Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
June 18
The Washington Post on a report that longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone met with a Russian national who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton:
Hardly a day goes by in which President Trump fails to call the Russia probe a “witch hunt.” Yet barely less frequent are the reminders of his damaged credibility on the subject. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is conducting an essential inquiry into a foreign effort to influence U.S. elections, amid increasingly worrying signs of Trump team contacts with Russians.
The Post’s Manuel Roig-Franzia and Rosalind S. Helderman reported Sunday that Roger Stone, a longtime Trump confidant, met in May 2016 with a Russian national identified as Henry Greenberg who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton. Mr. Stone was not a formal member of the Trump campaign, but Michael Caputo, who arranged the meeting, was. Mr. Caputo and Mr. Stone did not mistake Mr. Greenberg’s nationality: After the meeting, Mr. Caputo asked Mr. Stone in a text, “How crazy is the Russian?” Mr. Stone responded that Mr. Greenberg wanted “big” money.
Mr. Caputo and Mr. Stone now claim Mr. Greenberg might have been part of an FBI sting operation. Even if that were so, it could not excuse what we now know about their behavior. First, they agreed to meet with a Russian offering dirt on their political opponents. As with the Trump Tower meeting between a Russian-government-connected lawyer and senior Trump campaign officials, the very willingness to solicit campaign dirt from foreign sources is its own indictment. They should have called the FBI instead.
Second, Mr. Stone, Mr. Caputo and the Trump team all now are revealed to have spoken falsely about the matter. A Trump spokeswoman insisted a year and a half ago that no one on the campaign had contact with Russians. In a Post interview last year, Mr. Stone said : “I didn’t talk to anybody who was identifiably Russian during the two-year run-up to this campaign. I very definitely can’t think of anybody who might have been a Russian without my knowledge. It’s a canard.”
And Mr. Caputo said last July: “I spent my time in front of the (House Intelligence) Committee detailing the fact that I had no contact with Russians, that I never heard of anyone with the Trump campaign talking with Russians, that I was never asked questions about my time in Russia, that I never even spoke to anyone about Russia, that I never heard the word ’Russia,’ and we did not use Russian dressing.” Given the updated record, this comment suggests he may have lied under oath to Congress.
Mr. Caputo and Mr. Stone claim they forgot their interactions with Mr. Greenberg, which is hard to credit given how they would likely have prepared for their congressional testimony. Which raises a more concerning question: Why would they conceal this meeting?
Online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/
___
June 18
The Chicago Tribune on the World Health Organization designating compulsive video gaming as a mental health disorder:
The World Health Organization has a lot on its plate these days. Ebola’s made a comeback in central Africa. There are still parts of the world where polio has yet to be rubbed out. The agency is looking into the beginnings of a cholera outbreak in Cameroon, and continues the fight against malaria in parts of Latin America. Next up for the world’s leading health agency? Um, video games.
The agency has just designated compulsive video gaming as a mental health disorder, adding it to the International Classification of Diseases, the WHO’s official list of medical conditions. WHO officials are calling the malady “Gaming Disorder.” The goal of the new classification: better awareness among governments, health care providers and families about the risks and ramifications of compulsive video gaming.
It would be easy to write off the agency’s decision as a nanny-group attempt to slap a label onto behavior that experts - always, experts - deem to be bad for us. Equating late nights on Minecraft with getting hooked on vodka or blackjack? Really?
But underlying the agency’s declaration is an important reminder about addiction.
It’s not that every kid, or even most kids, glued to gaming screens suffer from obsessive/compulsive Grand Theft Auto. In fact, WHO researchers say gaming disorder would apply to just 3 percent of all video game players.
But no matter what form it takes, an addiction corrodes connections to family, friends, work and much more. A line of cocaine, another double whiskey, the next spin of the wheel - alienates people from one another. With the lure of the display screen so prevalent today - the ceaseless barrage of emails, tweets, texts, Snapchats and, yes, games - some people lose sight of the richness of life beyond pixels.
That’s why a group of former Silicon Valley software developers and behavioral scientists are urging all of us to focus on “digital wellness.” The Washington Post recently reported on the group’s “digital wellness movement,” and on the backbone of that effort - the creation of apps that allow users to keep track of their screen time. Many of us might spend less time fixated by our phones if we knew that so much of our day was devoted to scrolling and tapping.
“I’m not saying that technology is inherently bad,” Duke University behavioral researcher Nick Fitz told the Post. As part of the digital wellness movement, Fitz created an app that groups smartphone notifications into batches delivered just three times daily - morning, afternoon and evening. “People should be conscious of how they’re using (digital activity),” he said, “and how it’s using them.”
The WHO designation is a cri de coeur to all of us for screen-time vigilance. The technology already exists to monitor usage of apps, video games and downloads, and to apply parental controls. Like everything else in life, digital wellness asks for moderation. Keep that in mind the next time your Candy Crush session hits the four-hour mark.
Online: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
___
June 19
The Los Angeles Times on the U.S. Supreme Court choosing not to deal with gerrymandering:
After raising expectations that it would finally deal with the harm caused by partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court on Monday essentially said: “Never mind.” It was an exasperating abdication of responsibility by the court, which should have used the cases before it to strike a blow against the time-dishonored practice of drawing legislative lines to favor the party in power.
Along with many Americans, we had strongly hoped that the court would rule that the Constitution prohibits the unfair rigging of congressional and legislative electoral maps in an effort to entrench one party and weaken another. Such a ruling would have struck a long overdue blow for representative government and put an end to a system that dilutes votes, makes elections less competitive and allows candidates to win seats they would not have won otherwise. Political gerrymandering exacerbates political polarization and denies Americans their right to full participation in the political system.
It is a cynical and undemocratic - but not yet illegal - process that is engaged in by both parties and which is only likely to be solved by the courts.
Sadly, instead of taking the issues on squarely, the court disposed of two cases - one from Wisconsin and one from Maryland - on narrow procedural grounds. The anti-climactic outcome may be an example of principled judicial restraint, but it may also reflect continued agonizing by Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote is pivotal on this issue.
In the Wisconsin case, Democratic voters had challenged a legislative map that was obviously drawn by Republicans to maximize their influence. But, writing for the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the individual plaintiffs hadn’t proved the sort of injury required to have standing to sue because they hadn’t demonstrated that their votes in their individual districts had been diluted.
In Maryland, it was Republican voters challenging a congressional district drawn by Democrats that led to the defeat of a longtime Republican incumbent. In an unsigned opinion, the court said that the plaintiffs waited too long to seek an injunction seeking to block an election using the 2011 district lines.
For reformers, the greatest consolation in Monday’s rulings was a concurring opinion in the Wisconsin case by Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan provided a blueprint for how plaintiffs in that case and others might prevail in the future.
Kagan noted that, while the court was right to insist that voters show an injury based on the composition of their individual districts, they could still make use of statewide evidence and seek a statewide remedy. She also noted that standing requirements might be different if gerrymandering were challenged as a violation of the right of association under the 1st Amendment, an idea that Kennedy has entertained.
Eventually, Kagan suggested, the time would come when courts would tell partisan officials to “stop degrading the nation’s democracy.” Monday should have been that day.
Online: http://www.latimes.com/
___
June 20
China Daily on the United States announcing that it was withdrawing from the United Nations Human Rights Council:
In yet another example of the go-it-alone stance embraced by the Donald Trump administration, the United States announced on Tuesday that it was withdrawing from the United Nations Human Rights Council, which, since it was founded in 2006, has played an important role in promoting a variety of human rights issues.
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley described the council as “cesspool of political bias” and cited the council’s “disproportionate focus and unending hostility toward Israel” as the major reason for the US exit.
However, her remarks merely serve as a reminder of her harangue after the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn the United States’ bias toward Israel when it announced it would move its embassy to Jerusalem, in disregard of UN resolutions.
The US would be happy to rejoin the council, Haley suggested, but only if it adopts the reforms demanded by the US. One of which is that the council abolish its special agenda item which condemns human rights abuses in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.
And despite all the huffing and puffing by Haley and other US officials to justify the move, there is no hiding the fact that the timing of the announcement comes after the UN high commissioner for human rights criticized the US administration for separating children from their parents who illegally cross the border with Mexico, calling the practice “unconscionable”.
The US move once again highlights the autocratic desires of the Trump administration, which, while claiming it does not want to leave the council, calls for it to reestablish its legitimacy by having a membership of which it approves.
It might not be a bad idea for the US to step aside and reflect on its behavior for a while, rather than criticizing others.
Few, if any, would claim that the Human Rights Council - or indeed the United Nations - is perfect, but the Trump administration cannot expect the UN bodies to act only in support of its objectives. They are supposed to be forums in which all members can have their voices heard.
Yet such dictates have become a tiresome refrain of the Trump administration. We hear them every time the administration pulls the US out of a multilateral pact. From the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate accord, to the global compact on migration and UNESCO, as well as the Iran nuclear deal, the message is the same, the US is only willing to play with others so long as it gets to write the rules of the game as it goes along.
It is an approach that will do little to serve its interests in the long run.
Online: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/
___
June 18
The New York Times on the United States separating families at the border:
Watching President Trump blame Democrats for his administration’s inhumane practice of snatching immigrant children from their parents at the border evokes nothing so much as an abusive husband blaming his wife for the beatings he delivers:
Why do you make me do this? I hate doing this! If you’d only be reasonable and listen to me, things wouldn’t have to be this way.
As anyone paying even minimal attention to politics knows, this immoral policy is not “the Democrats fault for being weak and ineffective with Boarder Security and Crime,” to quote one randomly spelled and capitalized tweet out of three to that effect in a little over 12 hours. It’s not really Republicans’ fault, either - at least not yet. Both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations began efforts to curtail the flow of people across the southern border, but neither went so far as to pursue a “zero tolerance” approach that tore apart families en masse. Congress has not passed any bills requiring the practice since then. This bit of nastiness belongs entirely to Mr. Trump - he has made a choice to torment undocumented families - and his attempt to pass the buck is dishonest and gutless. In other words, it’s what we’ve come to expect when Mr. Trump finds himself in an uncomfortable spot.
But the horror show at the border has gotten awkward for Mr. Trump. When the normally fawning Rev. Franklin Graham and other conservative religious leaders start publicly questioning this president’s inerrancy, you know Mr. Trump has really distinguished himself in his iniquity. Even the first lady felt moved to publicly distance herself from her husband’s cruelty, calling for a nation “that governs with heart.” Things have gotten so radioactive that, at a Monday briefing, the homeland security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, found it easiest to fall back on incoherence, alternating between blaming Congress for the situation and denying that any such situation existed.
…
The president’s preferred bill is a hard-line plan fathered by Representative Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. That bill would, among other steps, tighten asylum standards, slash legal immigration by 25 percent by ending both the diversity visa lottery and doing away with most family-based immigration, and consign Dreamers to permanent limbo by requiring them to re-up their status every three years. And, of course, the bill would fund The Wall. It all fits nicely with Mr. Trump’s tendency to talk about immigrants as though every one of them is an aspiring MS-13 foot soldier.
The president also has said - after some initial confusion on his part, according to the White House - that he’d be willing to sign the “compromise” plan hammered out in large part by House leadership. The Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018, much like Mr. Goodlatte’s bill, would tighten asylum standards, kill the diversity visa and fund The Wall. It would be somewhat more flexible about family-based immigration and make provisions for some Dreamers to ultimately apply for green cards. It would deal with the current policy of splitting up families by allowing for children to be kept in ICE detention along with their parents. Jailing families together: This is what is considered progress in the current immigration climate.
…
For the president, this vile border mess has become a test to see how hard he can squeeze lawmakers. The White House has made clear that it regards immigrant children as useful levers to force Congress to pass legislation. With the midterms looming, Republican House members are desperate to look like they’re making progress on this issue. Mr. Trump (whose administration is planning a fresh wave of immigration crackdowns in the coming months) is betting that, with enough pressure, he can bend enough nervous moderates to pass a bill through the House on a party-line vote - and maybe, if he keeps hammering away at Democrats, even squeak it through the Senate.
In reality, by making the immigration topic even more radioactive, Mr. Trump has made a rational legislative debate much less likely. House Democrats would be nuts, politically and on policy grounds, to swallow either of the unpalatably conservative plans they are being offered. And even if a bill passes the lower chamber, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is unlikely to let his troops take a politically noxious vote during a high-stakes election cycle. No matter how much Mr. Trump beats his chest, it’s hard to see any proposal becoming law any time soon.
Lawmakers should not negotiate with the president until he puts a stop to this “zero tolerance” insanity. Even if Republican members can’t be swayed by the immorality of the practice, they should look at this situation in terms of preserving their own power: If they let Mr. Trump roll them by using innocent children as hostages, he will learn the lesson that brutality is the key to getting what he wants.
Maintaining checks and balances can be tricky with any president, but that’s especially true when a commander in chief has authoritarian impulses. As made evident by his slavering over such brutal autocrats as Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, Mr. Trump believes that effective leadership is all about crushing anyone who stands in your way, collateral damage be damned. If lawmakers aren’t willing to stand up to him in a case where justice and public sentiment are so clearly on their side, they might as well hand him the keys to the Capitol right now.
Online: https://www.nytimes.com/
___
June 19
The Wall Street Journal says President Donald Trump is escalating a tariff war as senators shrink from debate:
Would Republicans in Congress stay mute if a President imposed income or sales taxes on U.S. industries on an arbitrary whim? We doubt it, so it’s dispiriting to see Senate Republicans let Donald Trump impose tens of billions of dollars in border taxes without so much as a vote of protest.
That’s the sad story as GOP Senators last week blocked a vote on Bob Corker’s amendment to reclaim at least some of the power to impose tariffs that Congress has ceded to Presidents. Perhaps Mr. Trump took the silence as assent because he is escalating. On Monday he threatened tariffs on up to $450 billion in Chinese goods, and financial markets are finally losing their foolish complacency. Shares in exporters vulnerable to retaliation like Boeing and Caterpillar fell more than 3.6% Tuesday.
Mr. Corker’s bipartisan measure would have required Congress to approve trade restrictions that Mr. Trump is imposing under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This is the law that lets a President impose more or less whatever tariffs he wants with an elastic definition of national security. Mr. Trump has used this open-ended authority to inflict his 25% tariff on steel and 10% on aluminum, and he’s threatening a 25% levy on imported cars under the same law. His new China tariffs are based on a different legal rationale (Section 301).
“I would bet that 95 percent of the people on this side of the aisle support intellectually this amendment,” Mr. Corker said on the floor with some acidity. “And a lot of them would vote for it if it came to a vote. But, no, no, no. ’Gosh, we might poke the bear’ is the language I’ve been hearing in the hallways.”
Mr. Corker is right that GOP leaders fear a Trump tweet in the middle of election season. Some of them are also griping in private that Mr. Corker has the luxury of bucking the President because he isn’t running for re-election. But Mr. Corker’s modest bill isn’t the political threat to Republicans. The growing damage from Mr. Trump’s trade war is.
By not allowing trade votes, Republicans are giving Mr. Trump free rein to impose tariffs that are doing substantial economic harm to many of their constituents. Farm state Senators deserve a chance to vote against tariffs that are spurring retaliation against U.S. agricultural exports of everything from pork to apples. So do Senators who represent U.S. manufacturers. The fear of a Trump tantrum is precluding an important fight about what the party of free enterprise supposedly believes.
The economic fallout may also hurt the GOP’s chances of holding the Senate in November. Democrats Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota) and Claire McCaskill (Missouri) are running against the tariffs as a way to oppose Mr. Trump and defend their states’ agricultural interests. The longer Republicans shrink from standing up to Mr. Trump’s protectionism, the more voters will conclude that Republicans in Congress are complicit in the damage.
Online: https://www.wsj.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.