<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
    xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
    <title>Michael Gerson</title>
    <category>Michael Gerson</category>
    <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/section/michael-gerson/feed/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://www.durangoherald.com/section/michael-gerson/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description>Stay informed with the latest breaking news, local stories, sports, business, weather, and community events from Durango, Southwest Colorado, and the Four Corners region.</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 18:52:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/michael-gerson-we-have-an-american-president-who-doesnt-understand-america/</link>
        <title>Michael Gerson: We have an American president who doesn’t understand America</title>
        <description>In a 2017 Oval Office conversation between Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the president did more than boast that the firing of FBI Director James Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. Trump also,...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2019 11:33:48 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">941849F0-16D8-0E9B-E053-0100007FF8EB</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – One of the puzzling aspects of Donald Trump’s hyper-nationalism is its consistent denigration of the nation itself. In a 2017 Oval Office conversation between Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the president did more than boast that the firing of FBI Director James Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. Trump also, according to a recent report in The Washington Post, appeared to White House officials to be “forgiving Russia for an attack that had been designed to help elect him,” while noting that America engaged in such election manipulation itself. Citing one former administration official, the Post article added: “The president and his top aides seemed not to understand the difference between Voice of America, a U.S.-supported news organization that airs in foreign countries, with Russian efforts to persuade American voters by surreptitiously planting ads in social media.” This is not the first time Trump has asserted a moral equivalence between American and Russian roles in the world. In his 2017 Super Bowl day interview with Fox News, he dismissed criticism of Vladimir Putin as a “killer” by musing: “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent?” If such a statement were made by an Ivy League college professor, conservatives would have had all their suspicions about the anti-American tendencies of tenured radicals confirmed. Yet, Republicans seem to have no problem rallying around a politician who looks at the Russian/American relationship and sees equal and opposite amorality. The assertion of moral equivalence between the Voice of America and Russian troll farms is particularly ignorant and galling. The VOA does actual newsgathering and journalism in countries without a free press. The Russians deliver lies on social media to encourage division and hatred among Americans. For all his flag waving, Trump seems to lack the instinct for patriotism. It is one thing – as the president does regularly – to throw people who work for him under the bus. This displays the absence of downward loyalty. But in his 2017 meeting with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, Trump effectively threw his country under the bus, endorsing the Russian perception of American hypocrisy on election tampering. This indicates a lack of upward loyalty. It doesn’t seem to matter to Trump that American “meddling” in foreign elections often consists of promoting regular and fair elections, encouraging the protection of minority rights and speaking up for press freedom. None of these objectives holds much appeal or urgency for Trump. He calls for the renewal of nationalism, but in a manner that has little to do with our national values. He wants us to take pride in blood and soil rather than in a set of universal ideals. His calls for loyalty are based on geography, not morality. He urges us to love America because it is powerful, and because it is ours, not because it is good. In this sense, Trump seeks to normalize American nationalism – to make it more like the Russian or Chinese varieties. He invariably defines national goals in terms of exercising military dominance, or controlling access to resources, or maintaining national sovereignty, or achieving trade surpluses. And he seems to view this as an expression of realism about the nature of power. America may claim to be a new order for the ages, but we kill people, too. We interfere with elections, too. Trump appears to find this kind of moral relativism liberating. A world without rules and ideals is a world without limits on his instincts and whims. This may be why he has offered praise for the leadership styles of Putin and Xi Jinping while generally ignoring democratic activists in Moscow or Hong Kong. Trump views himself as the embodiment of the national will rather than the steward of American ideals. His sympathies lie with the powerful because he imagines himself in their company. Despite this pretense, Trump manages to look small and silly on the global stage. He has been tricked and exploited again and again by North Korea’s murderous man-child. At the Helsinki summit last year, standing next to Putin, Trump was cringing and pathetic. When it comes to foreign policy, he is not sitting at the adult table. But the most alarming spectacle is this: an American president who doesn’t understand the meaning of America. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/michael-gerson-the-impeachment-process-is-inevitable/</link>
        <title>Michael Gerson: The impeachment process is inevitable</title>
        <description>This is effectively what happened when the White House released the readout from Donald Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. There is now no question that Trump asked the leader of a foreign country to investigate Joe...</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2019 05:33:07 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">93F03840-8C0D-0DA4-E053-0100007F4614</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – For the first time in American history, the president has pleaded guilty to an impeachable offense. This is effectively what happened when the White House released the readout from Donald Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. There is now no question that Trump asked the leader of a foreign country to investigate Joe Biden and his son – a request that was made in the context of a broader discussion of American aid to Ukraine. This was the use of American power and diplomacy for personal and selfish gain. It constitutes corruption. Impeachment may be inadvisable. The process may be conducted foolishly. It may feed a Republican thirst for revenge against a future Democratic president. It may motivate Trump’s base. The broad, American middle may switch to ESPN. All of this matters, especially if it increases the chances of Trump’s re-election. But it matters like a fate, not like a choice. In T.S. Eliot’s “Murder in the Cathedral,” a priest says of unfolding events, “Let the wheel turn.” Archbishop Thomas Becket later comments: “The fool, fixed in his folly, may think/ He can turn the wheel on which he turns.” No one in our unfolding drama can now turn the wheel on which they turn. Trump’s offense has given the partisan instincts of elected Democrats the added justification of principle. The whistleblower complaint has affirmed those concerns and expanded them. This makes the process of impeachment inevitable. Now the actors are merely choosing what roles they will play. Trump’s role is to push and push until he meets firm resistance to his abuse of power – something he has rarely experienced. Note that Trump’s call with Zelensky came during the denouement of the investigation of Russian influence. According to the readout, Trump says: “As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller.” Trump gloated about beating the charge that he conspired with a foreign government to win an election, during a call in which he proposed to conspire with a foreign government to win reelection. The man is immune to ethical instruction. And further, Trump thought releasing the readout of the call would somehow be exculpatory. He has spent so many years in the trash heap of corruption he can no longer recognize the stench. Because Trump tests boundaries of morality and legality, his defenders are, in effect, calling on Americans to ratify those changes. By all the evidence, Trump believes that politics, stripped of pretense, is the dirty, unethical pursuit of power, which is properly used to destroy your enemies. Republicans who defend or excuse him are providing permission for his redesign of public life. This is perhaps the saddest result of Trump’s corruption: turning good men and women into the bodyguards of a petty, cruel, lawless, would-be autocrat. Because Trump has chosen to be transparently corrupt, congressional Republicans cannot dispute the facts of the case (as they did during the Mueller investigation). They may still insist: No quid pro quo. But this is more of a rally chant than an argument. Trump’s request for foreign help to win the 2020 election was not like Belgium asking Uruguay for a favor. It was a global superpower asking a country dependent on American military aid – which had just been withheld in a “review” – for favors. Trump pointedly reminded Zelensky that “the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine.” In the transcript, Trump’s first request concerns the “CrowdStrike” investigation of the Democratic National Committee’s security breach during the 2016 campaign. Conspiracy theorists allege the inquiry was an elaborate hoax to fake a breach and the evidence is contained in a computer server somewhere in Ukraine. Evidently the president of the United States believes this as well. His request will be long remembered at the State Department as one of the most incomprehensible and asinine of American diplomatic history. Trump’s main request – a joint Ukrainian/U.S. Justice Department/Rudy Giuliani investigation of Biden’s falsely alleged role in preventing the Ukrainian prosecution of his son – is nearly as strange and specious. But it was made by the most visible representative of America, speaking in the name of the American people. The American people will ultimately decide if this disturbs or bores them. Whatever the outcome, the wheel has begun to turn. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/the-case-against-brett-kavanaugh-is-weakening/</link>
        <title>The case against Brett Kavanaugh is weakening</title>
        <description>What editor, looking to cut down an article containing a new allegation of collegiate penis exposure, would happen to remove the detail that the female object of said exposure has told friends she has no memory of it? Any sentient...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 05:33:26 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">933B35DA-44F8-683C-E053-0100007F7ED6</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – The decision by The New York Times to remove a key exculpatory fact from its recent article on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is such an incredible editing error that it raises the prospect that it might have been an ideological intervention. What editor, looking to cut down an article containing a new allegation of collegiate penis exposure, would happen to remove the detail that the female object of said exposure has told friends she has no memory of it? Any sentient editor would realize that the section containing this accusation would attract intense scrutiny. Nearly every other sentence in the piece was a more likely candidate for excision. But why would an ideologically motivated editor remove a fact that is contained in the book on which the article is based? This would be bias compounded by utter stupidity. It has not helped that the Times responded to the controversy with all the transparency of an embezzling politician. At first, the Times said it was proud of the “well-reported and newsworthy” piece. Then the authors of the article, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, blamed their editors for the cut on national television. And that the whole thing was “just an oversight.” And that the sentence was removed because it contained the name of the supposed victim. The last explanation assumes utter stupidity on the part of readers. If it is the policy of The New York Times not to reveal the names of possible sexual assault victims, why not just remove the name of the victim (who does not recall being a victim)? Why remove the whole sentence containing news about her not having any memory of the event? Whether the result of bias or incompetence, this is journalistic malpractice of the first order. And its happiest critic is Donald Trump. Whatever the initial plausibility of the case against Kavanaugh, it has grown weaker over time. The “previously unreported story” of exposure in the Times article is based on the accusations of one witness whom the authors did not interview and is disputed by the supposed victim herself. Support for Deborah Ramirez’s allegation of sexual exposure remains an unconvincing collection of partial memories and second-hand accounts. And the reported portions of the book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” do little to make Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation of attempted sexual assault more credible. Ford’s main character witness is her high school friend Leland Keyser. “We spoke multiple times to Keyser,” write Pogrebin and Kelly, “who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy. ‘I don’t have any confidence in the story,’ she said.” All of this leaves many of us in exactly the same place as before. We should take charges like these very seriously. But it should not be possible to destroy a person’s reputation on evidence so thin. Why does the campaign to discredit Kavanaugh continue with such intensity? Some critics may be concerned about campaign finance reform or the unitary executive. But the matter that provokes the most passion is abortion. “When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade,” Ford’s lawyer Debra Katz has said, “we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important: it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.” The goal, it seems, is to preemptively discredit an unfavorable court decision by putting what Katz describes as “an asterisk” next to Kavanaugh’s name. This strategy is one indicator of the unhealthy focus of our entire political system on Roe v. Wade. Because it touches on the deepest issues of autonomy and human dignity, the legal status of abortion is crucial. The problem comes when we see all politics through the lens of one issue. Many on the right justify support for Trump because his corruption and dehumanization are less important than saving lives from abortion. But it is a theory without a limiting principle. It would justify voting for some pro-life politician who is a child molester. Many on the left rationalize using Trump-like tactics against someone like Kavanaugh on the theory that preserving Roe justifies any means. If you can’t control the Supreme Court, trash it. Call the legitimacy of rulings by the court into question. The politics of personal destruction has merged with the politics of institutional destruction. But not all roads lead to Roe. And opposing it, or preserving it, does not justify every method. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/trumps-presidency-not-unfolding-its-unraveling/</link>
        <title>Trump’s presidency not unfolding, it’s unraveling</title>
        <description>With the whir of a helicopter engine in the background, Donald Trump veered from topic to topic with utter confidence, alarming ignorance, minimal coherence and relentless duplicity. President Vladimir Putin, he said, “made a living on outsmarting President Obama” –...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2019 05:33:15 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">90CB03B6-3835-0288-E053-0100007FDB1E</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – Historians studying the Trump presidency will have a prodigious amount of material that demands examination but defies explanation. The president’s Aug. 21, half-hour, South Lawn press availability deserves to be at the top of that list. With the whir of a helicopter engine in the background, Donald Trump veered from topic to topic with utter confidence, alarming ignorance, minimal coherence and relentless duplicity. President Vladimir Putin, he said, “made a living on outsmarting President Obama” – even though it is Trump who now urges a Russian return to the G-7 summit without any concessions on Putin’s part. On pursuing the trade war with China, Trump called himself the “chosen one.” This came within hours of retweeting the claim he is loved like “the second coming of God.” At some point, arrogance is so extreme that it can only be expressed in blasphemy. Trump accused the Danish prime minister of “blowing off the United States” because she scorned his own offensive musings on Greenland. “We treat countries with respect,” he said – except, presumably, the “s---hole” ones. Trump’s new immigration rule, he claimed, would “do even more” to bring migrant families together – though this togetherness, he failed to mention, would come by allowing the indefinite detention of migrant families. “I am the least racist person ever to serve in office,” said the man who is bold in his use of racist tropes. He joked again about being in office 10 or 14 years from now – appealing to people who find overturning the constitutional order a laugh riot. “Mental health,” Trump went on. “Very important.” Hard to argue with that. “Our 2nd Amendment will remain strong,” Trump promised, while previewing an effort to overturn that portion of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing birthright citizenship. Some parts of the Constitution, clearly, are more constitutional than others. Trump pledged the return of captured Islamic State fighters to Europe, one way or another. “If Europe doesn’t take them, I’ll have no choice but to release them in the countries from which they came, which is Germany, France and other places.” Did the president of the United States just threaten to release dangerous terrorists on the streets of our closest allies? Evidently. Of the wounded and grieving families Trump visited following recent mass shootings: “The love for me,” he boasted, “and my love for them was unparalleled.” And this was demonstrated by “hundreds and hundreds of people all over the floor.” No one draws a bigger crowd in an intensive care unit. After repeating an anti-Semitic trope about the disloyalty of Jews who vote Democratic, Trump insisted to a reporter, “It’s only anti-Semitic in your head.” But control over the plain meaning of English words is not a presidential power. And the charge of disloyalty is the essence of anti-Semitism. Seldom in presidential history has more nonsense been expressed with greater concision. Never would the interests of America have been better served by a louder helicopter. What to make of this? First, the Trump presidency is not just unfolding, it is unraveling. All narcissists believe they are at the center of the universe. But what happens when a narcissist is actually placed at the center of the universe? The chosen one happens. Trump is not just arguing for an alternative set of policies; he is asserting an alternative version of reality, in which resistance to his will is disloyalty to the country. Second, the president has systemically removed from his circle anyone who finds this appalling. Every president has the right to advisers who share his basic worldview. But Trump appears, on many topics, to have stopped taking advice altogether. His counselors are now flunkies. The proof of their loyalty is not found in the honesty of their opinions but in the regurgitation of his insanity. Third, the president is increasingly prone to the equation of the national interest with his personal manias. He is perfectly willing to threaten relations with Denmark – or to force the Israeli government into a difficult choice – if it serves his tweeted whims. This approach is more characteristic of personal rule than democratic leadership. Self-worship is inconsistent with true patriotism. Trump’s promotion of moral and political chaos puts other members of his party in a difficult position. Difficult, but not complicated. It is their public duty to say that foolish things are foolish, that insane things are insane, that bigoted things are bigoted. On growing evidence, their failure to do so is abetting the country’s decline into farce. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/civility-doesnt-just-work-it-also-makes-us-noble/</link>
        <title>Civility doesn’t just work, it also makes us noble</title>
        <description>Seated next to Neuhaus was a clean-cut, nicely dressed, well-spoken young man. Following the speech, the young man said of Falwell: “He’s a very great man, and often he’s very vulgar. I would be more hopeful about America if we...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2019 05:33:07 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8ABFE3AA-35FF-27CF-E053-0100007F7449</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – In his influential 1984 book, “The Naked Public Square,” Richard John Neuhaus recalled attending an event featuring the late Jerry Falwell Sr., who delivered an angry excoriation of liberals and other supposed enemies of freedom. Seated next to Neuhaus was a clean-cut, nicely dressed, well-spoken young man. Following the speech, the young man said of Falwell: “He’s a very great man, and often he’s very vulgar. I would be more hopeful about America if we had more vulgarity like his.” In Neuhaus’ account, the young man went on to paraphrase (with a smile) a quote attributed to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels – “When I hear the word civility I reach for my gun” – and to argue: “Their way of doing things means they continue to be in control. We mean to take over – nicely, if possible, but if that’s not possible, well, civility is not the highest of the virtues.” This argument is evergreen on the left and right, because it is less of an argument than a temptation – the temptation to see politics only as a matter of achieving certain policy outcomes, rather than the expression of certain underlying moral commitments. Why value civility if it doesn’t immediately serve the cause of virtuous change? Why honor pluralism if it doesn’t result in the triumph of our version of good and true? The debate on these questions has been recently renewed by a group of bright, articulate and morally adolescent social conservatives who have adopted their own version of being “woke.” Politics, they seem to have discovered during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, is war. And war is hell. Which makes civility a form of disarmament. The objective of politics, in this view, is not the building of coalitions around the common good. It is, as conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari describes it, “defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square reordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.” This viewpoint may be perennial, but it is also perfectly suited to the Trump era: Persuasion, compromise and politeness are for losers. Do unto others as they have done unto you. And worse. Those disturbed by this attitude but not entirely sure why should read Peter Wehner’s new book, “The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump.” Wehner – who is the successor to Neuhaus in the moral vigor and clarity of his arguments – makes a strong case for civility as an indispensable democratic virtue. First, according to Wehner, “civility is central to citizenship.” It is the strong force that makes civic cohesion possible. “When civility is stripped away,” he argues, “everything in life becomes a battlefield, an arena for conflict, an excuse for invective. Families, communities, our conversations and our institutions break apart when basic civility is absent.” Second, a commitment to civility is an expression of our respect for other human beings. “Undergirding this belief for many of us is the conviction that we’re all image-bearers of God – ‘a work of divine art’ in the words of theologian Richard Mouw – which demands that we respect human dignity.” Third, civility allows us to discover the elements of truth that may reside in someone else’s version of it. We should not assume, says Wehner, that “those who hold different views than we do have nothing to teach us.” Civility is one expression of an appropriate epistemological humility. This does not mean that truth is relative. But it does mean that elements of the truth are more broadly distributed than we sometimes imagine. None of this, in Wehner’s argument, means that people should lack conviction or passion. “One can be a vigorous and forceful advocate for justice without being uncivil,” he argues. Wehner cites Martin Luther King Jr. as an example and quotes Yale professor Stephen L. Carter: “The true genius of Martin Luther King, Jr. was not his ability to articulate the pain of an oppressed people – many other preachers did so, with as much passion and as much power – but in his ability to inspire those very people to be loving and civil in their dissent.” Those who see politics only as a method to defeat enemies and advance favored aims have lost sight of something important. We should honor democratic values such as civility, not only because they make our system function, but because they make our system noble. We should treat our fellow citizens with respect because we share a role in, and responsibility for, an experiment in self-government that remains the last, best hope of Earth. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/harriet-tubman-will-always-have-the-last-laugh/</link>
        <title>Harriet Tubman will always have the last laugh</title>
        <description>Even so, the Trump administration’s recent snubbing of Harriet Tubman in favor of extending Andrew Jackson’s run as the face on the $20 bill is particularly revealing, and especially damning. It is revealing for who is being kept on the...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 05:33:34 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8A6EB96D-5191-3371-E053-0100007F9FC3</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – When Donald Trump invites historical comparisons, it is usually to his detriment. Even so, the Trump administration’s recent snubbing of Harriet Tubman in favor of extending Andrew Jackson’s run as the face on the $20 bill is particularly revealing, and especially damning. It is revealing for who is being kept on the money – not only the proud owner of slaves, but the political author of a vicious white man’s populism. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump called the proposed replacement of Jackson “pure political correctness.” Actually, the switch would be an example of sound moral judgment. Jackson’s defining cause was the ethnic cleansing of Native American lands to make way for more slavery-based agriculture. In pursuit of his pale-faced vision of democracy, Jackson was imperious, violent and indifferent to constitutional norms. The most damning part of the controversy for Trump, however, comes from whom he is rejecting. In opposing Harriet Tubman, Trump has messed with the wrong woman. Tubman was familiar with white men who discounted her. As a teenager, she was nearly killed by one who fractured her skull because she defended a fellow worker. She defied white slave hunters – slipping past them on at least a dozen forays to rescue about 70 slaves as on the Underground Railroad. Frederick Douglass emerged as an abolitionist leader because of his brilliance and rhetorical skill. Tubman may have been illiterate, but she was justly celebrated for her fearlessness and sense of calling. White supremacists attempted to create an image of black inferiority, passivity and helplessness. Tubman was bold, calm under pressure and organizationally gifted. She was also a mystic, who found divine guidance during trances and occasionally burst out into religious song and rhythmic dance. This combination of the efficient and the numinous made her one of the most interesting figures of the 19th century. Tubman became a legend in a certain historical context. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 essentially left African Americans anywhere in America – slave or free – vulnerable to apprehension and accusation in special courts. Slave hunters could take their searches even into abolitionist strongholds such as Quaker Pennsylvania and “the burned-over district” of New York state. As outrage built in the North, slave rescues through the Underground Railroad became an important source of symbolic defiance. Though the total number freed was relatively small, these efforts provided outsized inspiration to both slaves and abolitionists. The work of Tubman and other conductors was also a demonstration of African American agency in the defeat of slavery. Contrary to accounts that exaggerated the role of whites, the Underground Railroad was mainly manned and funded by free blacks in the North (and Canada). Black women contributed money to support Tubman’s raids. Black churches hid fleeing refugees. Black “vigilance societies” in the North met slave hunters with physical resistance. Tubman herself was not an advocate of nonviolence. She carried a pistol on her rescues. She was friendly with the radical abolitionist John Brown. Before Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, according to Henry Mayer’s “All on Fire,” Tubman “supplied him with information about the terrain and local allies and offered him help in building his force.” Brown called Tubman “the General.” But she was better known as “Moses.” Tubman believed that African Americans were a specially chosen people, engaged in their own Exodus from oppression. This armed Tubman and black Americans with a sense of purpose no whip or cannon could defeat. It also placed white Americans in the uncomfortable role of being pharaoh’s forces. And during a terrible, fraternal conflict, horse and rider were thrown into the sea. Honoring Tubman’s contribution – along with the essential role of African Americans in ending slavery – would not be an example of political correctness. It would be evidence of historical discernment and moral maturity. In the Trump era, these things are in short supply. But Tubman is still making her pursuers look like fools. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/harriet-tubman-will-always-have-the-last-laugh-2/</link>
        <title>Harriet Tubman will always have the last laugh</title>
        <description>Even so, the Trump administration’s recent snubbing of Harriet Tubman in favor of extending Andrew Jackson’s run as the face on the $20 bill is particularly revealing, and especially damning. It is revealing for who is being kept on the...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 05:33:15 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8A343202-137E-7EC8-E053-0100007FB043</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – When Donald Trump invites historical comparisons, it is usually to his detriment. Even so, the Trump administration’s recent snubbing of Harriet Tubman in favor of extending Andrew Jackson’s run as the face on the $20 bill is particularly revealing, and especially damning. It is revealing for who is being kept on the money – not only the proud owner of slaves, but the author of a vicious white man’s populism. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump called the proposed replacement of Jackson “pure political correctness.” Actually, it would be an example of sound moral judgment. Jackson’s defining cause was the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans to make way for more slavery-based agriculture. In pursuit of that, Jackson was imperious, violent and indifferent to constitutional norms. The most damning part of the controversy for Trump, however, comes from whom he is rejecting. In opposing Harriet Tubman, he has messed with the wrong woman. Tubman was familiar with white men who discounted her. As a teenager, she was nearly killed by one who fractured her skull because she defended a fellow worker. She defied slave hunters, slipping past them to rescue slaves. Tubman was justly celebrated for her fearlessness and sense of calling. White supremacists attempted to create an image of black inferiority, passivity and helplessness. Tubman was bold, calm under pressure and organizationally gifted. She was also a mystic, who found divine guidance during trances and occasionally burst out into religious song and rhythmic dance. This combination of the efficient and the numinous made her one of the most interesting figures of the 19th century. Tubman became a legend in a certain historical context. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 essentially left African Americans anywhere in America – slave or free – vulnerable to apprehension and accusation in special courts. Slave hunters could take their searches even into abolitionist strongholds such as Quaker Pennsylvania and “the burned-over district” of New York state. As outrage built in the North, slave rescues through the Underground Railroad became an important source of symbolic defiance. Though the total number freed was relatively small, these efforts provided outsized inspiration to both slaves and abolitionists. The work of Tubman and other conductors was also a demonstration of African American agency in the defeat of slavery. Contrary to accounts that exaggerated the role of whites, the Underground Railroad was mainly manned and funded by free blacks in the North (and Canada). Black women contributed money to support Tubman’s raids. Black churches hid fleeing refugees. Black “vigilance societies” in the North met slave hunters with physical resistance. Tubman herself was not an advocate of nonviolence. She carried a pistol on her rescues. She was friendly with the radical abolitionist John Brown. Before Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, according to Henry Mayer’s “All on Fire,” Tubman “supplied him with information about the terrain and local allies and offered him help in building his force.” Brown called Tubman “the General.” But she was better known as “Moses.” Tubman believed that African Americans were a specially chosen people, engaged in their own Exodus from oppression. This armed Tubman and black Americans with a sense of purpose no whip or cannon could defeat. It also placed white Americans in the uncomfortable role of being pharaoh’s forces. And during a terrible, fraternal conflict, horse and rider were thrown into the sea. Honoring Tubman’s contribution – along with the essential role of African Americans in ending slavery – would not be an example of political correctness. It would be evidence of historical discernment and moral maturity. In the Trump era, these things are in short supply. But Tubman is still making her pursuers look like fools. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/book-shows-how-reconstruction-was-reversed/</link>
        <title>Book shows how Reconstruction was reversed</title>
        <description>But in some respects, the telling of the American story does not focus enough on the horrors. American history texts dealt with the runup to the Civil War, then the war itself, then the failure of Reconstruction, before moving on...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2019 05:33:06 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">88632003-57E7-04F2-E053-0100007FDB53</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – Conservatives sometimes accuse the academic left of ignoring the good in American history and emphasizing the horrors. But in some respects, the telling of the American story does not focus enough on the horrors. American history texts dealt with the runup to the Civil War, then the war itself, then the failure of Reconstruction, before moving on to the Gilded Age and progressive reform. But the failure of Reconstruction was not just a disembodied fact but a planned and ruthless act of sabotage. As Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s new book, “Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow,” effectively reminds us, the period of history following the Civil War involved a violent campaign to reverse the social, political and economic outcomes of the conflict. And this effort – which southerners called “Redemption” – was successful in almost every respect. With the defeat of the Confederacy, the federal government’s enforcement of civil rights was beginning to work a revolution. Hundreds of thousands of African Americans registered to vote and eventually elected an estimated 2,000 black officials at every level of government. The Freedmen’s Bureau helped former slaves in matters ranging from land rights to education. Families divided by slavery were reunited. Workers transitioned into a wage system. The process was difficult but hopeful. The white South, however, was having none of it. A broad counterattack was mounted to undo the work of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. This involved a campaign of murder and intimidation to disenfranchise black Republicans and the imposition of sharecropping and convict labor that effectively recreated the conditions of slavery. By 1875, white rule was reestablished in all but three southern states. At first, Republicans such as President Ulysses S. Grant tried to help southern blacks through armed interventions by federal troops. But this policy proved politically unpopular and was abandoned. The re-imposition of white rule was a bloody, unpunished historical crime. “The depth of the reaction against the demands that the Negro have the right to vote,” Gates argues, “and the sheer range of racist vehemence and terrorism that arose to neutralize that right ... is stunning to contemplate.” Between 1868 and 1871, an estimated 400 African Americans were lynched across the South. About 30 were executed on a single day in Meridian, Mississippi. The killers – often roving bands of former Confederate soldiers – acted with total impunity. By 1890, Ben Tillman, who would serve as governor of South Carolina, was crowing: “The triumph of Democracy and white supremacy over mongrelism and anarchy is most complete.” Those interested in this period will find Eric Foner’s “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution” more thorough, and Nicholas Lemann’s “Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War” more emotionally engaging, but Gates’ valuable book goes further. He recounts the massive, seemingly coordinated betrayal of black citizens following Redemption by every white institution. How the Supreme Court gutted civil rights protections. How the scientific community justified white supremacy with bogus research. How white churches ignored or blessed oppression. How the world of advertising adopted demeaning black stereotypes to sell soap and cereal. How the world of movies and literature popularized the myth of the Lost Cause, in which Reconstruction was a period of carpetbagger oppression and black people really longed for the security of the plantation. Gates is especially insightful in revealing how black people, after their constitutional rights were stolen, attempted to reassert their dignity in non-political ways. Through Booker T. Washington’s version of self-help. Or by cultivating the achievements of W.E.B Du Bois’ “talented tenth.” Or through the artistic excellence of the Harlem Renaissance. Or through pan-African pride. Ultimately, Gates argues that Frederick Douglass got closest to the truth – that there is no path to pride and equality that does not include political power, particularly voting rights. This was the main theme of the NAACP and, eventually, of Martin Luther King Jr. It is a tribute to the importance of justice as the first human need. The denial of justice recounted by “Stony the Road” was every bit as bad as apartheid. It was not just racism, but the systematic attempt to destroy – through violence, threats and mockery – the dignity, political rights and social standing of blacks in America. It was far worse than anything I was taught in history classes. Yet only by knowing this period can we understand how white supremacy became the broadly accepted, and sadly durable, ideology of white America. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/the-trumpification-of-pro-life-movement-will-cost/</link>
        <title>The Trumpification of pro-life movement will cost</title>
        <description>On the increasingly likely assumption that it is, how would institutions on the right be affected by Trump’s corrupting embrace? It won’t be pretty for the Republican Party. It has become thoroughly braided into Trump’s bigotry. In a nation where...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:55:15 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8038E957-7F53-7B49-E053-0100007F97CA</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – Through a blooming diversity of investigations, we will soon discover if the world that has always surrounded Donald Trump – the sleazy fixers, the disposable women, the questionable deals, the gold-plated vanity, the viciousness to subordinates, the casual prejudice, the obsession with enemies, the shady international contacts, the nepotism, the ethical emptiness, the bottomless narcissism – is also a criminal enterprise. On the increasingly likely assumption that it is, how would institutions on the right be affected by Trump’s corrupting embrace? It won’t be pretty for the Republican Party. It has become thoroughly braided into Trump’s bigotry. In a nation where the chant of “Trump! Trump! Trump!” has become a racist jeer, the GOP has accepted a rebranding as his subsidiary. To many suburban voters, the party has become a symbol of intolerance. To many younger voters, an instrument of white privilege. At the national level at least, the GOP’s fate is inseparable from the fate of the president. Most members of the conservative movement will be tainted for flipping their inspiration from Ronald Reagan to George Wallace with hardly a moment’s thought. This gives credence to charges of racial prejudice I once thought exaggerated. But let me focus a moment on the pro-life movement, which has traditionally been in a different category. If you believe that a fetus is a member of the human family from its first moment – and millions of Americans do – then opposition to abortion is inherently a social justice issue. It is the defense of the weak and voiceless against violence. I realize, of course, that millions of Americans don’t believe this. And millions of other Americans would locate personhood in the later stages of a pregnancy. But since empathy requires imagination, imagine if you believed what pro-life people do. By your own lights, you would be defending human rights and dignity. To be consistent, of course, you would need to care equally for the lives of women in crisis. And for the health and welfare of children after birth. But that is my point. Defending human dignity at every stage of human development is not a commitment currently embodied in either political party, or in either conservatism or liberalism. People who hold this view should be against Roe v. Wade and against the separation of children from their parents at the border. They should be opposed to the dehumanization of unborn children and the dehumanization of refugees and migrants. The legitimacy of pro-life sentiment is demonstrated by its consistency. But it is not a coincidence that there were so many Make America Great Again hats at the March for Life, or that Trump made a prominent video appearance. The March for Life and the Susan B. Anthony List – two major pro-life organizations – have featured Trump at their major gatherings. The president of the SBA List has pronounced Trump “the most pro-life president in our nation’s history” and called it “a privilege to stand with him.” The issue here is complicated. Trump has governed as a pro-life president, especially in the appointment of two justices to the Supreme Court who more than pass Federalist Society muster. Gratitude here is understandable. But if the overturn or revision of Roe v. Wade comes, it will almost certainly return greater flexibility to states in the regulation of abortion. This will kindle dozens of debates across the country and become a contest of persuasion and organization. It is then that the Trumpification of the pro-life movement will exact a price. There is a serious cost when a movement that regards itself as pro-woman associates with misogyny. There is a serious cost when a movement that claims to be expanding the circle of social inclusion associates itself with nativism and racism. There is a serious cost when a movement that needs to be seen as charitable and reasonable associates itself with the politics of abuse and cruelty. This turns out to be a particularly pure test of transactional, single-issue politics. Would you trade a major political gain for a large chunk of your moral reputation? I don’t want to argue that such a choice is easy. Maybe gaining two justices is worth it. But I’m skeptical. The pro-life movement needs to be, and be seen as, advocating the defense of the weak against the strong. Trumpism is the elevation of the strong against refugees, and against migrant children, and against minorities. The gains of moral and political compromise are material; the costs are spiritual. We will see which matters more. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/the-face-of-michelangelos-david-could-guide-us/</link>
        <title>The face of Michelangelo’s David could guide us</title>
        <description>Here a Botticelli. There a Donatello. A single room at the Uffizi that would reward a lifetime of study gets five hurried minutes before lunch. I have no intention of performing art criticism without a license (a capital offense here...</description>
        <pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2018 05:33:34 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7CEB349D-5C30-612E-E053-0100007FE216</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[FLORENCE – A tourist in Florentine museums is like a skipping stone above unfathomable depths. Here a Botticelli. There a Donatello. A single room at the Uffizi that would reward a lifetime of study gets five hurried minutes before lunch. I have no intention of performing art criticism without a license (a capital offense here in Italy). But a few things stand out even to the amateur eye. The medieval rooms display art for the sake of God. The artists reveal all the glories that two dimensions have to offer. But they are often anonymous. And their subjects – even Jesus on the cross – usually have the kind of flat, calm faces associated with Byzantine art. In a universe structured and ordered by the divine, piety is expressed by serenity. In the Renaissance rooms, it is art for the sake of humanity. The subjects, liberated from flatland, walk into the room. The artists – sometimes celebrities in their own right – mine Classical and Christian stories for drama, sex and violence. Their statues and paintings are intended to express the best of human craft, endeavor and ambition. In this sense, they produced a very public, even civic, art. By the time you reach the face of Michelangelo’s David, it is supremely confident, prepared and determined. Previous artistic Davids were usually depicted as scrawny youths, which emphasized God’s miracle of deliverance in the fight against Goliath. This David is no longer in need of miracles. Other than the sling on his back, he has nothing to do with the biblical story and everything to do with a spirit of humanism, optimism and pride. Originally intended to adorn a church, David was placed in the town square as a symbol of Florence’s public virtues. And then you reach the Caravaggio room at the Uffizi, and you know you are seeing something entirely different. The face of the Medusa cries out with inner agony. The artist – accused of murder, fleeing from place to place – is working out his own demons in the form of art. He is exploring the wild, disordered landscape of his own psyche – the inner human geography that Freud will eventually describe in detail. Then – your eyes adjusting to the vivid December sunlight – you return to an Italian street. It is pleasant enough. (I would take modernity plus advanced medicine and dentistry over the Renaissance plus the Black Plague.) But in the world around you, the most visited monuments seem to be, not churches or galleries, but high-end boutiques. Most Western societies, including the United States, have reached the stage of secularism without humanism. Our greatest efforts are spent on getting and keeping. Our defining creed is consumerism. Our memorials, according to T.S. Eliot, will be “the asphalt road and a thousand lost golf balls.” That isn’t entirely fair, but it feels true. In response, I might be expected to urge a return to option No. 1 – a medieval God intoxication. But that isn’t even a choice. Individuals still believe in God, of course. But the medieval world-view found God in every choice and hour of the day – in every celestial movement and every terrestrial event. That social consensus is unrecoverable. And, God knows, we have enough of option No. 3 – an individualism focused on self-judgment, self-expression, self-improvement and self-actualization. Our best hope, I suspect, is option No. 2. What we need is a revival of humanism. This need not be secular humanism (though it will be for some). In the Renaissance, humanism involved claiming every area of achievement in art or science for human excellence and civic pride. It was displayed in the relentless emphasis on decoration. Every clock, every chair, every gun handle, every scientific instrument, every bit of door, or floor, or ceiling was stamped with human creativity and given lasting worth. It was a declaration against time and decay that the world is not disposable. That humans could leave a lasting mark. The Renaissance was the finest kind of revolution – oriented toward the future, but rooted in the best of the past. The rediscovery of the classical world sparked and fueled something entirely new. This balance of conservative and liberal is the best driver of social dynamism. It is the type of restless, rooted ambition that also characterized America’s founding and inspired our best civic achievements, from the Library of Congress to “Leaves of Grass” to the moon shot. These are either sources of inspiration, or mere nostalgia. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post. Reach him via e-mail at michaelgerson@washpost.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/are-we-sincere-about-second-chances-and-voting/</link>
        <title>Are we sincere about second chances and voting?</title>
        <description>President George W. Bush was eventually declared the winner in the Sunshine State (and thus the election) by 537 votes out of about 6 million cast. But for 35 long days of counting and challenging and pleading, it was mainly...</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:14:16 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7ACC1F46-63C8-6076-E053-0100007FFBB8</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – Those of us who participated in the 2000 presidential election are getting political PTSD from the current gubernatorial and senatorial recounts in Florida. President George W. Bush was eventually declared the winner in the Sunshine State (and thus the election) by 537 votes out of about 6 million cast. But for 35 long days of counting and challenging and pleading, it was mainly the lawyers in charge. During this period, Bush did a lot of brush clearing on his Crawford, Texas, ranch. The bloody scratches on his arms indicated how his frustration was being unleashed against unlucky cedar trees. Nearly two decades later, the Florida electorate is still balanced on a political knife’s edge. Yet one measure passed in the midterm by a lopsided margin, and may have a larger, more lasting influence. Voters approved Amendment 4 to the Florida Constitution by a majority of nearly 65 percent. This returned voting rights to more than a million people who have committed felonies (other than murder or sex offenses) and served their time. It was the largest expansion of the franchise since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and women’s suffrage. The U.S. Constitution specifically allows for the suspension of voting rights for those guilty of “participation in rebellion, or other crime.” But after passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments – mandating equal political rights for African-American men – restricting voting rights became a priority for the forces of Jim Crow. In legal systems that routinely arrested and convicted black people on thin or false charges, bans on voting by felons were effective tools to ensure white supremacy. Not many states now retain lifelong voting bans. The more frequent debate today concerns whether people on probation and parole should be allowed to vote. But these types of limitations (before Florida’s change) still prevented voting by one in 40 adults in America, and one in 13 African-Americans. Amendment 4 solved about a quarter of this problem. The arguments against felony voting bans are ultimately simple. How can you tell a man or woman leaving prison that they have paid their debt to society and yet deny them the most basic right of a self-governing citizen? The denial of voting rights is a way to mark a returning citizen with an invisible scar or brand of stigma and suspicion. It says that we share some geography, but not really a community. And this type of distrust, or half trust, is an invitation to recidivism. Right out of college, I worked at an organization named Prison Fellowship Ministries, which did outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families. My boss was Charles Colson, who had been incarcerated for crimes related to the Watergate scandal. He wrote: “I served time in a federal prison. And while I paid my debt to society in less than a year, it took me 30 years to have my voting rights restored. Maybe I’m not a good example, having been part of a national political scandal. But what about a young person, say, in his early 20s, who is convicted of three minor drug offenses? Once he serves his time, grows up and straightens out his life, should he be denied the right to vote again? ... Demonizing an entire class of Americans for electoral gain is wrong.” Republicans have often opposed measures to expand the franchise, for fear it would hurt them politically. There are two ways to respond to the hostility of minority voters toward the GOP. First, try to restrict the franchise through stealthy means. This is undemocratic, unethical and eventually discrediting. Or second, compete for minority voters in a fairly constituted electorate. Republicans who find this impossible are practicing politics without inspiration, imagination and faith. Beyond the political calculation is a moral question: When we talk about second chances in this country, do we really mean it? The voters of Florida have given their answer – not in a squeaker, but a landslide. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/dems-will-do-all-of-these-self-destructive-things/</link>
        <title>Dems will do all of these self-destructive things</title>
        <description>I urged voters to support reasonable Republican candidates in the Senate, and to vote for every Democrat in House races. And the country rose up in TOTAL VINDICATION of my IDEOLOGICALLY INCOHERENT but PERFECTLY PRACTICAL suggestion for strategic voting. Judged...</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2018 07:03:09 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7A2AD95A-C370-7760-E053-0100007F7AC5</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – In the spirit of the political season, I want to claim credit for the most STUPENDOUS, INSIGHTFUL and POWERFUL political strategy since Pericles bound the DELIAN LEAGUE into an empire to resist THE PERSIANS. I urged voters to support reasonable Republican candidates in the Senate, and to vote for every Democrat in House races. And the country rose up in TOTAL VINDICATION of my IDEOLOGICALLY INCOHERENT but PERFECTLY PRACTICAL suggestion for strategic voting. Judged purely by its outcome, the 2018 midterm election was significantly north of acceptable. Any evening in which future former congressmen David Brat and Dana Rohrabacher – who help constitute the right wing of GOP lunacy – feel dejected is emotionally satisfying. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives will be a check on an administration in desperate need of checking. At the same time, the Senate will continue its originalist shift in the federal courts – the support of which separates conservative Never Trumpers from those who have simply become liberals. With an economic growth rate above 3 percent, and an unemployment rate below 4 percent, and a relatively peaceful world – and following a Supreme Court nomination battle that rallied and united the GOP – the president and his party lost control of the House. The #MeToo movement rolled along, bringing the voices of younger women to Washington. Democrats carried independent voters. The “blue wall” was partially reconstructed in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It was, by any standard, a major defeat for the Republican Party. Or, as Donald Trump calls it, a major victory. But this acceptable midterm outcome disguised disturbing trends – like a patient who is entirely healthy except for a touch of leukemia. Trump’s final political appeal – literally warning that brown people were invading the country and promising they would be shot – was both Trumpism and racism unadulterated. His base of support – millions of people, skewing white and male – found this message compelling. When he called his former alleged mistress a “horseface,” or separated migrant children from their parents, or rounded up migrant children in a desert prison camp, his supporters responded “Hell yeah!” in sports bars and (God help us) evangelical churches across Trump country. They did this because Trump talks like them, and tells it like it is, and defies political correctness, and doesn’t take any crap from anyone – some of the most insipid justifications in the history of American populism. These explanations make Free Silver look like a compelling cause in comparison. No serious political prognosticator – and there are a few – thinks that this appeal to this group of shrinking voters can possibly win national elections 10 or 20 years from now. By making the GOP the party of misogyny, anger and bigotry, Trump is systematically alienating large and growing portions of the electorate. He is dividing old from young, and white from minority, and men from women, and rural from urban. And when Republicans are left with a political coalition concentrated among aging, paunchy, male Caucasians (my demographic group), Trump will be long gone from politics. Like many narcissists, he will leave a trail of ruin behind him, and care not one whit. Trump has not found a new and creative way to win. He is rallying a coalition that was at its most potent in 1988 for one, last, bitter, alienating hurrah. He may undermine the viability of the Republican Party in the process. More than that, he has ripped open old wounds of race and gender that threaten the unity and justice of our country. Democrats have now been given a stage, a platform, to demonstrate a better way. But they have a fateful choice. On one hand, they could elect an off-putting, polarizing House speaker from the past, prove unable to distinguish between useful oversight and partisan harassment, and be riven by internal debate over impeachment after special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. Or ... OK, let’s face it; Democrats will do all these self-destructive things. It is the shared addiction of recent American politics to interpret partisan wins as opportunities to achieve absolute ideological victory, rather than build a broader coalition. The most important test will come in the 2020 presidential nomination process, which has already begun. Here is the hard, political reality for Democrats, unchanged by their recent House victory: Faced with a choice between a scary, quasi-socialist culture warrior of the left and a scary, right-wing, nativist buffoon, America’s current presidential electorate may well choose the latter. And this would grant a racist demagogue the BIGGEST VICTORY OF HIS LIFE. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post. Reach him via email at michaelgerson@washpost.com. © 2018 The Washington Post Writers Group]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/afghanistan-shows-security-cost-in-hostile-world/</link>
        <title>Afghanistan shows security cost in hostile world</title>
        <description>Following the murder of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001, al-Qaida’s gracious hosts, the Taliban, could not be allowed to remain in power. But in parts of Afghanistan, every valley is its own kingdom, ruled by tribal leaders who...</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2018 09:03:23 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7912BBC7-38FF-15E2-E053-0100007FDD62</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – The Afghan War – really, the war against terrorists and their allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan – has elements of a Greek tragedy. It was unavoidable, but seemingly unwinnable. Following the murder of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001, al-Qaida’s gracious hosts, the Taliban, could not be allowed to remain in power. But in parts of Afghanistan, every valley is its own kingdom, ruled by tribal leaders who are loyal to the most likely winner. And the winner, it seems, may be determined more by patience than by firepower. I recall the very start of the war in early October 2001. Sitting at the president’s desk in his cabin at Camp David. Trying to focus on writing the announcement of military operations. President George W. Bush near me on the phone, giving military commands and informing congressional leaders of imminent hostilities. At one point, Bush put his hand over the receiver and asked me, “Are you cleared for any of this?” I replied that I didn’t think so. “You are now,” he said. The speech Bush delivered from the Treaty Room warned of the long-term nature of our commitment. The war would be won by “the patient accumulation of successes.” Bush asked for “patience in all the sacrifices that may come.” But at the time, it was unimaginable – at least in my limited, strategic imagination – that the war would continue nearly two decades later. After a brief, brilliant campaign that toppled the Taliban, there were a series of complications across the terms of three presidents. The diversion of attention and resources to Iraq. The inability to manage President Musharraf’s pointless feuds, which undermined military pressure on the Taliban. An Afghan surge at first tried by President Obama on the cheap, then tied to an arbitrary withdrawal timeline. The consistently destructive role of Pakistan. These are the conditions that recently led Thomas Joscelyn to conclude in the Weekly Standard, “America has lost the war in Afghanistan.” Yet every president, including Donald Trump, has been presented with the same strategic reality: The return of Afghanistan to the conditions on September 10, 2001 -- in which the country was a jihadist bed and breakfast – would be a massive defeat for America and directly endanger its people. And a serious attack originating from a group protected by the Taliban or others would likely bring American troops back to the region anyway. As Hal Brands and Peter Feaver have described it, America has tried “a heavy-footprint counterinsurgency strategy meant to decisively defeat terrorist groups while enabling the creation of effective government institutions – in other words, nation-building.” It has also tried “a very-light-footprint approach, relying on drone strikes and the occasional special operations raids.” But circumstances in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have led America toward “a medium-footprint strategy” in which several thousand U.S. troops help to destroy terrorist safe havens and work to strengthen local partners, without the duties and risks of full-scale occupation. Brands and Feaver count up the advantages of this approach. It allows the U.S. military to employ capabilities such as special-forces operations and air power, without diverting many resources from opposing great power threats. This strategy is relatively affordable (at least in dollars). And it has been effective against al-Qaida and ISIS. But these scholars identify a large challenge: “A medium-footprint strategy requires accepting that the war on terror will indeed go on without a clear end in sight.” There is a logic to a medium-footprint approach. Terrorist safe havens can’t be left in peace for jihadists to increase their technical sophistication. But striking from afar with drones and planes is not enough to destroy these havens. American troops are needed on the ground. And these troops, in turn, must be adequately protected. But will Americans accept – will President Trump accept – what amounts to a limited but indefinite, forward military presence in the Middle East to pre-empt emerging threats? Will Americans conclude that the resulting military casualties are worth it to prevent potential terrorist murders of civilians? This would require people to view commitments like the one in Afghanistan not as a war that will eventually end, but as the furthest outposts of homeland defense. And as the terrible price of security in a hostile world. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/we-saw-two-human-beings-flayed-and-for-what/</link>
        <title>We saw two human beings flayed – and for what?</title>
        <description>That now includes the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not, of course, that this process has never been political before. But it has never been more clearly a function of contending culture war narratives. Progressives saw the #MeToo movement come...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2018 08:03:07 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">773362C4-A3F9-55F1-E053-0100007FF61E</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – In the end, everything – every blasted thing – gets sucked into the polarization black hole, never to emerge again. That now includes the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not, of course, that this process has never been political before. But it has never been more clearly a function of contending culture war narratives. Progressives saw the #MeToo movement come to dramatic life: a highly credible woman calling a powerful man to account for sexual abuse, and that man responding (as one New Yorker headline put it) with “a grotesque display of patriarchal resentment.” To those on the left, Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a living symbol of violent aggression toward all woman by his (presumed) opposition to Roe v. Wade. What they saw during the judiciary committee hearing – the angry defense of prep school values – confirmed all their pre-existing beliefs. Conservatives saw the Democratic/media complex attempting to destroy a respected nominee on the basis of a thin charge, sprung as a transparent political ploy. They cheered and tweeted South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s accusation that the process was an “unethical sham.” And what they saw of Democrats on the judiciary committee – Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat from California, denying obviously true charges of leaks from her staff; Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democrat from Rhode Island, treating high-school yearbook abbreviations like the Enigma code; Sen. Cory Booker, the Democrat from New Jersey, stroking his own moral superiority in a manner close to obscene – confirmed all their preexisting beliefs. The result of these conflicting interpretations was a complete breakdown in process, civility and decorum. But everyone, it seems, found the enemies they wanted and got the ideological boost they sought. This, however, is not what made the hearing memorable. In the midst of general and typical dehumanization, we saw two humans laid bare. And the experience is impossible to make sense of. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was credible and compelling, precisely because she did not play the role of a cause-oriented crusader. She focused on her own story, simply told. There was a mix of fragileness and resolution in her presentation that indicated authenticity. She explained the experience of sexual abuse with more emotional clarity than I have ever heard – the helplessness, panic and fear. She conveyed the unique and lasting damage of this kind of exploitation – how a few moments on a summer night at the age of 15 can haunt a whole life. Following her remarks, a conservative friend wrote to me: “It’s virtually impossible to believe she invented this story.” And Ford seemed utterly convinced of Kavanaugh’s guilt. Then came Kavanaugh. I was told by people involved in preparations for his initial hearing in early September that the process had been thorough and orderly, with questions and proposed answers in thick briefing books. This time, there was little help from others, on the assumption that these were questions that only Kavanaugh could answer. Kavanaugh was credible and compelling, precisely because he was genuinely, completely, almost uncontrollably outraged. The Kavanaugh I worked with in the Bush White House was known for his calm, careful demeanor in the midst of West Wing chaos. In his latest testimony, Kavanaugh was clearly pushed past patience and restraint. He acted like an unjustly accused man, facing the loss, not just of a job, but of the reputation and life built over three decades. Kavanaugh gave us an emotional window into the human cost of some public controversies. An accusation of sexual assault is not like a political disagreement. It is enough, as Kavanaugh roared, to destroy the trust on which a life is based – the trust given a teacher, the trust given a coach, the trust given a judge. This kind of charge is not like losing a limb. It is more like a poison that effects the whole body. If the accusation is false, it makes sense for a nominee to treat his political tormentors with contempt. And Kavanaugh seemed utterly convinced of his own innocence. What to make of all this? Well, it is easy for everyone to return to their political corners – as most certainly will. Can we really ignore the accusation of sexual assault from a credible source? But what is the precedent created by destroying a man based on the accusation of one person, concerning an event decades ago? I support a period of further investigation. But I doubt it would clarify much. Or matter much. Of one thing we can be certain: The outcome will run down political, not ethical, lines. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post. Reach him via e-mail at michaelgerson@washpost.com. © 2018 The Washington Post Writers Group]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/origin-story-a-marvelous-explanation-of-the-whole/</link>
        <title>Origin Story a marvelous explanation of the whole</title>
        <description>du1-i-syn Christian has achieved something remarkable: an engaging guide to the physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, linguistics and sociology that constitute the story of history itself. The author practices what he calls “Big History” – gathering the Big Bang, the advent...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2018 00:01:26 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">71CD8E1F-7C40-6379-E053-0100007FE67B</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=31A16CEB-8919-426F-BFEE-0D15343404F3&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=31A16CEB-8919-426F-BFEE-0D15343404F3&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[du1-i-syn WASHINGTON – I would not normally recommend a book on the history of the universe as beach reading. But David Christian’s Origin Story is a welcome exception. Christian has achieved something remarkable: an engaging guide to the physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, linguistics and sociology that constitute the story of history itself. The author practices what he calls “Big History” – gathering the Big Bang, the advent of molecules, plate tectonics, eukaryotes, dinosaurs, Homo sapiens, climate dynamics and globalization into one sweeping arc. In roughly 300 pages. With no equations. It is wildly ambitious. And, in the end, not ambitious enough. Nearly everyone will find that Origin Story fills gaps in their education. For me it was the portion on pre-organic chemistry, in which molecules can interact with chemicals and energy in cycles that reproduce themselves and pick up favorable revisions over time, producing a kind of evolution in non-living things. There were also sections, like the history of agriculture, in which I would have slipped out of Professor Christian’s class to play Frisbee golf with my girlfriend on a fall day. But, taken as a whole, Origin Story is a marvelous explanation of the whole. The author has a knack for revealing analogies and memorable facts. The crustal plates on the surface of the earth move at about the speed your fingernails grow. A human being burns about 120 watts of energy per second, a little more than your average incandescent light bulb. The relatively recent historical moment when Homo sapiens’ bulbs begin burning is a turning point in the book and its story. This big-brained, tool-making, fire-using, social, mobile, violent, artistic primate had an evolutionary superpower. It had the mental capacity and linguistic abilities to engage in collective learning, which brought progress at an explosive pace. After a brush with extinction – 70,000 years ago, the total population of humans could fill a modern sports stadium – Homo sapiens went in a historical blink from crafting stone tools to possessing nuclear weapons. They also began considering their own place in the universe that produced them. Christian has written a book that succeeds at everything except its stated purpose. Ultimately, he wants to provide a replacement for traditional origin stories that come from religion. These he finds contradictory and outdated. But human beings are wired to need explanatory stories, revealing, as Christian writes, “This is what you are; this is where you came from.” Without this rooting, people can become victim to a “sense of disorientation, division and directionlessness.” In some ways, Origin Story is appropriately humble. Christian’s version of history, he admits, provides no explanation for ultimate beginnings. Why did the universe start in a high state of order (which is a low state of entropy)? Why did the newborn universe – what Georges Lemaitre called the “cosmic egg” – have operating rules that allowed for the emergence of form and structure? There is really no telling. Maybe, Christian hints, the questions themselves are meaningless. And we certainly can’t turn to the divine. “Most versions of the modern origin story,” he writes, “no longer accept the idea of a creator god because modern science can find no direct evidence for a god.” Christian thus repeats the defining mistake of scientism, the unquestioned assumption that all rational knowledge is scientific knowledge. This is anything but humble. It is a kind of epistemological imperialism that excludes knowledge coming from moral and philosophical reasoning, from theological argumentation and from historical investigation based on reliable witnesses. Not to mention the kind of knowledge that someone loves us. Christian attempts to increase the certainty of knowledge by limiting it to less consequential things. It makes the cosmic egg more like a Faberge egg – ornate, beautiful and ultimately useless. As to God, the claim that modern science can provide no direct evidence for a Being apart from the natural world is tautological. Does Christian expect transcendence to be like a gas that glows blue when heated? Christian’s view of the universe has an impressive breadth. But it is shallow. Scientism always involves reductionism. “A man who has lived and loved,” said G.K. Chesterton, “falls down dead and worms eat him. That is Materialism if you like.” If loyalty is really chemistry, and truth is just the wisp of electric current in a 3-pound piece of meat, this is not enough to provide a sense of belonging and purpose. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post. Reach him via e-mail at michaelgerson@washpost.com. © 2018 The Washington Post Writers Group]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/gerson-count-on-kavanaugh-to-stand-against-bullying/</link>
        <title>Gerson: Count on Kavanaugh to stand against bullying</title>
        <description>Michael Gersondu1-i-syn Kavanaugh – with whom I worked at the White House – is brilliant, meticulous, fair-minded and unfailingly decent. In a saner political climate, a nominee of this temperament, intellect and experience would be confirmed in the Senate with...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:22:17 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">70DBA933-ECB7-0255-E053-0100007F1D94</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=2E56C5C2-0FB8-4AEC-8780-0058792ACEB9&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=2E56C5C2-0FB8-4AEC-8780-0058792ACEB9&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Michael Gersondu1-i-syn WASHINGTON – The Trump administration is not known for its consistency, but some contradictions are too revealing to ignore. In nominating Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, President Trump has chosen a jurist who is deeply committed to the Bill of Rights and the rule of law. Kavanaugh – with whom I worked at the White House – is brilliant, meticulous, fair-minded and unfailingly decent. In a saner political climate, a nominee of this temperament, intellect and experience would be confirmed in the Senate with 70 or 80 votes. Yet: In pardoning Dwight and Steven Hammond, the Oregon ranchers convicted of arson on federal lands, Trump gave his blessing to lawlessness. According to the Justice Department, “Witnesses at (the) trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on (Bureau of Land Management) property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out ‘Strike Anywhere’ matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to ‘light up the whole country on fire.’ ... The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations.” The Hammonds’ cause had been taken up by right-wing militias. Trump’s pardon effectively sided with the militias in their dispute with the federal government. This is not an isolated incident. By pardoning former Arizona Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Trump excused disobedience to a federal court order and embraced a figure with a long history of profiling and abusing Hispanic migrants. Speaking to representatives of law enforcement last year, Trump urged the physical abuse of suspects. “Like when you guys put somebody in the car,” he said, “and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put your hand over ... I said, ‘You can take the hand away, OK?’” During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly egged on the physical abuse of protesters at his rallies. This is not to mention Trump’s initial neutrality between white supremacists and protesters in Charlottesville which was taken by hate groups and militias as a presidential endorsement. Or coming to the defense of Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, who was repeatedly accused of predatory behavior against young women. Or Trump’s systematic attempts to undermine the authority of federal law enforcement. Or his barely disguised admiration for the intimidation tactics of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. How to describe this strange mix of tough-guy posturing, conspiracy thinking, authoritarian envy, recreational cruelty and admiration for norm breakers? At some point, the dots connect and reveal deep attitudes. Trump has a bully’s view of strength and weakness, and he seems to instinctively identify with bullies. This is not consistent with the most admirable forms of populism. Some conservative thinkers have excused their conversion to Trumpism on the theory that he is elevating the little guy and speaking for the “forgotten man.” This is accurate – unless you are a minority facing a resurgence of state-blessed prejudice, or the victim of police brutality, or a migrant child torn from your family, or a journalist rotting in a Turkish jail, or a house church leader imprisoned in China. Apparently, these little guys don’t count. In fact, only a relatively comfortable white conservative thinker could find Trump’s record consistent with a passion for the forgotten. In reality, many conservatives don’t like Trump in spite of his bullying but because of it. They have grown tired of decency and tolerance, which they dismiss as effete. That is sad in any country, but particularly discrediting in America, where a commitment to universal human rights and dignity is essential to our national creed. A leader with contempt for justice and the weak is not a distinctly American leader. All this points to the importance of institutional vigilance in the Trump era. Resisting the abuse of power is hard enough for good people. In Trump, the internal moral checks are absent. In a time of national stress and crisis – when executive authority naturally expands – the restraints on lawlessness and bullying would need to be external. And they may even need to be imposed by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh is smart enough to know this. And I believe he has the patriotism and character to act upon it. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post. Reach him via email at michaelgerson@washpost.com. © 2018 The Washington Post Writers Group]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/gerson-defending-border-cruelty-with-heresy/</link>
        <title>Gerson: Defending border cruelty with heresy</title>
        <description>Michael Gerson, The Washington Postdu1-i-syn The first claim is a lie. Without the administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy, there would be no surge in detained children at overwhelmed facilities. And President Trump has incurred further responsibility by employing confused, frightened children as...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:35:51 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6F29A4B8-3DE9-4FBD-E053-0100007FF062</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=1154D1C7-AA08-4438-98CF-2CE08F9178FE&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=1154D1C7-AA08-4438-98CF-2CE08F9178FE&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Michael Gerson, The Washington Postdu1-i-syn WASHINGTON — Logic not being the strong point of the Trump administration, it claims that it is not to blame for the separation of families at the border, and that a just God is pleased it is happening. The first claim is a lie. Without the administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy, there would be no surge in detained children at overwhelmed facilities. And President Trump has incurred further responsibility by employing confused, frightened children as leverage in negotiations over a border wall. All of this is taking place as a direct result of Trump’s command to get tough at the border. And what shows toughness better than mistreating little boys and girls? The second claim, made most prominently by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is that Romans 13 – a biblical passage written by the Apostle Paul urging everyone to be “subject to the governing authorities” – is an endorsement of the administration’s hard-line enforcement of immigration laws. Sessions is effectively claiming divine sanction for the idea that people who break laws may be punished and deterred by subjecting their children to mental anguish. This is cruelty defended by heresy. The Bible, like a gun, is a dangerous thing in the hands of a bigot. Segregationists and autocrats throughout Western history have claimed that Romans 13 covers oppressive or unjust laws. But the centerpiece commitment of Christian social ethics is not order; it is justice. For a good introduction to the concept, Sessions might read Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” King argued. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” And how should justice be defined? “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” Trump’s immigration policy is a carnival of degradation. At one facility, hundreds of children have been confined (according to an Associated Press story) “in a series of cages created by metal fencing.” At another place (according to a Los Angeles Times report), “children were running away, screaming, throwing furniture and attempting suicide.” At a small shelter on the Texas border (according to The Washington Post), screaming toddlers were isolated from their parents and caregivers were “not allowed to touch the children.” The controversy over family separation has accomplished at least one useful thing. It is an act of inhumanity by the Trump administration so gross – so rotting, worm-ridden and hair-covered – that many evangelical leaders have refused to swallow it. Even Franklin Graham, awakened momentarily from his ideological slumbers, has called the practice “disgraceful.” This policy debate has also demonstrated the broad streak of extremism at the center of the Trump administration. “It was a simple decision by the administration,” explained presidential adviser Stephen Miller, “to have a zero-tolerance policy for illegal entry.” Simple. Simple if you are untroubled by nagging empathy. Simple if you are hardened against the temptation of mercy. Simple if you have lost the ability to feel anger when abused children weep. One gets the impression that Miller, Trump and White House chief of staff John Kelly regard the fears of migrant parents and the anguish of migrant children as evidence of a good day’s work. This is a contagion. In a recent poll, a strong plurality of Republicans (46 percent) supported the policy of family separation at the border. They have been given permission for their worst instincts by the leader of their party, a party whose right flank is now held by the neo-Confederate protestors at Charlottesville. Dehumanization has a natural progression. It starts by defining a whole race or ethnicity by its worst members – say, rapists or criminals. It moves on to enforce generally applicable laws and rules that especially hurt a target group. Then, as the public becomes desensitized, the group can be singled out for hatred and harm. It is the descent, step by step, into a moral abyss. The Bible, a rich and sprawling book, offers another angle on these matters. At one point in the New Testament, Jesus calls a child over and says, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Sometimes those who invoke God’s justice would do better to fear it. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post. Reach him via e-mail at michaelgerson@washpost.com. © 2018 The Washington Post Writ-ers Group]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/gerson-our-political-moral-and-religious-failure/</link>
        <title>Gerson: Our political, moral and religious failure</title>
        <description>Gersondu1-i-syn Ryan went on to talk about Catholic social doctrine, with its emphasis on “solidarity” with the poor and weak, as “a perfect antidote to what ails our culture.” Next, in the Oval Office, according to The Washington Post, President...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 05:03:08 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6D626D57-D453-6230-E053-0100007F84C1</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=8CD92422-CF35-41DC-94EB-45E788E09A6C&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" medium="image" type="image/jpeg" />
        <media:thumbnail url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=8CD92422-CF35-41DC-94EB-45E788E09A6C&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Gersondu1-i-syn WASHINGTON – Three recent news items: First, at the Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, House Speaker Paul Ryan said, “We see moral relativism becoming more and more pervasive in our culture. Identity politics and tribalism have grown on top of this.” Ryan went on to talk about Catholic social doctrine, with its emphasis on “solidarity” with the poor and weak, as “a perfect antidote to what ails our culture.” Next, in the Oval Office, according to The Washington Post, President Trump boasted about how easy it is to appeal to audiences with an anti-immigrant message: “Acting as if he was at a rally, he then read aloud a few made up Hispanic names and described potential crimes they could have committed, like rape and murder. Then, he said, the crowds would roar when the criminals were thrown out of the country.” In the Post’s account, “(Stephen) Miller and (Jared) Kushner laughed.” And at the American border, the brutal separation of confused, weeping children from parents who cross illegally is being implemented. According to The Arizona Republic: “The Office of Refugee Resettlement reported at the end of 2017 that of the 7,000-plus children placed with sponsored individuals, the agency did not know where 1,475 of them were.” Some could be lost to abuse or trafficking. What do these incidents add up to? A political, moral and religious failure of massive, discrediting proportions. It is often difficult to apply theological doctrines to public policy. But if there is one area where the teaching of the Christian faith is utterly clear, it is in the requirement to care for the vulnerable stranger. According to the Hebrew scriptures: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born.” In the New Testament, Jesus employs compassion for an abused, reviled foreigner (a Samaritan) as the test and definition of neighbor love. The dehumanization of migrants and refugees has been one of the most consistent themes of this president – including using the fact that some criminals enter the country illegally to fan a generalized hostility to Hispanic immigration. Can you imagine what would have happened if a White House staffer attending a policy meeting on family separation had said, “This is cruel. This is immoral. This is wrong.” He or she would have been quickly cleaning out a desk. The rejection of Christian teaching on this issue is pretty much a job requirement in the Trump administration. And how did Ryan address the issue of Trump’s habit of dehumanization at the Catholic Prayer Breakfast? By avoidance, under a thick layer of hypocrisy. He complained that politicians are too often in “survival mode,” trying to “get through the day,” rather than reflecting on and applying Catholic social teaching. Ryan was effectively criticizing the whole theory of his speakership. He has been in survival mode from the first day of Trump’s presidency, making the case that publicly burning bridges with the president would undermine the ability to pursue his vision of the common good (including tax reform and regulatory relief). This, while a weak argument, is at least a consistent one. But by making the Christian commitment to human dignity relative to other political aims, it is no longer an option for Ryan to speak of “moral relativism” as the defining threat of our time. In the name of survival, Ryan has ignored and enabled the transformation of the GOP into an anti-immigrant party. This does not reflect his personal views. But it will be remembered as the hallmark of his time in office – the elevation of survival above solidarity. My tradition of evangelical protestantism is, if anything, even worse. According to a recent Pew poll, white evangelical protestants are the least likely group in America to affirm an American responsibility to accept refugees. Evangelicals insist on the centrality and inerrancy of scripture and condemn society for refusing to follow biblical norms, and yet, when it comes to verse after verse requiring care for the stranger, they not only ignore this mandate but oppose it. This represents the failure of Christian political leadership – not only from the speaker, but from most elected religious conservatives. Even more, it indicates the failure of the Christian church in the moral formation of its members, who remain largely untutored in the most important teachings of their own faith. Ryan concluded his remarks by quoting Mother Teresa on God’s call to “be faithful,” not to “be successful.” But what if one is neither? Perhaps silence is the best option. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post. Reach him via email at michaelgerson@washpost.com. © 2018 The Washington Post Writers Group]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/gerson-ice-and-the-bitter-fruit-of-demunization/</link>
        <title>Gerson: ICE and the bitter fruit of demunization</title>
        <description>The FBI refused to bend to his will. So it is comprised of “hardened Democrats” engaged in a “WITCH HUNT.” The FBI was, according to Trump, too preoccupied with the Russia investigation to prevent the Parkland, Florida, school shooting. Its...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 05:03:34 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">6A9CA0BC-5BB3-681E-E053-0100007F434F</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – The attitude of President Trump toward federal law enforcement is, to put it mildly, mixed. The FBI refused to bend to his will. So it is comprised of “hardened Democrats” engaged in a “WITCH HUNT.” The FBI was, according to Trump, too preoccupied with the Russia investigation to prevent the Parkland, Florida, school shooting. Its reputation “is in Tatters – worst in History!” But Immigration and Customs Enforcement has passed the loyalty test. ICE’s enforcement surge “is merely the keeping of my campaign promise,” explained the president. Referring to ICE acting Director Thomas Homan, Trump said, “Somebody said the other day, they saw him on television. ... ‘He looks very nasty, he looks very mean.’ I said, ‘That’s what I’m looking for!’” This is territory more familiar in political systems of personal rule. The agency that defies the ruler must be discredited. The agency that does his bidding is viewed as a kind of Praetorian Guard. Most of the professionals working in ICE would surely deny this characterization, pointing to an important legal role independent from any individual president. But they need to understand that their work is now being conflated with Trump’s nativism. ICE’s 40 percent increase in arrests within the country after Trump took office is now closely associated with the president’s political priorities. His sweeping executive orders on immigration broadened the focus of enforcement beyond serious threats to public order. Arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions have spiked dramatically. Routine “check-ins” with ICE officials can end with handcuffs and deportation. “Sanctuary cities” – a recurring presidential political obsession – are being targeted with additional personnel. Hundreds of children have been removed from parents seeking asylum and detained separately – compounding their terrible ordeal of persecution and flight. ICE recently announced a new policy that makes it easier to detain pregnant women. Asylum seekers have often been denied “humanitarian parole” while their cases are decided, effectively jailing them without due process. Officials of the agency insist their nonpolitical mandate hasn’t changed. But Homan has praised the Trump administration for taking “the handcuffs off law enforcement.” Whatever their intention, ICE agents are being used by the president to send a message of callousness. And they are tying themselves to Trump’s political fortunes in the process. The job performed by ICE is essential to American security, and not easy. Agents must prevent some truly dangerous people from entering and staying in the country – gang members, drug dealers and terrorists. But it is also their job to deal with asylum seekers – men, women and children fleeing from gangs, targeted for death by drug cartels and oppressed by terrorist states. Some of the worst people in the world, and some of the most sympathetic people in the world, are processed by immigration officials. It takes care and discernment to make this distinction. ICE is not currently an agency famous for its care and discernment. In releasing an immigration activist detained by ICE early this year, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest said, “It ought not to be – and it has never before been – that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust. ... We are not that country.” Accusations of abuse in ICE custody are numerous and serious, and they pre-existed the Trump era. An investigation by ProPublica and the Philadelphia Inquirer reported cases of racial profiling, fabricated evidence and warrantless searches – all given little scrutiny by overwhelmed immigration courts. During the last few years, there have been hundreds of accusations of sexual abuse, racial slurs, abusive strip searches and verbal harassment in ICE jails, prisons and detention centers. For an institution that claims “zero tolerance” for such practices, it seems to get a lot of serious complaints. One asylum seeker, Gretta Soto Moreno, has called the facilities worse than normal prisons because ICE “feels like it can treat immigrants any kind of way.” This is the bitter fruit of dehumanization – in a facility, in a system, in a country. It is unclear if Trump would even regard such a reputation as undesirable. He has effectively given permission for bullying. This is an issue ripe for more rigorous congressional oversight – even an independent commission to investigate charges of physical and sexual abuse in the ICE system. But this would require a critical mass of elected Republicans to give a damn about the rights and dignity of migrants. It is a distant dream. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post. Reach him via e-mail at michaelgerson@washpost.com. © 2017 The Washington Post Writers Group]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
</channel>
</rss>
