<?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://tj.durangoherald.com/section/michael-gerson/feed/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://tj.durangoherald.com/section/michael-gerson/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description>Latest local news from The Durango Herald.</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 21:00:24 -0600</lastBuildDate>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <item>
        <link>https://tj.durangoherald.com/a-u-s-president-who-doesnt-understand-america/</link>
        <title>A U.S. president who doesn’t understand America</title>
        <description>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...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2019 23:33:28 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">941849F0-16D1-0E9B-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://tj.durangoherald.com/civility-doesnt-just-work-it-also-makes-us-noble/</link>
        <title>Civility doesn’t just work, it also makes us noble</title>
        <description>WASHINGTON – In his 1984 book, “The Naked Public Square,” Richard John Neuhaus recalled attending an event featuring the late Jerry Falwell Sr., who delivered an excoriation of liberals and other supposed enemies of freedom. Seated next to Neuhaus was...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:33:45 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8B22DCEC-C6A0-5C0E-E053-0100007FDFF8</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – In his 1984 book, “The Naked Public Square,” Richard John Neuhaus recalled attending an event featuring the late Jerry Falwell Sr., who delivered an 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://tj.durangoherald.com/can-one-gop-candidate-take-on-trump-in-2020/</link>
        <title>Can one GOP candidate take on Trump in 2020?</title>
        <description>WASHINGTON – Republicans who are thinking about opposing President Trump in the 2020 primaries are facing the hardest of political choices. What are the handholds for a challenger to Trump? Economic conservatives are generally happy with the 2017 tax cut....</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:03:09 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7B07ED48-289D-1EBB-E053-0100007F092E</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – Republicans who are thinking about opposing President Trump in the 2020 primaries are facing the hardest of political choices. What are the handholds for a challenger to Trump? Economic conservatives are generally happy with the 2017 tax cut. Social conservatives are generally satisfied with Trump’s judicial nominees. Foreign policy conservatives are generally not pleased with Trump’s sabotage of alliances. But the Republican foreign policy establishment was opposed to Trump the last time around and it mattered not at all. So why undertake this difficult task? First, no political moment is permanent. After a particularly damaging new administration scandal or a severe economic downturn, a hopeless quest might suddenly seem like remarkable political foresight. Or not. But no alternative to Trump can benefit from changing circumstances if he or she doesn’t run in the first place. Second, the Robert Mueller report and a string of congressional investigations could destabilize Trump’s personality in escalating and disturbing ways. The president could move against important institutions in a manner that causes a portion of the Republican electorate to reconsider its support. I am not holding my breath, but who could judge this impossible? The Republican case against Trump is not mainly about policy or ideology. It is not about his ignorance and refusal to learn and improve at his job. The main Republican argument against Trump is this: He is a person of horrible character who corrupts everyone around him, undermines essential social standards and is branding his party with an image of bigotry that will last a generation. The problem with Democrats making this argument about Trump’s character is simple. To abandon the president in favor of a Democrat, Republican voters are forced, not just to value public character, but to value public character above conservative economic policy and above the appointment of conservative judges. And not many Republicans place that much weight on matters of character. They will take Trump plus Justice Brett Kavanaugh over any Democrat of unimpeachable integrity. If, however, any of the serious Republican prospects run against Trump, Republican primary voters will face the challenge: Why not conservative policy and public character? This is the main reason that some Republican must run. There needs to be an alternative focus of intellectual energy and moral leadership in America’s party of the right. This is what a presidential campaign – successful or not – can accomplish. To those who say it is useless to protest the direction of the GOP, a campaign says: “Well, I protest anyway.” To those who say that traditional conservatism is a lost cause, it represents the answer: “Not to me.” To those who claim that the effort can’t succeed, it says: “Let’s deserve success first, then see where honorable effort leads us.” History has an honor roll of those who show seemingly futile courage. Someone must be offended when national ideals are debased by cruelty and corruption. Someone must be willing to defy good political sense in a great political cause. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://tj.durangoherald.com/dems-will-do-all-of-these-self-destructive-things/</link>
        <title>Dems will do all of these self-destructive things</title>
        <description>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...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:03:15 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7A7AF7BA-5CFA-6A16-E053-0100007F3D86</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 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. 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. Trump’s final political appeal, warning that brown people were invading the country and promising they would be shot, was both Trumpism and racism unadulterated. His base of support 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. They did this because Trump talks like them, and tells it like it is, and defies political correctness – 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 thinks that this appeal to this group of shrinking voters can possibly win national elections 10 or 20 years from now. Trump is alienating large and growing portions of the electorate. But when Republicans are left with a political coalition concentrated among aging, paunchy, male Caucasians (my demographic group), he will be long gone from politics. 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. 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 demagogue the BIGGEST VICTORY OF HIS LIFE. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://tj.durangoherald.com/afghanistan-shows-security-cost-in-hostile-world/</link>
        <title>Afghanistan shows security cost in hostile world</title>
        <description>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 Sept....</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2018 09:59:55 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7923EB22-F0E0-4DF9-E053-0100007F16EA</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 Sept. 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 Sept. 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://tj.durangoherald.com/americas-foreign-policy-vacuum-filled-by-cruelty/</link>
        <title>America’s foreign policy vacuum filled by cruelty</title>
        <description>WASHINGTON – Whatever the eventual consequences of the Saudi Arabian regime’s suspected murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, President Trump’s initial response indicated much about the priorities of America First foreign policy. His instincts were commercial and transactional –...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 16:50:36 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">785BE8EA-A839-60B6-E053-0100007F8307</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – Whatever the eventual consequences of the Saudi Arabian regime’s suspected murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, President Trump’s initial response indicated much about the priorities of America First foreign policy. His instincts were commercial and transactional – a concern that America might lose defense contracts in a confrontation with the Saudi government. “I don’t like stopping massive amounts of money that’s being poured into our country,” he explained. Trump began his diplomatic confrontation with Saudi Arabia by pointing out (and exaggerating) the kingdom’s economic leverage against us – the deal completely stripped of art. Trump has reduced the cost of oppression and political murder in the world by declaring it none of America’s business. And when you reduce the cost of something, you get more of it. The aggregation of such horrors – the sum of killing and human misery at this historical moment – is stunning. And America’s president is not concerned enough to be ashamed of it. There is the Saudi war in Yemen, which has caused massive displacement, hunger and disease. The Trump administration has certified that the Saudis are taking sufficient measures to prevent civilian casualties. The United Nations, meanwhile, has accused Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates of war crimes, including arbitrary detention, torture and rape. Syria remains a bleeding wound. Hundreds of thousands have died. More than 5 million people have left the country as refugees. More than 6 million are internally displaced. During the largest refugee crisis since World War II, the U.S. has slashed the number of refugees it will admit to the lowest level in four decades. In China, perhaps a million ethnic Uighurs are being held in re-education camps. Yet the whole of Trump’s relationship with China seems determined by the level of our trade deficit. Then there is South Sudan’s five-year civil war, in which perhaps 380,000 people have died and around 2.5 million people have fled the country. Decades of American effort to help give birth to that nation are being washed away on Trump’s watch. I conduct this tour of global horrors, not to argue that America could easily resolve each one, but to point out that they don’t even register in the president’s priorities. This does violence to American ideals. But it also illustrates a foreign-policy law. A vacuum of American leadership is not occupied by good and pleasant things. It is filled by ruthless power politics, aimless allies, aggressive authoritarians, gathering threats and cruelty without consequence. And the trail of evidence leads from the villages of Myanmar to a consulate in Istanbul. Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://tj.durangoherald.com/we-saw-two-human-beings-flayed-and-for-what/</link>
        <title>We saw two human beings flayed – and for what?</title>
        <description>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...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2018 17:03:25 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">772D8C49-7948-42BA-E053-0100007FE9BA</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://tj.durangoherald.com/gerson-republicans-must-pick-their-point-of-resistance/</link>
        <title>Gerson: Republicans must pick their point of resistance</title>
        <description>Michael Gersondu1-i-syn WASHINGTON – One of the unpleasant surprises of your 50s (among many) is seeing the heroes and mentors of your 20s pass away. I worked for the late Chuck Colson of Watergate fame, who became, through his work...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2018 17:38:30 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7500FB8A-E49E-1CD9-E053-0100007FF74C</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=29624467-D8FE-4C30-963C-9956D9E36623&#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=29624467-D8FE-4C30-963C-9956D9E36623&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Michael Gersondu1-i-syn WASHINGTON – One of the unpleasant surprises of your 50s (among many) is seeing the heroes and mentors of your 20s pass away. I worked for the late Chuck Colson of Watergate fame, who became, through his work with prisoners, one of the most important social reformers of the 20th century. I worked for the late Jack Kemp, who inspired generations of conservatives with his passion for inclusion. I worked against the late John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries but came to admire his truculent commitment to principle. Perhaps it is natural to attribute heroism to past generations and to find a sad smallness in your own. But we are seeing the largest test of political character in my lifetime. And where are the Republican leaders large enough to show the way? President Donald Trump’s recent remarks to evangelicals at the White House capture where Republican politics are heading. “This Nov. 6 election,” Trump said, “is very much a referendum on not only me, it’s a referendum on your religion.” A direct, unadorned appeal to tribal hostilities. Fighting for Trump, Trump argued, is the only way to defend the Christian faith. None of these men and women of God, apparently, gagged on their hors d’oeuvres. If religious get-out-the-vote efforts are insufficient, according to the president, “that will be the beginning of ending everything you’ve gotten.” The gates of hell will not prevail against the church, but evidently Nancy Pelosi would. “It’s not a question of like or dislike, it’s a question that they (Democrats) will overturn everything that we’ve done and they will do it quickly and violently. And violently. There is violence.” Here Trump is preparing his audience for the possibility of bloodshed by predicting it from the other side. Christians, evidently, need to start taking “Onward, Christian Soldiers” more literally. This is now what passes for GOP discourse – the cultivation of anger, fear, grievances, prejudices and hatreds. I have sympathy for principled Republicans at a time when principle is swiftly and effectively punished. In Florida’s recent primaries, significantly more Republican voters said they were loyal to Trump than to the GOP. In many places, the only way for an average Republican senator or House member to maintain any political influence is to burn incense to the emperor. But Republican leaders need to prepare themselves. This compromise is likely to be temporary. Trump is not only making a challenge to the Republican establishment; he is increasingly impatient with structures of democratic accountability. As Edward Luce argues in “The Retreat of Western Liberalism,” “the true populist loses patience with the rules of the democratic game.” He comes to view himself as the embodied voice of the people, and opponents as (in Trump’s words) “un-American” and “treasonous.” As Robert Mueller continues his inexorable investigation of Trump’s sleazy business and political world – and if Democrats gain the House and begin aggressive oversight – a cornered president may test the limits of executive power in the attempt to avoid justice. If the GOP narrowly retains control of the House, Trump and others will take it as the vindication of his whole approach to politics. The president will doubtlessly go further in targeting his enemies for investigation and other harm. He will doubtlessly attack the independence of the FBI and attempt to make it an instrument of his will. He will doubtlessly continue his vendetta against responsible journalism and increase his pressure on media companies that don’t please him. On a broad front, Trump’s lunacy would become operational. The separation of powers does not work automatically, like a washing machine. Republicans must pick their own point of principled resistance to a corrosive populism, if they have one at all. In the preface to his play “A Man for All Seasons,” author Robert Bolt tries to explain the character of Thomas More, who ends up killed for his opposition to the king: “He knew where he began and left off,” Bolt says, “what area of himself he could yield to the encroachments of his enemies, and what to the encroachments of those he loved. ... But at length he was asked to retreat from that final area where he located himself. And there this supple, humorous, unassuming and sophisticated person set like metal, was overtaken by an absolutely primitive rigor and could no more be budged than a cliff.” Republican leaders may dread it, but they will eventually be forced to identify that final area where they keep themselves – or find there is no one there. 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://tj.durangoherald.com/gerson-feds-should-take-note-of-prison-reform-successes/</link>
        <title>Gerson: Feds should take note of prison reform successes</title>
        <description>Michael Gerson, Washington Postdu1-i-syn WASHINGTON – An administration not known for policy creativity is unlikely to have useful internal policy debates. But in the Trump administration, prison reform is a welcome exception. This is largely because of the efforts of...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 17:03:02 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7099FC50-D8DE-3ACF-E053-0100007F4EB6</guid>
        <media:content url="https://imengine.public.prod.dur.navigacloud.com/?uuid=4A9A2C46-3710-45B0-B211-772F4E5ACA2A&#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=4A9A2C46-3710-45B0-B211-772F4E5ACA2A&#038;function=thumbnail&#038;type=preview&#038;source=false&#038;width=600&#038;height=400" />
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Michael Gerson, Washington Postdu1-i-syn WASHINGTON – An administration not known for policy creativity is unlikely to have useful internal policy debates. But in the Trump administration, prison reform is a welcome exception. This is largely because of the efforts of President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who, in common with millions of poor and minority children in America, has had the searing experience of visiting a father in prison. Kushner has displayed considerable passion in recruiting conservatives to the cause of prison reform. He has been opposed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who seems stuck in a get-tough-on-crime time warp. In the context of this disagreement – reflected in the broader conservative movement – the House of Representatives has passed a worthwhile but watered-down bill called the First Step Act. This legislation would make changes on the exit side of incarceration, increasing funding for education and job-training programs and allowing inmates to earn credits for early release. As a result of opposition from Sessions and others, the bill does not focus on the entrance side of incarceration, sentencing reform that would encourage alternatives to imprisonment for less dangerous offenders. In the Senate, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, is pushing for comprehensive reform that covers both exit and entrance. Conservatives are split on issues surrounding prison reform. But the debate is happening for a supremely conservative reason: because states have demonstrated it can work. In the current issue of National Affairs, Lars Trautman and Arthur Rizer provide a helpful survey of a red-state policy revolution. States such as Texas, Georgia and Louisiana have taken a series of measures to divert addicts and people with mental-health problems away from incarceration, to limit mandatory minimums and to make wider and better use of parole. The theory is simple. America’s vast experiment in routine incarceration – which has quadrupled the American incarceration rate since 1972 – had some effect in reducing contact between dangerous offenders and potential victims. But recidivism rates are dismal. And millions of relatively non-dangerous people have been swept up into a justice system that puts them in intimate contact with dangerous offenders, exposes them to rape and violence, deprives their families of support, and sends them back into communities without skills and stamped with a felony stigma. Given that the main deterrent to crime is not the severity of punishment but its certainty, prison and sentencing reforms are designed to provide a broader range of penalties and treatment options to courts, along with greater discretion in employing them. This means that the violent criminals get treated differently from nonviolent criminals, who get treated differently from addicts, who get treated differently from the mentally disabled, who get treated differently from parole violators – instead of sweeping them all into (expensive) prison beds. States have done more than apply a theory. They have demonstrated something practical, hopeful and remarkable. “This renaissance has been led in large part by deep-red Texas,” write Trautman and Rizer, “which, by instituting a series of ‘smart on crime’ initiatives in the last decade, accomplished a feat previously believed to be impossible: the simultaneous reduction of its crime, recidivism and incarceration rates.” While the crime rate index fell by 20 percent nationally from 2007 to 2014, it fell by 26 percent in Texas. The state, meanwhile, closed eight prisons. What does this mean for the Kushner/Sessions conflict? It means that the criminal-justice views of the attorney general are far to the right of the Texas state Legislature, which puts him in small and disturbing company. It means that Sessions’ opposition to sentencing reform is rooted in vindictiveness and ideology rather than a conservative respect for facts and outcomes. And it means that Sessions has learned nothing from federalism, which he seems to respect only when it fits his preconceptions. One of the reasons this good idea should succeed in Washington is to demonstrate that any good idea can succeed in Washington. Two other scholars, Steven Teles and David Dagan, have called prison and sentencing reform an example of “trans-partisanship,” which they define as “agreement on policy goals driven by divergent, deeply held ideological beliefs.” Liberals look at mass incarceration and see structural racism. Libertarians see the denial of civil liberties. Fiscal conservatives see wasted resources. Religious activists see inhumane conditions and damaged lives. All these convictions converge at one point: We should treat offenders as humans, with different stories and different needs, instead of casting them all into the same pit of despair. 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>
</channel>
</rss>
