A14
R
FGHIJ Suing Arizona
an independent newspaper EDITORIALS
A A lawsuit is just a start on accepting immigration responsibility.
S A MATTER of policy, President Oba- ma was right earlier this year to crit- icize a harsh new immigration law in Arizona as “misguided.” On Tuesday, the Justice Department was right to
challenge it as a matter of law. The Arizona legislation, which was signed in
April and scheduled to go into effect at the end of this month, requires police officers to check the immigration status of those who are lawful- ly stopped if there is “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. The law also makes it a crime for undocumented workers to seek employment and authorizes private citi- zens to sue state agencies that do not enforce the law. States are free to determine most laws and policies within their borders — even if the re- sults are reprehensible and shortsighted. What they cannot do is pass laws that trump or ignore the federal government. The Justice Depart- ment suit, filed in Phoenix federal court, cor- rectly calls Arizona on this breach, noting that the Constitution and Congress have vested the federal government — not the states — with ex-
clusive authority to establish immigration and nationality laws. The Obama administration ar- gues convincingly that allowing states to set their own policy toward immigration could harm U.S. foreign policy and lead to highly dis- parate treatment of immigrants from state to state. It’s easy to understand the frustration of peo- ple in Arizona who decided to take matters into their own legislative hands. Congress for years has ignored practical realities and succumbed to xenophobia and fear-mongering to derail ef- forts to craft sensible immigration reforms. It’s fine to claim a right to “preempt” state law, but that right comes with a responsibility to do the job. The federal government has improved bor- der security; now it needs to provide a pathway for citizenship for those who entered illegally but have otherwise been productive members of society. President Obama has promised to take up the challenge of immigration reform, but promising action while suing Arizona isn’t good enough. The White House and Congress need to step in to fill the void.
Reassurance diplomacy Hillary Clinton mends fences in Central Europe and the Caucasus. S
ECRETARY OF STATE Hillary Rodham Clinton spent the holiday weekend on what might be described as a makeup tour. In Central Europe and in the Caucasus, she
visited countries that the Obama administration has been accused of ignoring or undervaluing as it has sought to “reset” relations with Russia. Along the way, she delivered a speech on a cause — democracy promotion — that the administra- tion, and Ms. Clinton herself, have also appeared to play down. Though not a substitute for a consistent policy, this diplomacy of reassurance was useful. In Tbi- lisi, the secretary of state stood alongside Geor- gian President Mikheil Saakashvili— a favorite of the Bush administration who has yet to get a meeting with President Obama — and affirmed, “We are Georgia’s partner. We are Georgia’s sup- porter in both word and deed.” She added that the administration had made clear to Russia that it opposes the continuing occupation of Georgian territories and rejects Moscow’s claim of a sphere of influence in former Soviet republics such as Georgia. In Poland, where the Obama administration
created a stir last year by abruptly canceling a missile defense accord, Ms. Clinton signed an amended agreement with Defense Minister Ra- dek Sikorski, who said that his government “liked the new configuration better”— a statement that should undercut continuing Republican criti- cism of the shift. In Ukraine she expressed con-
tinued support for a “strategic partnership” with the newly elected government, despite its tilt toward the Kremlin. In her address to a meeting of the Community of Democracies in Krakow, Poland, Ms. Clinton rightly described civil society as a crucial compo- nent of “a free nation” and called attention to a “crisis”: “Governments around the world are slowly crushing civil society and the human spir- it.” She cited examples of repression in countries such as Cuba, Egypt and China, and she proposed modest but potentially helpful responses, includ- ing a new fund “to support the work of embattled NGOs [non-governmental organizations].” To her credit, Ms. Clinton followed up on her words when she visited Azerbaijan, a strategical- ly important energy producer with an autocratic government, meeting with civil society activists and publicly raising the cases of two imprisoned bloggers. Yet when she was asked at a news con- ference about the country’s human rights record, she offered the regime of Ilham Aliyev an un- deserved endorsement, saying that “we believe there has been a tremendous amount of progress in Azerbaijan.” As an Azeri journalist was quick to remind her, the assessment of human rights groups is just the opposite. The slip was perhaps understandable; Ms. Clinton was there, after all, to stroke a friend- ly regime. But such reassurance, however justi- fied, should not be delivered at the expense of honesty.
Under the influence Loosening an interest group’s grip on Montgomery County politics
won the lottery. The union, with the help of high- ly unusual cash “contributions” from some of its anointed candidates, sends out glossy, targeted mailings on their behalf. It places advertise- ments and yard signs. And it distributes thou- sands of its “Apple Ballots,” listing endorsed can- didates, to voters at polling stations on Election Day. Now the teachers union, known as the Mont-
I
gomery County Education Association, is going a step further: It’s organizing a poll and inviting its favorite candidates to append their own ques- tions. If the trend continues, union-backed office-seekers won’t have to bother campaigning at all, or even leaving the house. The MCEA will take care of everything. For ethically tone-deaf candidates in tight
races, the temptation may be strong to play the union’s game and write checks to participate in the MCEA’s campaign on their behalf. For much less than it would cost them to arrange mailing and polling on their own, candidates get profes- sional campaign assistance and a major leg up on their opponents. In the case of the mailings and advertisements, candidates are asked to “contribute” up to $6,000 to the union to help defray the cost of printing and distribution — a rare example of candidates giving money to an interest group rather than vice versa. In the case of the poll, candidates pay the pollster directly. Both services are rendered at cut-rate prices and can save candidates many thousands of dollars. But in both instances, the democratic system in the county is distorted — and risks being cor-
N MONTGOMERY COUNTY, candidates for public office who have received the teachers union’s endorsement ahead of this fall’s Democratic primaries must feel as if they’ve
rupted — in the same way: A single special inter- est is taking over critical parts of political cam- paigns. In the process, candidates become in- debted to an interest group that will seek contract concessions and other benefits worth tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dol- lars. Why can’t the teachers union do what every other interest group does — raise money from its own membership to conduct political campaigns? No one doubts the importance of teachers to the vibrancy and success of any school or com- munity, and Montgomery’s schools are among the nation’s best. The issue here is different: whether a county whose fiscal health is as shaky as Montgomery’s can afford for its elected offi- cials to be in the thrall of one powerful union. In the recent past, that arrangement has translated into officials rubber-stamping unsustainable budgets and unaffordable contracts. The school system, which accounts for more than half of all county spending, devotes about 90 percent of its budget to salary and benefits. This year, a number of union-backed candi-
dates have stood up to MCEA by refusing to “contribute” to the union for the mailings or take part in the union-organized poll. Their motives vary. Some may find the union’s practices ethi- cally dubious; some are sending a message of fis- cal restraint; some may be reading the political tea leaves. In any case, it’s a salutary trend. Montgomery County, with nearly a million resi- dents, is a broad and varied place composed of scores of constituencies. If state and local elected officials become dependent on just one, they lose the ability to fairly balance competing interests. In the past, county politicians have lost sight of that basic principle.
ABCDE News pages:
BOISFEUILLET JONES JR., Chairman • KATHARINE WEYMOUTH, Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Vice Presidents
MARCUS W. BRAUCHLI Executive Editor
RAJU NARISETTI, Managing Editor ELIZABETH SPAYD, Managing Editor
SHIRLEY CARSWELL Deputy Managing Editor
Business and advertising:
STEPHEN P. HILLS, President and General Manager KENNETH R. BABBY, Chief Revenue Officer/GM, Digital
1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-6000
The Washington Post Company: DONALD E. GRAHAM, Chairman of the Board
Editorial and opinion pages: FRED HIATT
Editorial Page Editor JACKSON DIEHL
Deputy Editorial Page Editor
ROGER ANDELIN ...................................................................................... Technology BENJAMIN C. BRADLEE ................................................................................. At Large USHA CHAUDHARY.................................................................. Finance & Admin/CFO JAMES W. COLEY JR. ...................................................................................Production L. WAYNE CONNELL ...................................................................... Human Resources LEONARD DOWNIE JR. ................................................................................... At Large WENDY EVANS .......................................................................................... Advertising GREGG J. FERNANDES ..............................................................................Circulation JOHN B. KENNEDY ............................................................................................ Labor ERIC N. LIEBERMAN ...................................................................................... Counsel CHRISTOPHER MA ................................................................................ Development STEVE STUP .................................................................................. Digital Advertising
EUGENE MEYER, 1875-1959 • PHILIP L. GRAHAM, 1915-1963 • KATHARINE GRAHAM, 1917-2001 ——————
KLMNO Dunking on the Tea Party
Tea Party activist Rick Buchanan got his constitu- tional history exactly wrong when he stated that “the founding fathers were very afraid of a central government [“On the Fourth, it’s back to school,” news story, July 5]. On the contrary, the impetus for the new Constitution was a growing recognition of the unworkable weakness of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation and the threat posed by the local and special interests that dom- inated the state legislatures. James Madison was so concerned about actions by state legislatures that undermined liberty and the common interests of the nation that he proposed a federal veto power over state laws. When the Constitutional Conven- tion rejected that idea, Madison (as the historian Gordon S. Wood notes in his new book, “Empire of Liberty”) feared that the entire Constitution was doomed to failure. The convention did, however, adopt in Article I,
Section 10, an extraordinary list of powers that the states were forbidden to exercise. To Madison and the other framers, the much-strengthened central government created by the Constitution was an ur- gently needed counterweight to the “local prejudic- es” and “schemes of injustice” all too manifest in the state legislatures.
STEPHEN BUDIANSKY, Leesburg
Impressive commentary on the Tea Partyers by
Cadet Sam Goodgame in the On Leadership column of the July 4 Business section — it’s a great idea to ask West Pointers’ opinions on these issues. Cadet Goodgame convincingly represents one aspect of
DAYNA SMITH FOR THE WASHINGTON POST
Buttons for sale at a Tea Party educational event in Bealeton, Va.
Tom Toles is away.
When praising Winston Churchill’s rhetoric against Nazism [“Terror — and candor,” op-ed, July 2], Charles Krauthammer ignored a very im- portant lesson from Nazi history: that hatred and polarization based on religious stereotyping serve only to create an ugly, barbaric world. Yes, “jihadi barbarism” is a corruption of a faith
that millions cherish and draw inspiration from as they try to lead good, healthy, meaningful lives. These Muslims, whom Mr. Krauthammer patroniz- ingly refers to as “brave Muslims — Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghan” engaged in “a war between jihadi barba- rism and Western decency,” are actually finding strength in their faith, not in ideals of “Western de- cency,” to fight the barbarism unleashed on them. Indeed, concepts of “Western decency” are going to be of little meaning to the Afghan civilian whose family falls victim to “collateral damage” in front of his eyes.
So instead of egging on our elected leaders to adopt speech “dripping with loathing and con- tempt,” Mr. Krauthammer should appreciate their sagacity in shunning religious stereotypes. UZMAQURESHI, Gambrills
Charles Krauthammer’s op-ed column on terror- High bar for the highest medal
The July 1 news story about the Pentagon’s rec- ommendation of the Medal of Honor for a living sol- dier appealed to my sense of historical curiosity. But I was bothered by the comment of Defense Secre- tary Robert M. Gates that indicates a departure from an ethos that considered the medal sacrosanct. There is a poign- ant narration at the beginning of the film “The Manchu- rian Candidate”: “This nation jeal- ously guards its highest award for valor.” As well it should, especially considering past recipients. That jealousy should be, and surely is, shared by the sol- diers who fight the battles. I have no doubt
that there were un- counted valorous deeds performed by men and women in dusty sections of
The Medal of Honor
hell over the past nine years. If any of these deeds rise to the level of the Medal of Honor, the soldiers who performed them — be they alive or dead — should be recognized accordingly. Some historical perspective is useful. Adm. Er- nest King was appalled by what he believed was an overly generous handing out of medals in World War I, and, as chief of naval operations during World War II, had a policy of refusing to give awards for service performed in the normal line of duty. In Adm. King’s mind, only the extraordinary needed to be recognized — no exceptions. This echoes Adm. Chester W. Nimitz’s comment on the Marines at Iwo Jima: Uncommon valor was a common virtue. The veterans groups and Mr. Gates might want to
keep the lessons of the past in mind, lest they con- vince the public of the banality of uncommon valor, thereby sapping it of its virtue. C.F. MONTESANO, Arlington
Good cents: Free Metro parking
Looking at the discussion of free Metro park- ing on weekends [letters, July 1 and July 5], I should think that from the standpoint of an economist (or cost accountant), the parking lots represent a fixed, or “sunk,” cost. If free weekend parking encourages more Met- ro ridership, then that ridership should, in theo- ry at least, cover the cost of running the trains and related expenses (“variable” costs), with the excess revenue going to help defray the fixed cost. So, free weekend parking should make eco- nomic sense and be a good thing all the way around.
LEROY M. LAROCHE, Potomac A dim view of street lighting
I took a drive at 4 a.m. the other day to drop a friend at Dulles International Airport. As I drove along Route 28 in the predawn hours, I noticed multiple areas, such as the new Westfields in- terchange, with an excessive amount of street lighting. For a half a mile or so at these interchanges, the amount of lighting made it possible to drive with- out headlights. It’s not just Route 28; this is a prob- lem in lots of places. I have trouble believing that basic safety re- quires even half as much light as is being put out in many of these areas; therefore all that lighting is simply wasting money. State and local governments throughout the area are struggling to fund basic road mainte- nance, let alone new projects. They could start sav- ing money by turning off every other streetlight, instantly reducing maintenance and power costs by 50 percent, plus reducing carbon dioxide out- put and light pollution. If the lights were con- trolled by a timer, they could go even further and turn some of the remaining lights off after 2 a.m., when the roads are all but deserted. Cars have headlights for a reason; let’s use them. WESLEYGEORGE, Manassas
d
big government that I, for one, am pleased to help pay for. The Tea Partyers need to describe for us what our world would look like if they have their way. What will we have that we now don’t? And what will we lose? The idea of smaller, cheaper government is ap- pealing, but the reality needs a far more precise de- scription than they have provided. As Cadet Goodgame points out, part of leadership is the ability to describe the program. RALPH BENNETT, Silver Spring
Charles Krauthammer’s fighting words
ism and radical Islam missed the mark. I don’t see how implicating radical Islam helps us combat the problem of terrorism. Moreover, President Obama’s definition of “a loose network of violent extremists” is probably more accurate than the terms “jihadist,” “Islamist” or “Islamic terrorist” are. In Arabic, the word “jihad” simply means “strug-
gle,” or “striving in the way of Allah,” and this strug- gle is a religious requirement of Muslims. A jihadist — or mujahid, to use the correct grammatical con- struction — is someone who is engaged in this strug- gle. True, there are fanatical extremists who call themselves mujaheddin, but the term encompasses a much broader meaning. Using the term jihadist, therefore, would be a bit like blaming all New York- ers for the financial misconduct that occurred on Wall Street. The terms “Islamist” and “Islamic terrorist” suffer from similar ambiguities. I suspect this is part of the reason President Obama has been hesitant to use them. Another part, most probably, has to do with the fact that giving violent extremists one of the above-mentioned names is likely to stir up contro- versy and solve nothing. A rose, after all, by any oth- er name would smell as sweet. TYMCCORMICK, Amherst, Mass.
Time to freeze a Cold War myth
In his July 4 Outlook commentary, “Is it time for another conservative ascent?,” Rich Lowry pre- sented two constrasting scenarios of how Ronald Reagan “won the Cold War”: by “hewing to neo- conservative doctrine” or by “treating [the Soviet Union] with openness and engagement.” He con- cluded that it was both. The possibility that Rea- gan didn’t win the Cold War wasn’t even broached. Such is the emerging Republican myth, hammered out with the GOP’s usual single-minded, repetitive devotion. Here’s an alternate myth. The proximate cause of the Soviet Union’s collapse was its involvement in an intractable, unwinnable war in Afghanistan that was draining it of money, manpower, interna- tional prestige and the confidence of its own peo- ple. How did it so fatally overreach in 1979? Con- servative commentators at the time blamed the perceived weakness and fecklessness of the then- occupant of the White House. So the Cold War was actually won by the president who through blind luck or artful calculation lured the Soviets into the trap: Jimmy Carter. Ridiculous? Perhaps, but no more so than cred- iting Reagan. That America prevailed in the Cold War was the result of the policies of every presi- dent going back to Harry Truman. Enough of this preposterous myth of Ronnie the Giant Slayer. GARYNORTON, Charlottesville
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
dletters@washpost.com
Letters can be sent to
letters@washpost.com.
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52