Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 30, 2018)
Page 4A East Oregonian Tuesday, October 30, 2018 CHRISTOPHER RUSH Publisher KATHRYN B. BROWN Owner DANIEL WATTENBURGER Managing Editor WYATT HAUPT JR. News Editor Founded October 16, 1875 OUR VIEW The logical ends of political hate Bumper stickers proclaim, “Kate Brown is not my governor.” T-shirts, magnets and decals declare, “Donald Trump is not my president.” Those items are reprehensible. They are far from the magnitude of the shootings at a Pittsburgh synagogue and the mailings of pipe bombs to high-profile detractors of President Trump. But they are dangerous to our political souls and those around us, if not to our physical bodies. Kate Brown in Oregon and Donald Trump in America hold public offices that represent all of us, regardless of whether we agree with them or not. Public disagreement and civilized protest can be a sign of a healthy republic, but defining your life by the protest can be destructive. It certainly appears to have been for Cesar Sayoc, who has been charged with sending pipe bombs to prominent Democrats. His ardent support for Trump isn’t what defined his life — his hatred toward others is. Ronald Lowy, a lawyer for Sayoc’s family, described it well in a New York Times interview: “He lacked an identity. He created a persona.” That persona was stoked anonymously in a like-minded online community, and his actions, while ultimately failing their intended purpose, showed the logical conclusion to such rage. In Pittsburgh the consequences of that anger were tragic, as 11 people were gunned down during religious worship. Although it will come as news to many partisans, political views can be polar opposite and legitimate. Neither Brown nor Trump deserves vilification. Neither one merits being called an extremist. Trump has intensified America’s political and cultural divides through his polarizing, us-vs.-them mentality. Sadly, many Democrats have responded in kind. There is no good end to this game. Such rhetoric might be appropriate for a football coach; but in politics, America needs more of the rugby or lacrosse style in which opponents battle fiercely on the field, and then join for pizza afterward. This is not a plea for everyone to play nicely, although that would be good. We know that one editorial cannot cause a person to say, “By golly, now I know I shouldn’t vilify my political foes — just like I shouldn’t run with scissors or play with lighters!” Rather, we humbly suggest that if people are dismayed by the current political tenor — we believe most are — that they take it upon themselves to change the tone. This might sound like a contradiction, but the place to start is with those who share their views — the candidates, political parties and organizations whom they support. No one can change the other person, regardless of how much arguing takes place. Research indicates that such arguing usually cements a person’s existing view. Instead, people have greater opportunity to influence the like-minded individuals who already have their trust. Together, help them see the value in pulling back on the rhetoric and reclaiming truth instead of pushing insinuation. Consider what could happen if voters demonstrated irrevocable civility and demanded civility from the candidates they supported. Until that becomes the societal expectation, the current political climate will only worsen. A place to start is Oregon’s gubernatorial race, where both major candidates and their allies have been competing over who can wallow deeper in the gutters of political slime, mistruths and negativity. Kate Brown and Knute Buehler are both decent individuals, though you would not know that from the opposition campaign ads. Both deserve respect for aspiring to the office of governor. Neither is perfect. Yet after the election, one will have the task of unifying Oregon. OTHER VIEWS Fingers crossed for a midterm split decision S ince the election of Donald instincts and restrain his follies. Trump, the conservatives who You also had to downplay the long- opposed him in 2016 have term damage, to conservatism and increasingly divided into distinct the body politic, of putting someone camps — one group continuing to with such poisonous rhetorical habits criticize him but still backing the in the bully pulpit. institutional GOP, and the other I wasn’t persuaded. But following their anti-Trumpism so far Trump has been more David into root-and-branch opposition constrained and less destructive Brooks than I expected — his foreign to his party. This division extends Comment to midterm attitudes: Some policy less destabilizing (so far) NeverTrumpers will cheer for every than either of his predecessors, his Republican defeat, while others pull for cruelest policy instincts walked back under GOP victories in exactly the way they would pressure, the country more prosperous, his have in 2010 or 2014. appointments more responsible and a large- Let me suggest a third option. If you are scale investigation into his possible crimes a conservative who is moderately happy proceeding, beset by Trumpian insults but with some of Trump’s policy steps, fearful otherwise mostly unimpeded by the White of liberalism in full power, but also fearful House. of Trump untrammeled and triumphant, the To the extent that any Republicans sensible thing to root for — and vote for — deserve credit for this constraint, though, is the outcome that appears most likely at they are mostly elected Republicans in the the moment: A Republican majority in the Senate. The House is more pure, uncut Senate and a Democratic majority in the MAGA, more reflexive in its defense House of Representatives. of a president whose behavior is often The best argument for conservative indefensible, more poisoned by the worst support for Donald Trump was always Trumpist tendencies (witness the steady defensive: Elect him and you prevent the migration of the Iowa congressman Steve installation of a long-term liberal majority King toward an overt white nationalism) and on the Supreme Court, and perhaps chasten more inclined to allow Trump a free hand the Democratic Party and arrest its leftward should he seek to make his actual presidency march. exactly like his Twitter feed. For that argument to persuade, you had So a Democratic House would supply to trust the institutional Republican Party’s a much more effective check on that promise to contain Trump’s authoritarian temptation, along with more vigorous scrutiny of corruption in the White House, about which congressional Republicans have been studiously incurious. And it would offer that check without jeopardizing any potential conservative legislative achievements — because, let’s be frank, the congressional GOP isn’t going to do anything serious with its power if it gets re-elected except confirm judges, and you don’t need the House to elevate Amy Coney Barrett if there’s one more high court vacancy. At the same time, for the genuinely populist sort for conservative (that is, the best kind), having a Democratic House might force Trump himself back toward the economic populism of his campaign, which he mostly abandoned but has suddenly remembered in the last days before the midterms, talking up a phantom middle- class tax cut and proposing an “America First” approach to drug pricing. So giving up the House restrains and redirects Trump at relatively little cost, and perhaps even some policy advantage. Keeping the Senate Republican in this cycle, on the other hand, doesn’t just allow for more conservative judicial nominations. It also provides a hedge against a future where the Democratic Party returns to power flush with ideological zeal, committed to its own forms of norm-busting, and eager for a measure of revenge. Given the more favorable Senate map and the possibility of a recession, Democrats can reasonably hope to retake the upper chamber in the next four years no matter what. And it will go much worse for the right if that Democratic majority has 60 seats in that scenario as opposed to 52 — something that will be determined by this fall’s election as much as by what happens two or four years hence. Of course, if you’re a Trump skeptic who believes that only an earth-salting defeat will enable the reemergence of a decent right, then trying to constrain a future liberalism will seem less important than rooting for the necessary disaster to arrive for Republicans today. But I don’t think our polarized system lends itself to salt-the-earth defeats anymore, and I also don’t think that parties necessarily emerge from them wiser than before — since in such defeats they’re condensed to their more fervent and often foolish core. So it seems more sensible for Trump skeptics on the right to balance different ends, to want Trump constrained and redirected and liberalism kept from the fullest possible power. The combination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 53 Republican senators, though it may please almost nobody, has the best chance to accomplish both. ——— David Brooks has been a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, a contributing editor at Newsweek and the Atlantic Monthly, and he is currently a commentator on “The New- shour with Jim Lehrer.” Can’t keep pushing costs to the next generation Tampa Bay Times T he effects of climate change are coming harder and faster, according to a recent report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, a child born today — if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t cut nearly in half before she’s a teen — will live in a world on track to irreversible damage. That catastrophe would begin just as that same child is graduating from college in 2040, far sooner than previously expected, and at a lower increase in global temperature than earlier thought. Stalling is no longer a viable strategy. The report’s authors say if greenhouse gases continue to pollute at the rate they 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. do now, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels in a generation. That would swamp coastlines, ruin crops, worsen droughts and increase the severity of hurricanes and wildfires. The report shows two things should happen: Renewable sources of energy would have to provide up to two-thirds of the world’s electricity, and coal would have to fade from roughly 40 percent today to almost nothing by 2050. “There is no way to mitigate climate change without getting rid of coal,” said Drew Shindell, an author of the report and a climate scientist at Duke University. Unfortunately, President Donald Trump mocks climate change — and as recently as his “60 Minutes” interview this month, said he doubts people cause it — while planning to expand the use of coal and withdrawing from the Paris climate accords. The best solution is to stop climate change before it’s too late rather than simply reacting to its effects. The winners of this year’s Nobel Prize in economics have worked on the answer. William Nordhaus of Yale has been called “the father of climate-change economics,” and his solution is a universal tax on carbon. His research established a range of potential amounts. Such a tax would provide a marketplace incentive to cut pollution and stimulate innovation without a heavy hand from government. It also recognizes that pollution has a cost, and that the polluter should bear it. The Nobel co-winner, Paul Romer of New York University, has done research showing how governments can foster innovation. “Many people think that dealing with protecting the environment will be so costly and so hard that they just want to ignore the problem,” he said. “They want to deny it exists; they can’t deal with it.” He is exactly right that it is time for governments at every level to step up. Solving the problem won’t be cheap or easy, but it is possible. That child born today shouldn’t be handed a past-due bill when she reaches adulthood. The price will only get higher the longer officials wait to act. Start paying now, or be prepared to pay a crushing price later. 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.
