Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (May 19, 2018)
Page 4A East Oregonian Saturday, May 19, 2018 CHRISTOPHER RUSH Publisher KATHRYN B. BROWN Owner DANIEL WATTENBURGER Managing Editor TIM TRAINOR Opinion Page Editor Founded October 16, 1875 OUR VIEW Stage is set for Buehler vs. Brown K nute Buehler has proposed 10 gubernatorial debates, crisscrossing the state. Gov. Kate Brown should accept his offer. Oregonians throughout the state deserve the first-hand opportunity to evaluate the ideas, aspirations and leadership skills of their next governor. Even better would be to include Independent and third-party candidates in some of those debates so as to more fully reflect Oregon’s political spectrum. And even better than better, one of those debates should be in Umailla County and focus on issues that matter to Eastern Oregonians. There is irony in Buehler’s debate proposal. Until winning the Republican gubernatorial nomination on Tuesday, he largely had been absent from the GOP debates and joint appearances. That strategy worked, enabling the more-moderate Buehler to triumph in a GOP field crowded with conservative candidates. Brown, who faced only token opposition in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, on Tuesday called for Buehler to join her in three debates and at least two joint appearances before newspaper editorial boards. By nightfall, Buehler had upped the ante to 10 debates, saying Brown’s Knute Buehler Gov. Kate Brown proposal was yet another example of her not being bold enough. Yet one question for voters to ponder is whether Buehler as governor would be the bold, potentially decisive politician who emerged Tuesday or the reticent, off-stage candidate of the Republican primary. In any case, Brown and Buehler have much to discuss in front of voters. This election is an evaluation of what Oregonians could expect from either politician. But it also is a referendum on Brown’s leadership since replacing Gov. John Kitzhaber three years ago. That makes state management — the governor’s role as CEO — a dominant issue. It won’t be enough for Buehler to say he will lead where Brown failed. He must specify how he would accomplish his goals, how he would bring the state together and how he would prevent the management missteps of recent years. As for Brown, she has to show that she governs for the entire state, not just her Portland political base. She must own the missteps, as well as the triumphs, of her tenure. She must reveal what she has learned on the job and how that would serve Oregonians for four more years. Voters should hear the specifics for how each candidate would: ▪ Strengthen Oregon education and help all Oregon students achieve their potential. ▪ Confront the costs of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System and public-employee health care. ▪ Overcome Oregon’s lack of mental health resources and its high suicide rate, especially here in Eastern Oregon. ▪ Prepare for drought, wildfires and a host of other environmental issues. ▪ Bridge the economic, technology and transportation gap that separates rural and urban Oregon. Debates will be a waste if all the candidates do is throw jabs at each other. That is what Buehler did six years ago in running against Secretary of State Brown. He lost the election, but she got caught up in parrying his jabs instead of defining herself. Oregonians want, need and deserve robust discussions about our state’s future. OTHER VIEWS Gaza border violence shows how extremism corrupts A YOUR VIEWS Second Amendment can be amended Holly Jo Beers recently wrote a very interesting guest op-ed column in this newspaper. It was given the title “Second Amendment cannot be modified.” Actually, it can be modified or amended, that is why it is called an amendment. Further, it could even be removed from the Bill of Rights. And personally, as one citizen, I wish it would be deleted as too much tragedy and harm has been inflicted because it is constantly being manipulated for self-serving purposes. However, the reality is the Second Amendment will never be removed completely, not as long as there are zealots like Beers rallying the troops. I acknowledge there are tens of millions of citizens across the country that hold the same position as Beers. The Second Amendment, as it is generally interpreted, is an outdated, anachronistic idea and law whose time has passed by. The Second Amendment is understandable and reasonable in the context of the time period it was enacted. There was basically no law and order to protect the public citizenry and the western frontier was Ohio. For all practical purposes, families basically had to defend Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian. and protect themselves with personal firearms from the dangers and threats of the time. Beers writes: “We may own as many as we like.” So, in the pursuit of happiness that Beers wrote about, she reasons the more guns one owns, the happier one will be. Thus, if one owns a small arsenal one would be an extremely happy person. I do not define my citizenship by how many guns I own, I define my citizenship by honoring the laws and norms of the community, voting — and of course — exercising my rights, including free expression. I used to live in inner-city Oakland, California, and north Portland, Oregon, both considered high crime areas. However, I never felt the need to carry a gun in those cities for self-defense or protection. So, why would I need an automatic assault rifle here in rural Eastern Oregon? Many gun owners, including Beers, are clearly worried and afraid they may be disarmed by new gun control laws. On this point, I have nothing to be afraid of as we have zero firearms in our home. And we are just fine, thank you. If and when IP 43 and 44 are voted on, I will definitely vote yes. Bob Shippentower Pendleton s you know, everybody sees martyrdom performance that will the Middle East through show the world how oppressed we his or her own narrative. are? Conservatives see it through the Palestinian politics has shifted. “front line in the war on terror” It shifted from 1967 thinking to narrative and defend Israel’s 1948 thinking. If you read the actions on the Gaza border fence Palestinian leader Mahmoud this week. Progressives see it Abbas’ April 30 speech or much David through the “continued colonialist of the commentary published Brooks over the past week, it’s clear that oppression” narrative and condemn Comment those actions. some powerful Palestinians now I see the situation through the believe that the creation of the “extremism corrupts everybody” narrative. state of Israel is the wrong that needs My narrative starts with the idea that the to be addressed, not the expansion and creation of the state of Israel was a historic occupation. When faced with an extremist, you have achievement involving a historic wrong — two choices: counter the extremist mindset the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians. with your own or reject that mindset and For two generations, in what we can double down on pragmatism. call the Yitzhak Rabin era, the leaders of By and large, Israel has taken the Israel and of Palestinians tried, sometimes former path. The shift from the politics dysfunctionally and bloodily, to address this wrong and find two homelands around to that of Benjamin Netanyahu is a move from pluralism to ethnocentrism, from the pre-1967 borders. relentless engagement to segregation. It’s But sometime in the 1990s, a mental a shift from tough realism to the magical shift occurred. Extremism grew on thinking that Palestinians are somehow the Israeli side, exemplified by the going to go away. ultranationalist who murdered Rabin, It is clearly in Israel’s interest to but it exploded on the Palestinian side. maneuver the Palestinians away from Palestinian extremism took on many of extremism and to weaken the extremists in the shapes recognizable in extremism its own ranks. everywhere. And yet sometimes Israeli policies First, the question shifted from “What seem callously designed to guarantee an to do?” to “Whom to blame?” The extremist response. debates were less about how to take steps That’s the problem with extremism: It is toward a livable future and more about a flight from reality. It makes you stupider. who is responsible for the sins of the Instead of cleverly working to advance past. The central activity became moral your own interest in a changing context, condemnation, with vindication as the you end up shouting your own moral ultimate goal. justifications into a whirlwind. Instead of Second, the dream of total victory restating your own values — for pluralism, became the only acceptable dream. In for a compromise, for peace — you end up normal politics, certain long-standing debates are never really settled; competing another soiled part of the climate. My narrative doesn’t absolve the parties instead reach an accommodation Palestinians from responsibility for their that works in the moment. But extremists choices. But it doesn’t let the Israelis stop trying to win partial victories, off the hook for their failure to properly insisting that someday they will get confront extremism. everything they want — that someday the Extremism is naturally contagious. To other side will magically disappear. fight it, whether at home or abroad, you Third, extremists over time replace have to answer the angry shout with the strategic thinking with theatrical thinking. respectful offer. It feels unnatural. But it’s Strategic thinking is about the relation the only way. of means to ends: How do we use what ■ we have to get to where we want to go? David Brooks became a New York Theatrical thinking is both more cynical Times columnist in 2003. and more messianic: How do we create a The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send letters to managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or email editor@eastoregonian.com.
