We live in a partisan age, and our news habits can reinforce our own perspectives. Consider this an effort to broaden our collective outlook with essays beyond the range of our typical selections.
From the left
From "How Melania Became Way Cooler Than Ivanka" by Keli Goff in the Daily Beast at http://thebea.st/2oPqqG0.
The context, from the author: Melania Trump has emerged as … well, a surprisingly calm, classy counterbalance to her husband and those he surrounds himself with, including her stepdaughter.
The excerpt: Privately plenty of liberal women I know have begun peppering conversations with variations of "I can't stand her husband, but she's a beautiful woman, has great style and seems nice." Those who've crossed paths with her speak of her kindness and lack of airs and lack of social climbing tendencies, which is so often assumed in those who marry well, not to mention her intelligence. (Yes, I know some of you just rolled your eyes. To which my response is, how many languages do you speak?)
From "Republicans Finally Wrote a Health Bill Cruel Enough to Satisfy Conservatives" by Patrick Caldwell in Mother Jones at http://bit.ly/2oA7dvI.
The context, from the author: The newest GOP idea to replace Obamacare? Ending protections for people with preexisting conditions.
The excerpt: Driving sick people out of their insurance policies isn't an unintended consequence of GOP Rep. Tom MacArthur's proposal; it's the goal. That's because it would likely lower the cost of premiums for everyone else. Insurance companies would be able to charge less since they wouldn't actually be paying for as much care anymore. But it would almost certainly result in a spike in the number of uninsured people, too.
From "The Long, Dirty History of U.S. Warmongering against North Korea" by Christine Hong in the Progressive at http://bit.ly/2pD7pdV.
The context, from the author: The American public's quietism with regard to the prospect of renewed U.S. aggression against North Korea is remarkable. It stands in stark contrast to the broad anti-war galvanization in the post-9/11 lead-up to the U.S. war in Iraq and the widespread protests against the Vietnam War in an earlier era.
The excerpt: Instability in Korea has, for several decades, lined the pockets of those who profit from the business of war. Indeed, the Korean War rehabilitated a U.S. economy geared, as a result of World War II, toward total war. Seized as opportunity, the war enabled the Truman administration to triple U.S. defense spending and furnished a rationale for the bilateral linking of Asian client states to the United States, and the establishment of what Chalmers Johnson called an "empire of bases" in the Pacific. Gen. James Van Fleet, the commanding officer of U.N. forces in Korea, described the war as "a blessing" and remarked, "There had to be a Korea either here or some place in the world."
From the right
From "Why Do We Want a Cooperative Relationship With Russia?" by George D. O'Neill, Jr. in the American Conservative at http://bit.ly/2pD1Mwg.
The context, from the author: For me and many others on the right, Russia is not the main focus, but a component of years of effort to advance a more realistic and restrained U.S. foreign policy. Someone who is interested in such a foreign policy would naturally conclude that it is in the best interests of our country to have a good relationship, if possible, with any country that possesses the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal. There is a long tradition of American non-interventionism dating back to our Founding Fathers.
Spend your days with Hayes
Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter
You’re all signed up!
Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.
Explore all your optionsThe excerpt: Imagine if George W. Bush had told us in 2001 he wanted to start a series of wars that would kill 6,000 Americans, wound tens of thousands more, kill hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners, make millions homeless, totally destroy ancient cities, and wreck several countries. Add to that the expenditure of five to six trillion dollars, and after 16 years have more people committed to attack and destroy us than before, with no end in sight. Would anyone have agreed to such a disaster other than the neoconservatives?
From "Science vs. Science™!" by Ben Shapiro in the National Review at http://bit.ly/2pCZfC7.
The context, from the author: Who needs experiments and proof when your zeal is religious?
The excerpt: Science is actually just the name for anything the Left likes. Worried about the humanity of an unborn child? Concerned that fetuses have their own blood types and their own DNA? Stop it! You're quoting science, not Science™! Wondering how it is that a genetic male is actually a woman? You're worrying about science, not Science™! Concerned that fetuses have their own blood types and their own DNA? Stop it! You're quoting science, not Science™! This is the dirty little secret of the Left's sudden embrace of Science™ — it's not science they support, but religion. They support that which they believe but cannot prove and do not care about proving.
From "Confederate Monuments Belong in Museums, Not Public Squares" by Berny Belvedere in the Weekly Standard at http://tws.io/2plNDjZ.
The context, from the author: Those of us who want to see the Confederate statues fall need not be automatically lumped together with speech-censoring and monument-toppling leftists. I make a distinction between backward-looking and forward-looking monuments.
The excerpt: Forward-looking monuments promote our core values and herald American virtues. Forward-looking monuments are those we use to proclaim what is best about us, to signal who we are and to project into the future who we will continue to be. These are the ones we canonize because embedded within them is the set of virtues we wish to continue to be associated with. Viewing monuments this way allows for historical reflection as well as moral striving. As an approach to our national iconography, it strikes a balance between an extreme self-flagellation over our past sins ("we have always been terrible") and an ahistorical jingoism unwilling to acknowledge any past transgression at all ("we have never been terrible"). There is value in looking back and value in looking ahead. ... Museums should hold those artifacts whose original usage we find problematic today. A statue erected in a city space, on the other hand, is a paradigmatic example of a forward-looking monument — one that is supposed to herald something about us moving forward