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 "Why Corrupt Bankers Avoid Jail" by Patrick Radden Keefe in the New Yorker at http://bit.ly/2v3Diy4.
The context, from the author: Federal prosecutions of white-collar crime are now at a 20-year low.
The excerpt: It is a pernicious irony that a progressive legal instrument designed to help working-class defendants stay out of jail has been repurposed as a vehicle for facilitating corporate impunity. As the federal judge Emmet Sullivan noted in 2015, "Drug conspiracy defendants are no less deserving of a second chance than bribery conspiracy defendants." Yet these days the Department of Justice seldom offers this form of clemency to the kinds of individuals for whom the practice was conceived.
From "Donald Trump's Ban on Transgender Troops Is Not a Distraction — It's The Point" by Richard Kim in The Nation at http://bit.ly/2v2oK26.
The context: The headline sums it up.
The excerpt: Being at once anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-LGBT is not a diversion from some secret Trump/Republican agenda; neither is pitting us against each other. It's what they do. It's who they are. We should know this by now.
From "The Case for Impeachment" by John Nichols in the Progressive at http://bit.ly/2tNtNUv.
The context: The Democrats could, with an embrace of impeachment power, set an example of principled politics. But Democrats will not do this by standing on the sidelines of this moment.
The excerpt: Whenever impeachment is placed "on the table" by the American people and emboldened officials such as (California Democratic Rep. Brad) Sherman, it is snatched back by partisans who have no taste for a debate about this constitutional remedy. This does an injustice to the nation's constitutional history. As George Mason told the Constitutional Convention of 1787, "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued."
FROM THE RIGHT
From "The Charlie Gard Story Exemplifies the Left's War on Parents" by Ben Shapiro in the National Review at http://bit.ly/2vc0tr1.
The context: The state continues to encroach on parents' control of their children.
The excerpt: The question isn't whether you agree with (Charlie) Gard's parents or not — perhaps the doctors were right, and his parents were grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to ignore the agonizing reality of the situation. The question is whether parents have the right to make such decisions to begin with. We're not talking about abusive parents who physically harm their children; we're not talking about a child endangerment scenario. We're talking about parents choosing a culture of life with which the prevailing leftist sentiment disagrees.
From "The Ultimate Trifecta of Crony Capitalism" by Alison Acosta Winters in the American Conservative at http://bit.ly/2v3FJRe.
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 context, from the author: In a true free market, government doesn't seek to protect jobs, industries or firms.
The excerpt: A free market is by definition a business environment in which companies produce products and services valued by consumers at a cost they are willing to pay, free from special advantages created by government. In such a market, not only will a business fail when it doesn't create value for consumers, it will be allowed to fail. But well-meaning politicians often can't resist interventions into the free market through bailouts, subsidies, government loan forgiveness or other lifelines.
From "A Secularist vs. the Progressive Faith" by Tom Wilson in Commentary at http://bit.ly/2eQpbGk.
The context: The scientist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins had a Berkeley, Calif., talk canceled when sponsors discovered his "hurtful" tweets and talk about Islam.
The excerpt: Given Richard Dawkins' pretty damning view on religious belief in general, you would have thought the event organizers might have anticipated that this arch-secularist wouldn't have anything very complimentary to say about Islam either. ... Unless, of course, the organizers already knew all about Dawkins' past comments on the other religions, but it only became a problem for them when they found out that Dawkins had been saying similar things about Islam. Had Dawkins been silent on Islam and only derided Christianity and Judaism, would he then have still been welcome at the Berkeley event? It rather sounds like it.