Advertisement
Here’s what to read from the left and the right this week
Here’s some interesting commentary from the opposite poles of the political spectrum.
 
President Donald Trump gestures while speakings to the media on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Friday, Oct. 4, 2019.
President Donald Trump gestures while speakings to the media on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Friday, Oct. 4, 2019. [ PABLO MARTINEZ MONSIVAIS | AP ]
Published Oct. 6, 2019

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 “Unfit For Office,” by George T. Conway III in the Atlantic.

The context, from the author (who is married to White House adviser Kellyanne Conway): Donald Trump’s narcissism makes it impossible for him to carry out the duties of the presidency in the way the Constitution requires.

The excerpt: Any serious impeachment proceedings should consider not only the evidence and the substance of all impeachable offenses, but also the psychological factors that may be relevant to the motivations underlying those offenses. ... Is Trump so narcissistic that he can’t help but use his office for his own personal ends? Is he so sociopathic that he can’t be trusted to follow, let alone faithfully execute, the law? ... The people have a right to know, and a need to see. Many people have watched all of Trump’s behavior, and they’ve drawn the obvious conclusion. They know something’s wrong. ... Others have changed the channel, or looked away, or chosen to deny what they’ve seen. But if Congress does its job and presents the evidence, those who are in denial won’t be able to ignore the problem any longer. Not only because of the evidence itself, but because Donald Trump will respond in pathological ways — and in doing so, he’ll prove the points against him in ways almost no one will be able to ignore.

From “It’s Time For Bernie To Talk About Himself,” by John Nichols in The Nation.

The context, from the author: When the Vermont senator returns to the trail, he’s going to need to talk about his least favorite topic: Bernie Sanders.

The excerpt: He has some (health care) stories of his own to tell — and he shouldn’t hesitate to do so. Nor should he hesitate to talk about the fact that lots of Americans have medical procedures and then have to go back to work. These choices can be hard, and they come with many pressures, many stresses. It’s not a sign of weakness for a candidate whose campaign is so wrapped up with the issue of health care policy to share his own experience and his own thinking about that experience.

From “The Republican Party’s Deafening Silence,” by Alex Shephard in The New Republic.

The context, from the author: Republicans tried to defend the president, and failed spectacularly. So now they’re keeping their mouths shut.

The excerpt: The Republicans’ silence says more than their bumbling words ever could: There is no coherent case to be made in Trump’s defense, so the best response is none at all.

FROM THE RIGHT

From “California Takes Righteous Aim at the NCAA Cartel,” by David French in the National Review.

The context, from the author: Free-market reform can come from the most unlikely places. ... In plain English, (the new law) means that in California, a college athlete won’t receive a salary from his school, but he can star in a local commercial or make royalties from the sale of merchandise featuring his name. He can hire an agent. He’ll be treated — for the first time — like virtually any other student at the school.

The excerpt: California’s law is fundamentally just. Presently, the NCAA runs a multi-billion-dollar monopoly that not only refuses to compensate its most important workers fairly but has created a labyrinth of regulations that often treat athletes substantially worse than their student peers. And those regulations often fall on athletes who have far fewer financial resources than do students who enjoy economic opportunity without collegiate restraint.

From “President Trump Is Absolutely Right To Assume Federal Agencies Are Against Him,” by Inez Feltscher Stepman in The Federalist.

The context, from the author: The real scandal of the Ukrainian debacle that continues to lead every cable broadcast is that, once again, the actions of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats have deeply affected an election in United States.

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

The excerpt: When President Trump claims to be an outsider in his own administration, in a very real sense, he’s not wrong. Say what you want about Trump (and I’ve said plenty) he represents a real challenge to the post-war liberal order, both foreign and domestic, of the last 70 years. Many of what are really just political heresies are instead labeled dangerous or insane by a ruling class that has mistaken its consensus of the last few decades for the foundational pillars of democracy. Instead of meeting the Trumpian challenge within the boundaries of the normal political process, too many of the unelected bureaucrats who staff the alphabet soup agencies seem to feel entitled to circumvent the will of the American people when it conflicts with their priors.

From “A Necessary Remedy for Brazen Corruption,” by Daniel Larison in The American Conservative.

The context, from the author: If it weren’t so serious, it would almost be funny that the supposed nationalist is asking for foreign governments to help him against his domestic rivals. It isn’t really surprising that someone as venal as Trump would put his own interests ahead of the country’s, but it is still striking to see how shameless he is when he does it.

The excerpt: It is Trump’s brazenness and shamelessness that make the argument for impeachment and removal that much stronger. We are not looking at an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior that stems from the president’s lack of integrity and his willingness to abuse his position to extract personal favors to the detriment of our system of government. If he doesn’t face any consequences for this, we know that he will do more of the same, and future presidents will conclude that they can get away with similar behavior. The president has violated the public’s trust, and he has made clear that he intends to keep violating it. He should no longer be in a position to continue those violations.