Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (July 3, 2018)
Page 4A East Oregonian Tuesday, July 3, 2018 CHRISTOPHER RUSH Publisher KATHRYN B. BROWN Owner DANIEL WATTENBURGER Managing Editor TIM TRAINOR Opinion Page Editor Founded October 16, 1875 OUR VIEW In defense of patriotism T his nation started with a bang. It began with fighting words and we celebrate its birth every year with fireworks. The Declaration of Independence, as it was soon known, laid down a brave vision for the United States. We were unified by the guiding principle that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were the rights of all people under God, and that a new country would be formed first and foremost to protect those rights. We went to war for those ideals, throwing off a monarchy that believed it was the purveyor of God’s divine will. We wrestled with how those rights should be interpreted in law and in government. Our forefathers went to great lengths to create a system that could be sustained and secured, even as competing interests would try to take it away or bend it to their will. As we look back now — 242 years into this democratic experiment — it’s amazing to see how much has worked. Our Constitution remains a garrison against government overreach and our checks and balances in the courts and the Congress have kept tyranny at bay. It has failed on other fronts, historically, as we trampled or outright ignored the rights of marginalized people who stood in the way of those in power. And every day it is threatened by those who think the country is theirs, singularly, rather than ours, collectively. But the reason it has worked as well as it has is because of patriots who have put the good of the country ahead of themselves, even so far as laying down their lives and personal freedoms to protect it. They have shown with words and actions why this country’s ideals are worth defending. That’s what patriotism does. It believes in the greater good of what the country stands for, and not merely the symbols that come along with it. Nationalism, its dark cousin, demands homage to those symbols without respect for their underlying foundation — and it harbors suspicion and spite against those who understand those symbols differently. Patriotism’s power comes from a love of country and its people and ideals, while nationalism’s power comes from a fear and hatred of the outside world. Patriotism accepts past mistakes in hopes of building a better future. Nationalism ignores flaws, both past and present. Patriotism inspires service to the country. Nationalism demands for allegiance to it. Patriotism is more difficult. It is not merely waving a flag or reciting a pledge. It requires earnest attention, reflection and action. It requires good-faith debate about how our ideals should be practiced, and at the same time camaraderie in building a better country. It doesn’t allow minor differences to separate the greater unity and progress. And true patriotism should always be on guard for the creep of nationalism, so the two will still be distinguishable in years to come. OTHER VIEWS The Declaration of Independence “T he unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government ...” In Congress, July 4, 1776 YOUR VIEWS Fast, reliable internet is key to rural economic success Last weekend, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and U.S. Congressman Greg Walden were in Weston for a meeting to discuss the importance of rural broadband deployment and adoption. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to attend and participate in a conversation about closing the digital connectivity gap between rural and urban areas in the Oregon and how we can support the best policies to make that happen. Access to broadband is transformative, bringing new possibilities for public safety, education and healthcare to rural communities that are typically underserved. This is particularly important for areas like Eastern Oregon; Oregon ranks 25th nationally in connectivity and is 14 percent underserved — much higher than the national average. One example of the power of connectivity is telemedicine. Rural communities often lack the healthcare resources of their urban counterparts; but with a strong broadband connection, residents can be diagnosed and monitored remotely, saving time and cost to receive what can be life-saving care. This is an area of particular emphasis for both Chairman Pai and Rep. Walden. 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. Just a few weeks ago Pai called for $171 million increase in funding for rural healthcare access. And earlier this year Walden convened hearings in the House on this issue. Chairman Pai also discussed the impact of the FCC’s recent Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which protects an open internet and encourages the investment, also important to our rural communities. The order replaces heavy- handed regulations with strong consumer protections and increased transparency that will also benefit the smaller ISPs that serve areas that are rural and lower-income. Chairman Pai has also devoted much of his time and energy at the FCC to promoting 5G, the next generation of mobile technology that will change the way people in both urban and rural areas interact and use technology. Promoting smart policies while continuing to encourage private investment in mobile networks will ensure that rural residents have access to the same level of connectivity as those who live in more densely populated areas. I’m proud of the work both leaders are doing to close the digital divide and believe that continuing to encourage broadband investment will be key. Tom Gurr, executive director Pacific Technology Alliance Issaquah, Wash. Anthony Kennedy’s imperial legacy I n the American republic’s slow of Obama’s Caesarism and transformation into a judicial- Trump’s caudillo act and executive dyarchy, with a Congress’ utter uselessness, I’ve vestigial legislature that lets the developed a limited sympathy for major controversies get settled by Kennedy’s imperial approach. If imperial presidents and jurists, he contributed to our republic’s Anthony Kennedy occupied a deformation he did not act alone, particularly important role. He was and what he delivered was, in Ross some sense, what both the political appointed to the Supreme Court Douthat class and the public increasingly at a time when the Republican Comment desire from their government: not Party was officially interested republican deliberation but quasi- in curbing judicial activism and monarchical action. restoring power to the elected branches Politics abhors a vacuum, and judicial of government. As the court’s swing activism increasingly fills the empty vote, though, he instead consolidated the space created by legislative sclerosis and judiciary’s imperial role — taking the political cowardice, by the unwillingness expansive powers claimed by judicial liberals in the Warren era and turning them of elected representatives to act on controversial issues. This abdication, to his own purposes, his own vision of the persistent and ongoing, naturally impels common good. partisans to look to the courts and He did this without a particularly the executive to act instead. Kennedy coherent constitutional theory, which is answered this desire too readily, but he why he never attracted the disciples who didn’t invent it, and there were times flocked to Antonin Scalia or the fans who when he clearly tried to act as the “good celebrate Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the emperor” that our decadent system and Notorious RBG. Kennedy preferred to polarized country may require — by rule the country like an oracle, agonizing balancing his own liberal rulings on behind the scenes but showing neither humility nor rigor in his ultimate decisions abortion and same-sex marriage, for instance, with subsequent decisions that — overruling state and federal law more allowed some space for pro-life activism frequently than any justice to his right or and protected some religious liberties left, pontificating in sweeping and self- against the anti-clericalism of the left. righteous and faux-poetic prose, seeking But even if you accept that our country to establish the court as the decisive and increasingly craves a kind of stabilizing unifying authority for a sprawling and central power, Kennedy’s freedom-first divided country. synthesis did not succeed in supplying it. If his constitutional theory was Instead, our age of opioids and suicide somewhat lacking, though, his guiding and sterility, and the heartland populists ideals were clear. Without being a and Bronxian socialists that anomie has completely consistent libertarian, he conjured up, strongly indicates that his was a general champion of freedom — neoliberal model needs correction — “the right to define one’s own concept of that the freedom of capital and genitals existence, of meaning, of the universe, is not enough for human flourishing, that and of the mystery of human life,” as his community and solidarity need to have Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision their day, even if it comes at the expense of famously put it — across both social and certain liberties. economic spheres. To borrow an overused Here it may be that John Roberts, but still useful word, Kennedy was the Kennedy’s likely successor as our modern court’s most “neoliberal” justice, First Archon, is better suited than his embracing corporate freedom and sexual predecessor to the imperial task. We know freedom as a kind of unity, attacking that Roberts is more temperamentally restraints on campaign spending and cautious than Kennedy, more interested mandates to buy health insurance in the in limited rulings than in sweeping ones. same spirit as restrictions on pornography We also know that he’s both more friendly or flag-burning or abortion. to religious conservatism (witness his I was not a great admirer, as you can Obergefell vote) and more willing to let no doubt tell. Like most conservatives, social-democratic policymaking stand I favor a more limited role for our robed (witness his vote to save Obamacare). archons. I admired Scalia’s originalism That combination could produce a precisely because it establishes plausible Roberts court that doesn’t lay down its limits on judicial activism, and I regard extraordinary powers, but manages to Kennedy’s Casey ruling as a vapid use them in a different style, to further a Emersonian effusion, whose paean to somewhat more communitarian vision. individualism was really a license to kill After Anthony Kennedy, I don’t expect inconvenient innocents. Even when he was a court that ceases to be imperial. But I right on the merits of an issue, he was still dare to hope for one that rules us a little too aggrandizing, too eager to impose his more wisely than he did. own judgment, too quick to short-circuit ■ legislative debates. Ross Douthat, The New York Times But in the last few years, the years 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.
