040116WHT_A04

01

WASHINGTON — This campaign season has offered an unexpected form of reality television entertainment: Watching the light of discovery and calculation in Donald Trump’s eyes when he is presented with difficult policy issues, apparently for the very first time. Abortion is the current case in point. In the late 1990s, Trump supported the legality of partial-birth abortion. For a few hours on Wednesday, he endorsed criminal sanctions against women who have abortions. On this issue, Trump has been to the left of Harry Reid (who voted for a partial-birth abortion ban) and to the right of Mike Huckabee (who has consistently rejected punishment for women who have had abortions). And Trump is utterly incapable of defending either position. He shows no capacity for ethical reasoning — balancing claims about the moral and legal value of nascent life against claims about autonomy and choice. If that seems harsh, let’s go to the transcript of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews trying to corner Trump on criminalization. Asked if this is the logical consequence of pro-life views (it isn’t), Trump doesn’t advance an argument about religion, morality and the role of law (other than to call attention to Matthews’ Catholicism). At the outset, Trump observes that “people in certain parts of the Republican MICHAEL GERSON | WASHINGTON POST Party and conservative Republicans would say, ‘Yes, they should be punished.’” Trump eventually embraces what he thinks a social conservative would say. In fact, this is not the pro-life position. It is the left’s stereotype of the prolife position. “No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion,” responded Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life. “This is against the very nature of what we are about. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.” Trump ended up hurting the pro-life cause by reviving a stereotype of harshness. And it is part of a pattern. In the immigration debate, the restrictionist side makes some serious arguments for prioritizing control of the border and for an immigration system that puts greater emphasis on skills. I generally don’t find such arguments compelling, but they are worth debating. Trump has not, however, made this case in any serious or systematic way. Instead, he has embraced an anti-immigrant caricature. Illegal immigrants, he says, are disproportionately “criminals” and “rapists.” The Mexican government is purposely sending criminals across the border. When two Trump supporters beat up a homeless Hispanic man in Boston, Trump called them “passionate.” He retweeted that Jeb Bush “has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife.” When Trump eventually loses — as he certainly will in the primaries, at the convention or the general election — the movement to restrict immigration will be left as a stereotype of exclusion and bigotry. Trump has had a similar, malignant influence on debates concerning the war against terrorism. There is no doubt that America and Europe face a heightened threat from returning Islamic State fighters, and from homegrown terrorists inspired by the Islamic State. Additional measures will be required — in the Middle East and at home — to pre-empt these threats. But Trump has chosen to inhabit a cruel and counterproductive parody of toughness. He calls for banning all Muslim immigrants. He would conduct the war against terrorism with war crimes, such as killing the families of terrorists. He calls Syrian refugees fleeing violence the “ultimate Trojan horse.” He entertains the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Islamic State — which would, of course, also kill everyone the Islamic State oppresses. This stereotype of strength actively undermines the war against terrorism by alienating Muslim allies and cultivating mistrust in Muslim communities. For many of Trump’s supporters, this extreme and unpredictable use of language is part of the appeal. He doesn’t employ the careful words of a politician. He is so appealingly unprepared. So refreshingly ignorant. So disarmingly half-baked. But the durability of Trump’s appeal creates a conundrum for many Republicans. For decades, some of us have argued that the liberal stereotype of Republicans as extreme, dim and intolerant is inaccurate and unfair. But here is a candidate for president who fully embodies the liberal stereotype of Republicans — who thinks this is the way a conservative should sound — and has found support from a committed plurality of the party. If the worst enemies of conservatism were to construct a Frankenstein figure that represents the worst elements of right-wing politics, Donald Trump would be it. But it is Republicans who are giving him life. And the damage is already deep. Michael Gerson’s email address is michaelgersonwashpost.com. 4A OPINION FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2016 | WEST HAWAII TODAY LETTERS | YOUR VOICE Keep fighting for the voiceless It is with much angst and sorrow that this past week two legislative bills, HB 1592 and HB 2460, were not advocated by the chair of the Judiciary Committee and died before further review was instigated to become law to protect our animals from cruel chaining, tethering and of locking them in cages and kennels. I am speaking for myself and for the thousands of other animal advocates, here on the Big Island and throughout all of Hawaii that we will never stop pushing for the eradication of the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs (and cats). Never. It is time to move into the 21st century. Hundreds upon hundreds of agencies in Oregon, Illinois, Texas, and New York lead the nation in advocating for animals. Hawaii falls pathetically and poorly way behind. Perhaps it is now time to take the blinders off and get moving, legislators. We elected you, now prove your worth to us. Barbara Hussey Kailua-Kona No to Kukuihaele Park plans No one has been able to explain to me why the county is so determined to do this proposed park project. The Kukuihaele community is dead set against it and it doesn’t make sense either environmentally or practically to build a playground so far from the schools it is meant to serve. There are places in Honokaa town much better suited for the project. I live in Waimea so it doesn’t affect me except that my tax dollars are being spent on an ill-advised project which, as the West Hawaii paper mentioned, will end up being much more expensive than we’ve been led to believe. It causes me to wonder just who might be expecting to benefit. Mare Grace Waimea Dear Mr. Saunders … Your sanctimonious diatribe of March 23 was quite astonishing. Wow! You actually said you put away your professionalism (which would be what?) and definitely your manners! You were ranting and raving about a natural occurrence we put up with here (vog) … thank your for your explanation of its composition, which most of us are quite aware of and we decide to live here in spite of it because we love the island. What this has to do with leaf blowers made me consider you are a bit out of touch with reality. What Mr. Nelson rightfully was complaining about (and I have no idea who Mr. Nelson is, by the way) was the dust. I would like to add to that: noise contamination by mowers, blowers, weed wackers, air contamination by their exhausts (diesel/gasoline), and followed by fertilizers and Roundup contaminating the soil and the water. Seems California is always a step ahead of everybody else and prohibited leaf blowers, which is a good thing for their residents. I love the last paragraph of your letter: “In closing please keep your opinions to yourself, you will be less embarrassed this way.” Dear Mr. Saunders, this is perfect! It totally applies to you! Christa Wagner Kailua-Kona Trump: the liberal stereotype of GOP MY TURN | MICHAEL FLAHERTY Keauhou Bay project another DNLR disaster After reading the article about adding mooring sites in Keauhou Bay in West Hawaii Today, I couldn’t help but wonder why the DLNR would involve themselves in yet another controversy of their own making. I’m not speaking of the failed high speed ferry, the overlooked studies that may doom the instillation of the Thirty Meter Telescope in Hawaii that cost taxpayers millions of wasted dollars, now their attempting to crowd seven more mooring sites into tiny Keauhou Bay — a body of water that suffered a bulk of the Hawaiian tsunami damage from the 2011 Japanese earthquake. Not only are these moorings vulnerable to natural occurrences but crowding seven additional 40- to 50-foot commercial boats into this bay represents a danger to all recreational users, the additional boats also increase the threat of fuel pollution. Do we as a community really want to spent more than $700,000 to provide an additional seven mooring sites? Having been a paddler for the last 10 years, I have observed that the existing moored boats have been good stewards to the bay. What is the DLNR planning to do with them, grandfather them in, or have them participate in a lottery to secure their mooring sites? It appears to me that allowing a change in Keauhou Bay will only result in the net gain of seven new mooring sites and the net loss of wasted taxpayer’s money, additional oil pollution, and a greater likelihood of a swimmer or diver being killed by a boat propeller. In the last 10 years we have read in the newspaper about projects that the DLNR has managed that failed to go forward because they missed deadlines or their failure to follow the law. What I haven’t read is anyone in DLNR management ever being held accountable for these costly oversights. Please don’t let this happen to Keauhou Bay! Please call the governor’s Kona office at (808) 327-4953, and tell them that you’re not in favor of the DLNR’s plan to damage our beautiful Keauhou Bay. The community has already spoken last year, when meetings and petitions were submitted to the governor’s office and DLNR opposing to any additional mooring sites in Keauhou Bay. Michael Flaherty is a resident of Kailua-Kona My Turn opinions are those of the writer and not of West Hawaii Today. Tell us about it Do you have a story idea or news tip? Is there a community problem that has not been addressed? Do you know someone unique, whose story should be shared and enjoyed with the rest of the community? We want to know. Call the West Hawaii Today newsroom at 930- 8600 or news@westhawaiitoday.com and share the information with our readers. It’s our community — and we care. Letters policy Letters to the editor should be 300 words or less and will be edited for style and grammar. Longer viewpoint guest columns may not exceed 800 words. Email or address letters to: EDITOR WEST HAWAII TODAY PO BOX 789 KAILUA-KONA HI 96745 EMAIL: LETTERS@WESTHAWAIITODAY.COM


01
To see the actual publication please follow the link above