather open-ended,
undefined or sketchy, difficult-
to-imagine-coming-to-fruition
promises that some of those who
want to be president are throwing
out there for what, it’s surmised,
may be considered by some as
virtually impossible in the present-
day American political climate.
One college economics professor
in Oregon, Kimberly Clausing at
Reed, offers some thinking (The
Sunday Oregonian, March 20) on
what may be best characterized by
Bernie Sanders and Donald J. Trump
as their skepticism and outright
hostility regarding the influence of
foreign competition on the U.S.
economy. She reminds us that
both of them have vowed to tear
up existing trade agreements, stop
illegal immigration by a wall, table
new international initiatives, bring
China to greatly improved deals
with us and halt corporate flight to
Mexico and elsewhere overseas.
American voters have legitimate
concerns over wage stagnation and
income inequality. Yet, Clausing
says, Sanders and Trump are
proposing destructive solutions
that will cause greater harm than
good right here in Oregon and
most likely more income stagnation
for most workers who earn wages
below that minority often referred
to as the 1 percent, although there
are undoubtedly many more than
1 percent who’ve managed to
make more money while the so-
called middle class have been frozen
in place or lost their livelihoods
to reductions in workforce or
relocation to Mexico, etc.
Advancing technology’s impact
is one of the major contributors to
what’s happening here, where many
jobs have been replaced with au-
tomated processes and computers.
Yet, few if any of us are advocating
for getting rid of computers as they
have become mainly irreplaceable
in our daily lives. Then, too, com-
puters aid and assist skilled work-
ers in what
they can do,
produce and
earn in wag-
es. They also
streamline and
aid all who
use them in
personal com-
munications and business ventures.
Clausing reminds us too that
trade, similar to the ubiquitous
computer, makes for winners and
losers: workers that made imported
goods may be harmed while
workers in industries that export
can benefit. Also, consumers can be
winners by way of price reductions
in many consumer products.
Further, foreign competition means
that domestic businesses are held
back from monopoly status while
economic advantages elsewhere can
help to secure a more stable world
by reducing poverty conditions.
Additionally,
establishing
and
maintaining
an
international
community can result in building
bridges rather than walls.
What’s argued by Clausing is that
the entire nation benefits from trade.
When nations get out of line, most
often these days, sanctions are used
instead of war, in an effort to bring
them back to responsible world
citizenship. Meanwhile, when we
practice protectionism as apparently
advocated by Sanders and Trump,
by denying others access to our
consumer markets, these steps
sometimes -- too often, in fact --
result in a form of self-sanctioning,
bringing harm to ourselves.
Although there’s no proof of
benefit, Sanders and Trump want to
give away the benefits from trade,
presuming that reduced imports
will benefit American workers.
Clausing believes that Oregon’s
Intel, Nike and other industries
here as well as those workers in
vineyards, hazelnut farms and many
an agricultural enterprise would be
harmed by the loss of export activity.
Meanwhile, it’s very doubtful that
former manufacturing jobs and
many a job now done by automated
systems and office efficiencies,
among multiple others, will come
gene h.
mcintyre
back under any grand design that
stops the import-export activity.
As a remedy for what ails us,
Clausing advocates for targeted
income redistribution, the likes
of which would include stronger
underpinnings for earned income
tax credit along with increased
tax liabilities for those who have
benefited from the economic
gains and profits during the last
several years. More spending, too,
on rebuilding our infrastructure
and
enhancing
educational
opportunities, not just college
learning opportunities but also
vocational-technical learning, will
ensure that Oregon and the U.S. is
a highly desirable place to remain in
business in this new century.
A long and hard look at the
present time reveals that a lot of
Americans are hurt by the changes
underway. The American who
views the good life as exclusively
with those employed in large
corporations, the banks and Wall
Street may view himself as a loser
who can only stand and watch
the world go by. These men and
women, often nowadays, want a
savior of sorts, like a Trump or
Sanders, who promise to shake
things up big-time to increase their
individual advantages.
So, to which pundit, professor
or politician does a person turn?
All that’s going on may present
what appear to be insurmountable
challenges. Whatever the case,
all things considered, it’s believed
that the best advantage for every
American continues, as has been
true for some time, the acquiring
of an education, including related
training, academically or vocational-
technical, with help from career
counseling, readily available in high
schools and community colleges,
that promises a job with a future,
a living wage and the chance to
survive in Oregon or elsewhere in
a constantly changing world. In
other words, you’re mainly on your
own with whatever local help you
can access.
(Gene H. McIntyre’s column
appears weekly in the Keizertimes.)