Editorial

Blind hogs and acorns

When Donald Trump gets it right

"I went to the University of Chicago for a while after the Second World War . . . . [T]hey were teaching that there was absolutely no difference between anybody. They may be teaching that still. Another thing they taught was that no one was ridiculous or bad or disgusting. Shortly before my father died, he said to me, 'You know, you never wrote a story with a villain in it.' I told him that was one of the things I learned in college after the war."

--Kurt Vonnegut,

Slaughterhouse-Five

Of course there are villains in the world. Read the papers. When the towers and the Pentagon were still smoldering in the fall of 2001, some of the more pointy-headed types in the commentariat thought it fashionable to say that all humans were alike. We Americans just needed to understand other cultures. And if you only saw things from their point of view . . . .

We couldn't. The smoke was still in our eyes.

N.B.: The Donald is running an uncertain campaign for president of the United States. It seems he's stuck at below 40 percent in most polls. Which is about right, given that most polls showed he was viewed unfavorably by more than two-thirds of Americans before a plurality in the Republican Party nominated him. (Walter Mondale got 40.6 percent of the vote in 1984. Is that the over-under on Donald Trump in 2016?)

But not even Donald Trump can be all wrong, all the time. His opponents have so consistently jumped on his every word that sometimes they can be guilty of a false start. As was the case last week when The Donald talked about his new ideas for immigration reform.

Now, this being the Donald Trump campaign and a Donald Trump speech, details were lacking. And he veered off-topic. And off-script, according to reports. (And, despite what he may say, Hillary Clinton really isn't the cause of all the world's troubles.) But some of his ideas--especially about better screening of people from countries ripped by terror and war--make sense. Shouldn't every president's first priority be keeping his constituents--that is, all Americans--safe at home?

Here are some points he made in Monday's speech that most Americans would probably understand completely:

• A Trump Administration would "only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people."

Why, yes. How that's going to happen is anybody's guess (terrorists lie), but those who want to enter this country should be aware of the rights all Americans have, and respect them.

• "In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles--or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law."

Want to live here? Live by our laws.

• "Only those who we expect to flourish in our country--and to embrace a tolerant American society--should be issued immigrant visas."

Sure. America could always use more people pushing the cart.

• And he'd create a Commission on Radical Islam: "The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization. This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners."

So far, so presidential.

And, he added, he'd keep Gitmo open, tell immigrants caught preaching hate in this country to return to their homelands, and, oh, by the way, assimilation isn't an act of hostility. Anybody who wants to live here will have to live with the rest of us.

Of course he was attacked for the speech. Even before the speech. (Transcripts can be leaked.) Proving once again that not just one campaign in this presidential election season can get overexcited on occasion.

There was enough in Donald Trump's speech on Monday to praise it. In this age of terror, having open borders is not just dangerous, it can be fatal. And while nobody with a heart wants to turn down those fleeing terror, there must be a way to better screen those who want to come here from, say, Syria or Iraq or other places where terrorists have infiltrated society. A justice on the United States Supreme Court by the name of Robert H. Jackson once supposedly said the Constitution is a great idea, but it's not a suicide pact.

Donald Trump's speech probably won't go down as great. William Jennings Bryan he isn't. And on another day we might discuss the problems with some of the ideas he proposed. (Keeping the oil in Iraq from the beginning would have proven the enemy's point.)

If events in Europe over the last few months have proven anything, it's that terrorists want in, and they want in bad. If pledging to better screen immigrants--even going so far as to call it Extreme Vetting--is unconstitutional and horrible, what would being a good guardian and preserver of the peace be?

Give The Donald his due. He's (mostly) right this time.

Editorial on 08/21/2016

Upcoming Events