There is a long history of presidents of the United States, and commanders-in-chief of its armed forces, using the military to stop insurrections. This happens on occasion, and happened before 1992, before 1968, and even before 1861.
In fact, the first president to call up armed forces to stop an insurrection was the first president. George Washington led the militia from the several states during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.
The law was used here in Little Rock back in 1957 to uphold a court order allowing black students to attend Central High. We in Arkansas should know better than anyone that it can be necessary and right for the president to overrule a governor and federalize the National Guard--and use the military to protect people.
The Constitution is a great thing, and the right to protest is protected in the Bill of Rights. But as Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson once noted, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. The rule of law must be protected, too.
Whether the current president should call up more military forces to police the current protests, whether he should invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, whether it would do more harm than good when peaceful protesters have a point, whether armed 19-year-old paratroopers from the Carolinas would know how to patrol New York City without getting lost, whether governors should be given the lead on this, or whether the law should even exist in the first place ... . All that is being debated. For proof, see this page, and many American editorial and op-ed pages over the last week.
The debate should happen. Except there is some rethinking on the op-ed pages of the nation's "paper of record."
Dispatches from back East say the newsroom at The New York Times is in open revolt, or was Thursday. Their complaint is that the editors of its opinion section dared allow space for a United States senator from Arkansas, of all places. You'll notice we reprinted Tom Cotton's piece on these pages Friday. Because he has a point to make, even if you or we may not agree:
Tom Cotton--a captain in the U.S. Army and a war veteran, all before he ran for political office--called for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, in order, as Capt./Sen. Cotton said, to protect communities from "nihilist criminals." Many of whom have infiltrated peaceful protests.
And you don't need to take Tom Cotton's word for it, or even ours. The news reporters at this paper have quoted organizers of protests in Little Rock who've said troublemakers from outside their outfits have taken advantage. One organizer, thinking out loud, mentioned ordering matching T-shirts for peaceful protesters so they could ID the outsiders.
But some of the staffers at The New York Times say such a debate has no place on their op-ed pages. At least according to those not running the op-ed pages. Politico cited Twitter posts from several writers at The New York Times who have criticized giving Tom Cotton such a platform. And even some writers for the opinion section said some opinions have no place in the opinion section.
For best, or worst, example, take Roxane Gay.
She is described as a contributing op-ed writer for the paper, and she tweeted that running Tom Cotton's piece puts the Times' staff in danger. (!?) And also this: "As a NYT writer I absolutely stand in opposition to that Tom Cotton 'editorial.' We are well served by robust and ideologically diverse public discourse that includes radical, liberal and conservative voices. This is not that. His piece was inflammatory and endorsing military occupation as if the constitution doesn't exist."
Well.
There's a lot to unpack there, including a professional journalist not understanding the difference between an editorial and a guest column. And not only a professional journalist, but an opinion writer.
Apparently conservative op-eds are welcome at The Times, as far as this writer for the paper is concerned, just not overly conservative op-eds that she doesn't like. Which reminds us of all those who welcome debate on the abortion question/issue/horror as long as nobody goes so far as to include the word "baby" or "mother."
Ms. Gay wasn't the only journalist to criticize not just the article, but the decision to run it. Reports say many reporters tweeted or retweeted their opposition. This was in direct violation of Times policy, which says it is necessary to keep a separation between news and opinion, to maintain the newspaper's credibility.
One person said "there should be resignations" at The Times. It boggles the mind. These are the very people who should understand that newspapers are the best forum for such debates. Would they rather have this discussion on Facebook? With anonymous comment sections? Or perhaps they've decided, as suggested by their preferred method of complaint this week, to move to Twitter.
As several critics have noted, The Times has published op-eds by Muammar Gaddafi, Vladimir Putin, and enemies of the country. If reporters revolted after those columns were published, we don't remember it.
In fact, we don't remember anything like this. Because journalists are usually professional enough to understand how the opinion sections of their newspapers work. The same section that runs, say, Cal Thomas one day runs, say, Paul Krugman the next. Such as this section.
The Times tells its readers that it has a wall of separation between the newsroom and the opinion section, and that they are separate entities. That's good policy. We follow such guidelines here. See our statement of core values on page 2A each day. But when the newsroom starts telling the opinion section who and what can appear on the op-ed pages, and especially if their editors acquiesce, that separation evaporates. And the paper loses credibility.
Is it any wonder that so many Americans, at least out here between the coasts, look askance at the national media today? When journalists complain publicly about their own newspaper doing newspaper things, because today it happened to include a conservative voice in the op-ed section, you know something went amiss in J-school or on-the-job training.
The New York Times is an important newspaper with the largest newsroom in America. The United States needs it. Right now the leadership at the paper of record needs to educate its staff and reinforce the importance of the separation of news and opinion, and the importance of real diversity and dissenting voices on their opinion pages.
Editorial on 06/06/2020