Editorials from around New England

Excerpts of recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New England newspapers:

The (Waterbury) Republican-American (Conn.), Feb. 22, 2017

Former President Barack Obama’s legacy has taken a bit of a hit. Obama’s first national security adviser has ripped the former president’s handling of one of the most serious foreign-policy crises of his tenure: the Syrian government’s 2013 chemical-weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs. Hopefully, President Trump and future chief executives will learn from this and stave off comparable debacles.

In August 2012, President Obama issued this warning to Syrian “President” Bashar al-Assad: “A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.” He followed up on this tough talk four months later, saying, “If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons . you will be held accountable.”

Assad crossed the “red line” on Aug. 21, 2013. The horrifying attack left more than 1,000 people dead. Obama initially talked about a military response, but backed down in relatively short order. The United States, Russia and several other countries ultimately worked out a deal stipulating that Assad’s weapons be destroyed “under international control,” as Obama put it at the time.

This display of feebleness was humiliating and dangerous. Obama’s conduct was unbecoming the leader of the world’s most powerful nation. The fecklessness apparently emboldened Russia, a Syrian ally, to act aggressively in Ukraine in 2014, as we noted in a Sept. 25, 2015 editorial. In the spring of 2015, Assad used chlorine bombs on Syrian rebel forces.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. James L. Jones, Obama’s national security adviser from January 2009 through October 2010, has offered a similar assessment. During a Feb. 19 appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Jones said, “It was a mistake to draw a red line on a certain issue and then fail to follow up on it in any meaningful way, and that caused a lot of loss of confidence in the will of the United States in this very important part of the world.” He emphasized that American strength in the Middle East is a key to security. Jones also asserted that at minimum, Assad should have had to “forfeit . a piece of his territory where refugees could have been handled and might have prevented the flow of refugees into Europe.”

These are harsh words from an individual who, as The Washington Post reported in 2010, “brought decades of national security experience to (his) post and military credibility to an administration whose senior civilian members have never served in uniform.” Curiously, the Post also noted, Jones “often (was) on the edge of important policy decisions.”

The Syria episode amounted to a dark chapter in the annals of American foreign policy, and one of many strikes against the legacy of Obama. The primary lesson is an American president should not open his mouth if he has no intention of backing up his talk, and that any diversion puts the credibility of the United States at grave risk. Hopefully, Trump and the future commanders in chief among us are paying attention. Remember Theodore Roosevelt’s policy of “speak softly, and carry a big stick.”

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2leSL6H

The Portland Press Herald (Maine), Feb. 20, 2017

Abraham Lincoln saved the Union. George Washington was the father of his country. Franklin D. Roosevelt marshaled the power of the federal government to rescue a nation from economic depression and sent it off to war.

That’s why historians consistently rank them as our top three presidents. A recent survey of historians by C-SPAN is no different.

The ranking at the bottom are also consistent.

New Hampshire’s pro-slavery Democrat Franklin Pierce (41st) has not seen his reputation improve over time. Neither has Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson (42nd), who was impeached for interfering with congressional attempts to protect the rights of former slaves in early days of the Reconstruction. And the perennial last-place finisher, James Buchanan, failed to keep the country from falling into civil war, which is why he’s 43rd out of 43 on the list.

We remember them all on Presidents Day, including the current inhabitant of the White House, Donald Trump. It’s far too soon to know where he’ll end up in the rankings between Lincoln and Buchanan, but the perspective of the historians is good to keep in mind during what looks like a period of upheaval.

One thing worth noting is that, for most of us now living, the idea of the presidency was formed during what the historians consider the “golden age” of the office, from 1933 to 1969.

The five presidents in that period- Franklin Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson -all make it into the top 10. One more top 10 president, Ronald Reagan, was elected just about a decade later. We would likely have a very different expectation for the office if we all had been alive in the days of Rutherford B. Hayes (32nd, according to the historians), Chester A. Arthur (35th) or Warren G. Harding (40th).

Since the 1930s, we have seen more power concentrated in the hands of the executive, and the results have not always been good for the country.

Congress has not declared war since 1941, although American troops have been sent to battle in every decade since. Recently, Barack Obama (ranked 12th in the latest survey) used executive orders to achieve policy goals denied him by Congress. Now we see President Trump undoing those orders while issuing his own, while apparently ignoring a legislative agenda.

We have also seen other institutions rise up and stop a president when his use of power goes too far. The Supreme Court overturned key parts of Roosevelt’s agenda, and when he responded by trying to pack the court with friendlier judges, the Senate stood in his way, effectively ending the New Deal.

When the administration of Richard Nixon (28th on the list) was found abusing the power of the government to spy on and sabotage political “enemies,” the courts, Congress and the free press took actions that forced him to resign.

We will see whether the Trump presidency is one in which more power is consolidated in the executive branch, or if other institutions regain the authority they used to have. When it comes to the checks and balances of our government, change is the only constant.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2mcXom1

The Daily Hampshire Gazette (Mass.), Feb. 17, 2017

The journey has been arduous for the family of three Iraqis expected to begin their resettlement in the Massachusetts city of Northampton last weekend.

After two years in a Turkish refugee camp, a 56-year-old widow and her two adult sons endured further uncertainty when President Donald Trump three weeks ago signed an order banning travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq, from entering the U.S.

The Iraqi family’s way here was cleared when federal court rulings suspended Trump’s ban, and they were scheduled to arrive at Bradley International Airport on Friday night.

There will be different challenges now as the Iraqi Kurds begin the next chapter of their journey, including finding housing suitable for the woman, who is disabled by polio.

Their way will be eased by a welcoming community in Northampton which has been preparing since last year for the arrival of the first of 51 refugees eventually expected to settle in the Valley. (The first of those, three members of a family from Bhutan, arrived Thursday and will live with relatives in Westfield.)

The Iraqi family will be supported by a “circle of care” drawn from the congregation at the Edwards Church of Northampton, whose members have been learning Arabic and researching Iraqi culture. They were told just a week ago that the refugees would arrive this weekend.

“This has been quite a sudden opportunity for everyone,” says Chris Hjelt, co-leader of the Edwards Church group. “Our main job is to provide emotional and day-to-day support for the family. We will be sure that there’s food in the house, that there’s cooked food ready for them as they arrive.”

“As a faith community, this is just the type of thing to do- you do this for people,” says Nancy Flickinger, another member of the Edwards circle of care. “Especially refugees -they need all the help they can get.”

All told, some 180 people in Northampton have made a five-year commitment to support the new immigrants with transportation, teaching them English and generally helping acclimate them to life in America. A dozen more refugees- including seven from Syria, another country on Trump’s banned list -are close to being resettled here under the program overseen by the Catholic Charities Agency of Springfield.

The U.S. State Department approved Northampton for refugee resettlement, and a contract was formally signed late last year with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, parent agency of Catholic Charities. The Northampton City Council signaled its interest a year earlier when it unanimously approved a resolution declaring that refugees would be welcome in the community.

Earlier this month, when Trump’s travel ban appeared to derail the resettlement plan in Northampton, the City Council unanimously approved another resolution- this one condemning the “unconstitutional” executive order.

Ward 4 City Councilor Gina-Louis Sciarra was moved to tears in describing Trump’s “hateful, discriminatory and life-threatening act. These are no longer abstract people. These would be my children’s classmates. It’s unbelievably heartbreaking.”

Federal judges have blocked Trump’s order, saying it is discriminatory and that there is no evidence of terrorism committed in the U.S. by any citizens from the seven banned nations.

Trump plowed ahead Thursday, announcing that he will issue a new order next week, apparently targeting only potential immigrants who have not yet entered the U.S., but no longer including green-card holders already in America or those traveling outside the country who want to return.

“I will not back down from defending our country. I got elected on defense of our country,” Trump said at a White House news conference.

Meanwhile, in Northampton preparations continued to welcome a 56-year-old disabled woman and her sons, ages 20 and 26, who have been supporting her as they fled their war-torn country.

Annie Bissett, the other co-leader of the Edwards Church group that will support them, says, “Politically, it’s really important for me to stand up for what America is.”

The kind of compassion being shown in Northampton to make a home for resettled refugees is what keeps America great.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2lPYSSN

The Providence Journal (R.I.), Feb. 20, 2017

For years, U.S. presidents have complained that the members of NATO refuse to kick in as much as American taxpayers do in providing for Europe’s defense. Let us hope President Trump succeeds in his efforts to nudge them to pay their fair share. It’s time for these very wealthy nations to pull their weight.

NATO is a 28-nation alliance that was built to stop aggression from the Soviet Union in its tracks. An attack on any one member is regarded as an attack on all.

It was founded when Europe was still trying to dig out from World War II. Those days are gone. But NATO members have found it easier to play America for a sucker than to fund their own defense.

NATO members have pledged to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. The United States leads its members far and away by committing 3.6 percent of its GDP on defense, a good deal of it to protect the Western world from threats.

Besides the United States, only four countries have met their commitment to 2 percent: Britain, Poland, Estonia and Greece. That means 23 NATO members are failing to carry their weight. The list includes such economic giants as France (1.78 percent), Germany (1.19 percent) and Canada (.99 percent).

Of course, the temptation in democracies is to plow the money into voter-pleasing social services, counting on American taxpayers to provide for military defense. But with the U.S. national debt doubling in recent years and a great need for infrastructure improvements and social services here, that has to come to an end.

Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis delivered an ultimatum at a defense ministers meeting in Brussels: The United States will scale back its commitment to NATO unless other nations pull their weight.

“No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values,” Mattis said. “Americans cannot care more for your children’s future security than you do.”

Unfortunately, Trump’s foolish and blustering remarks during his campaign and before he took office tended to muddy this message, leaving Europe with the sense that he wants the United States to retreat from NATO, an idea that could only have the Russians salivating.

In an interview with the Times of London and the German newspaper Bild before he took office, Trump branded NATO obsolete. “It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror,” he said.

Not exactly. NATO forces aided Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are now assisting in the effort to bring down the Islamic State.

NATO is also vitally important in keeping Russia from expanding further into Europe, after seizing Crimea and parts of Ukraine. As Mattis said, “Events of 2014 were sobering.” A strong NATO must not permit Russia to expand its influence.

This re-balancing of NATO commitments cannot occur overnight. But the warning has gone out to European nations to shift their budgeting priorities if they want the United States to retain its full commitment to NATO. Since the United States remains the powerful military force on the globe, European states would be foolhardy to give up its protection for the sake of failing to kick in a little more to defend themselves.

That would only be fair. Let us hope the Trump administration holds firm on this issue.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2lQ1YWJ

The Concord Monitor (N.H.), Feb. 23, 2017

We were reminded this week of an old George Carlin quote that was printed on the Monitor’s Forum page not long ago: “Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another.” It’s true, especially that last part, and if you need evidence just ask a transgender person.

On Wednesday, Donald Trump withdrew federal protections for transgender students who want only to use the school bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. The move was driven by Trump’s evangelical base, which fallaciously argues that the Obama administration directive that granted those protections placed students in harm’s way. A spokesman for the conservative Family Research Council told the New York Times that “the federal government has absolutely no right to strip parents and local schools of their rights to provide a safe learning environment for children.” This is bigotry poorly disguised as states’ rights, and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise. Even Trump’s handpicked education secretary, Betsy DeVos, seemed to recognize it as a civil rights, not states’ rights, issue- or at least she did until Trump gave her a choice between her own principles and his. Judging by the speed in which she returned to lockstep, it was an easy decision.

In New Hampshire, lawmakers are attempting to go in the opposite direction of Trump’s White House by proposing a bill that would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. As it stands, it is illegal in New Hampshire to discriminate based on age, sex, race, color, marital status, physical or mental disability, religious creed or national origin. “Gender identity” clearly belongs on the list, and passage of House Bill 478 should be a slam-dunk. But here is what those who want to protect the transgender community from bigotry are up against: One woman who testified against the bill said she would be “too frightened to use a public bathroom” if she “knew there could be a man in there.” That is a tired argument based on an irrational premise, yet somehow it is given legitimacy every time such a bill is debated. And then there was the therapist from Texas who testified that the bill attempts to “redefine what it means to be human.” We couldn’t disagree more. The bill represents the finest, most advanced traits of humanity: empathy, compassion, fairness and goodwill.

Day after day, Trump proves that as a society we haven’t learned to care for one another. State lawmakers have the opportunity to make that a little less true.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2l5lERP

The Times-Argus (Vt.), Feb. 22, 2017

Neil Gorsuch, nominee for the Supreme Court, has been working to win the support of Democratic senators whose votes he will need to overcome a filibuster blocking his confirmation. It is called a charm offensive. With the guidance of former senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, he has been touring Senate offices, chatting up senators and trying to persuade them he will not be a tool of President Donald Trump.

Unfortunately for Gorsuch, Trump and the Republican leadership of the Senate have poisoned the well, and as charming as Gorsuch may be, it is far from clear that a sufficient number of Democrats can be persuaded to join the Republicans in confirming him.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, has not been persuaded. Leahy has found Trump’s attacks on the judiciary profoundly offensive- both his demeaning remarks about the judge who rejected Trump’s anti-Muslim travel ban and the racist remarks demeaning the Mexican-American judge presiding over the Trump University fraud case.

Leahy notes that Trump promised to nominate a justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade, abolishing women’s reproductive rights. If the nomination of Gorsuch follows from that promise, then Leahy reasons that women’s rights are in serious jeopardy from Trump’s choice. Trump also promised to select his nominee from a list approved by conservative interest groups. In Leahy’s view, that means Gorsuch’s independence is compromised by virtue of the president who chose him.

Gorsuch sought to allay fears among senators that he might not fully appreciate the need for an independent judiciary. He called Trump’s attacks on the judiciary “disappointing” and “demoralizing.” Trump’s anti-constitutional remarks thus gave Gorsuch a reason to distance himself from Trump, which could have the effect of allaying the concerns of some Democrats.

There is another basis for Democratic resistance to Gorsuch. Sen. Jeff Merkeley, a Democrat from Oregon, has described how the Republicans’ decision last year not to grant a hearing to President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee means that, in seeking to place Gorsuch in that seat, Republicans are attempting to steal the seat. He says the Democrats should not let them get away with it.

Republican inaction on the nomination of Merrick Garland last year was an unprecedented abdication of their constitutional responsibility. In Merkeley’s view, it should not earn them the right to name their own nominee to the high court.

Gorsuch has tried to ease the worries of senators such as Republican Susan Collins of Maine, who reportedly pressed him on whether his judicial approach included a respect for precedent.

Conservative judges always face this question. The precedent of settled law ordinarily demands deference from justices who understand that frequent changes in the law, in response to fluctuating personnel on the court, could unsettle the nation. Thus, senators such as Collins or Leahy, who believe Roe v. Wade to be an important bulwark supporting women’s rights, like to hear from nominees that they respect precedent. It suggests that despite their own anti-abortion views they will let settled law stand.

Chief Justice John Roberts assured senators during his hearings that he respected precedent, but he has been happy to overturn precedent in a radical way when he saw a need. He has not done so on abortion. It’s impossible to know what Gorsuch would do on abortion rights, even if he says he respects precedent. That Trump said he would nominate a judge willing to overturn Roe v. Wade does not help his case.

Leahy has not said he will vote against Gorsuch. Rather, he has said the nominee should get a thorough hearing during which his record will be closely scrutinized.

A few Democratic senators who will be running in conservative states in 2018 may feel pressure to back the Gorsuch nomination. Leahy is not one of them, and it would be surprising if he saw the need to back Gorsuch.

Republicans have established that they do not think it is a great disaster for the court to consist of only eight justices. Leahy and other Democrats ought to hold out until Trump nominates a centrist judge acceptable to both sides, someone like Merrick Garland.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2lwPwtQ