A4
East Oregonian
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
CHRISTOPHER RUSH
Publisher
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Managing Editor
WYATT HAUPT JR.
News Editor
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
We need presidents, not Caesars
I
n Barack Obama’s second term,
with his legislative agenda dead in a
Republican-controlled Congress, the
president turned to executive unilateralism
on an innovative scale. On climate regula-
tion and health care he used the presidential
pen to pursue policies denied him by Con-
gress, and on immigration he made a more
dramatic leap — claiming a power he him-
self had previously abjured, and offering
a provisional legal status to about half the
illegal-immigrant population.
At the time I called
this “caesarism” — an
attempt to arrogate to
the imperial presidency
the kind of power over
domestic policy that it
already claims over for-
eign and military affairs.
And because the decay
r oss
of republics is an iter-
D outhat
ative process, where
COMMENT
each faction builds on
the norm-breaking of its
rivals, it was fairly obvious — well, to me,
if not to his supporters — that Obama’s
caesarism helped stoke the caudillo appeal
of Donald Trump, who promised a cruder
version of the same impatient executive
ambition.
Now, that caudillo spirit is taking legal
form in Trump’s most serious power grab
to date: the attempt to use a “national emer-
gency” declaration — a power whose
chronic abuse by presidents Congress has
never bestirred itself to check — to build
the border fencing that the Democratic
Party and his own political impotence have
denied him.
On the merits, anyone who opposed
Obama’s moves should oppose this one as
well.
The scale of the policy change is
smaller, but the defiance of Congress is
more overt; the legal foundation might be
slightly firmer (as Jell-O is slightly firmer
than a pudding) but the bad faith involved
in the “emergency” claim is more extreme.
And in general, serious conservatives
are opposing Trump. Vox co-founder Mat-
thew Yglesias recently snarked about right-
wing pundits who got “overheated about
‘Caesarism’ and ‘caudillos’” in the Obama
era, mentioning myself and National
Review editor Rich Lowry as examples.
But Lowry has written sharply against the
emergency declaration, and I’ll happily
endorse his point: If Obama was abusing
his powers, then clearly so is Trump.
But in terms of the general lure of pres-
idential rule, the general declension of
republican norms into imperial habits, I
also think Trump’s caudillo act is substan-
tially less dangerous than what his prede-
cessors did.
Here I differ not only from liberals who
misremember Obama as a punctilious
norm-respecter, but also from those conser-
vatives fretting that Trump is establishing
a precedent for a future liberal president to
impose a Green New Deal by fiat. Not that
they won’t be so tempted — but I just can’t
imagine anyone looking at the political
train wreck of Trump’s unilateralism and
seeing a precedent worth invoking.
For presidential power to meaningfully
expand, it is not enough for a president
to simply make a power grab. That grab
needs to unite his party (ideally it would
also divide the opposition), it needs to be
cloaked in enough piety and deniability
to find support from would-be referees, it
needs to appear to be politically success-
ful, and finally it needs to be ratified by the
other branches of government, if only by
their inaction.
This mostly happened with post-
9/11 war powers claimed by George W.
Bush’s administration: There was push-
back and resistance, but many Demo-
crats went along, Bush won re-election,
and much of his war-on-terror architecture
was adopted and expanded by the Obama
administration.
Obama’s attempt to play Caesar in
domestic policy had more mixed results,
since the immigration power grab was
tied up by the courts until Trump’s elec-
tion rendered some of it a dead letter. But
Obama at least persuaded Democrats and
the media to go along with his caesarism,
and he established precedents that a Presi-
dent Hillary Clinton would have undoubt-
edly embraced.
With Trump, though, the only clear
precedent being set is one of deplorable
incompetence. He’s taking unpopular
action that divides his party and unites the
opposition, he’s doing so with a combina-
tion of brazen hypocrisy and nonsense rhet-
oric that makes the power grab impossi-
ble to cloak, he’s guaranteeing himself an
extended legal battle — and he isn’t even
accomplishing any obvious goal (there’s a
reason real immigration restrictionists are
against this plan) except the personal one of
saving a tiny bit of face.
This spectacle will not prevent some
future president from abusing an emer-
gency declaration more effectively. But
the idea that Trump’s grab enables future
abuses more than the moves that Bush and
Obama made is extremely dubious. If any-
thing, precisely because his contempt for
constitutional limits is so naked and his
incompetence so stark, Trump has (mod-
estly, modestly) weakened the imperial
presidency by generating somewhat more
pushback than his predecessors.
So the emergency declaration is not
itself a constitutional emergency. Rather,
as often in the Trump presidency, it’s a
moment that illuminates how a more dan-
gerous would-be autocrat might some-
day act. It’s a weird foretaste, not the main
event. A warning, not a crisis. A clownish
interlude in the republic’s decline, not the
Rubicon itself.
———
Ross Douthat is a columnist for the New
York Times.
OTHER VIEWS
A different take on educational funding priorities
I
write this with no intent of
underfunded but expecting better
disrespecting the work of
results is insulting at the least.
our elected officials, but
Second, Pendleton, like many
as more and more comes out of
districts around the state, is
Salem regarding education fund-
attempting to provide the same ser-
ing, I am wondering if we are
vices and programs over the last 10
going to miss the mark again.
years with fewer people. Over the
First, the Quality Education
past 100+ years the school day and
Model was first published in 1999
school year have remained rela-
C hris
tively stagnant, while the demands
by the Quality Education Com-
F ritsCh
mission. Don’t you just love edu-
on the public education system
COMMENT
cational jargon and acronyms?
multiplied exponentially. Local,
Since then the “model” has been
state and federal governance add
updated every two years. What makes the
requirements annually and most frequently
work so critical is that it is based on sound
without the resources necessary to sup-
port them. Those who promote “do more
educational research. “Over the years, the
with less” need serious help. Our district is
model has been improved by adding more
operating with 28.3 fewer staff members
and better data and by adding a growing
today than it did in 2008. We cannot do
body of empirical research on promising
more with less; our students deserve better.
practices.” (QEM, Final Report, August
Therefore, before funding new programs,
2018, page 5.) One valuable aspect of the
please consider funding that is flexible to
report is that it puts a dollar amount for the
restore staffing in district-determined areas
resources that would be required “to run a
of need.
system of highly-effective schools.” Since
Third, consider adjusting the enhanced
its inception, state funding for education
funding for special education to a level
has been between $1.1 billion to $2.1 bil-
lion short of meeting the target. Therefore,
that supports the actual cost to provide ser-
vices to a growing student population that
knowing that the system is significantly
requires more adults. Currently some of the
funds generated are part of the consortium
dollars that our ESD uses to provide special
education services, such as school psychol-
ogists, speech language pathologists, occu-
pational therapists and nurses. Although
these services are required and necessary,
they do not provide day-to-day service and
support to students.
In addition, the state of Oregon puts a
cap at 11 percent for a district’s special edu-
cation funding. In other words, if more than
11 percent of your district’s students qual-
ify for special education, you only are com-
pensated up to the 11 percent level.
The state average is 13.6 percent and in
Pendleton 15 percent of our students qual-
ify for special education services. There-
fore, we need more support staff than our
current funding allows to provide small
group interventions, one-on-one work and
supervision of student success rooms, to
name few areas.
The big ask is this: With new and addi-
tional funds, keep the areas of intent loose
enough so that individual districts may use
the funds that best suit their needs.
Finally, let me just say, the issues that
our schools face are not the product of the
school system. Rather they reflect our local
communities and our society as a whole. In
light of the issues that were recently pub-
licized, public schools work hard and effi-
ciently despite the lack of adequate fund-
ing. We are at a critical crossroads and our
legislature needs to make courageous deci-
sions about the revenue and sustainability
required to operate a high quality educa-
tional system.
If we keep chasing rainbows or wind-
mills, we will once again fall short and be
subject to criticism for the same results.
It reminds me of a definition for insan-
ity, “continuing to do the same thing over
and over again and expecting a different
result”. Public schools and public educators
have played the “good soldier” role long
enough; we have been and are adapting to
the changing challenges and demands with
the resources available, but it is time for our
state to fund our schools at the level that
we know is required and that our students
deserve.
———
Chris Fritsch is the superintendent of
the Pendleton School District.
YOUR VIEWS
Oregon Supreme Court
defies voters
Oregonians should be upset by
the Jan. 31 ruling by the Oregon
Supreme Court. The court unan-
imously voted to overturn Bal-
lot Measure 57 of 2008 that was
intended to increase the sentences
for repeat offenders of property
crimes in Oregon. This measure was
passed by the people — not the Leg-
islature — after gaining the proper
number of signatures. That required
the measure to be placed on the bal-
lot, and it passed by a huge majority
of Oregon voters.
Sadly, the extremely liberal court
has defied the people with some
fancy legal — but unethical — foot-
work, twisting the requirement of a
two-thirds vote into one just needing
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.
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.
a simple majority. The ACLU was,
as expected, quick to jump to the
defense of this ruling, which would
reduce sentences from 18 months to
only 13.
I guess it isn’t enough to cham-
pion illegal criminal aliens in Ore-
gon and provide them safe haven
in our sanctuary state. Now our
supreme court adds insult to injury
by reducing sentences for repeat
felony property offenders. I think
many voters — at least here in East-
ern Oregon — would rather pay a
little more to incarcerate these crim-
inals for the full extent of their sen-
tence than release them early so they
can offend yet again. I am sure the
property criminals are dancing in
the streets of Oregon.
David Burns
Pendleton
Send letters to managing
editor Daniel Wattenburger,
211 S.E. Byers Ave.
Pendleton, OR 9780, or email
editor@eastoregonian.com.