-
Supreme Court will hear challenge to ‘conversion therapy’ bans - 16 mins ago
-
Severe Weather Update for Florida Amid Risk of Tornados, Hail Storms - 24 mins ago
-
Oil Tanker and Container Ship Collide in the North Sea - 35 mins ago
-
Women’s-Only Gym Faces Backlash for Excluding Trans Women - 58 mins ago
-
For Patients Needing Transplants, Hope Arrives on Tiny Hooves - about 1 hour ago
-
Donald Trump Defends Amy Coney Barrett After MAGA Attacks - 2 hours ago
-
Everyone Has a Plan For Gaza. None of Them Add Up. - 2 hours ago
-
Elon Musk’s Social Security Comments Called Out by Former Administrator - 2 hours ago
-
A homeless woman who occupied her old, vacant home is saying goodbye - 2 hours ago
-
Oil Tanker on Fire after Collision with Cargo Ship - 3 hours ago
Opinion | Trump Gave Us a Piece of His Mind
Bret Stephens: Hola, Gail. ¿Qué opinas sobre la insistencia de Donald Trump en que el inglés sea nuestro idioma oficial?
Gail Collins: Hey, Bret, great to be back conversing. And in Spanish no less, a language I once attempted — and failed — to learn. It was my second effort at becoming bilingual. In college, I took Russian courses in the hopes that I’d eventually be able to read “War and Peace” in the original. Couldn’t even make it through “A Visit to Grandmother” in Chapter 1 of the textbook.
Bret: Good thing Trump didn’t make Russian the official language. That’ll be next week, tovarich.
Gail: Must say it never occurred to me to demand that all others should abandon their native languages so I wouldn’t have to be reminded of my ineptitude.
So bottom line: No to making English the official language. It’s not a proposal to solve a problem; it’s just another loopy and nasty Trump appeal to the throngs.
Bret: I have no problem with it. French is the official language of France, Spanish of Spain, Danish of Denmark, Swedish of Sweden — and none of them are any less free and democratic for it. Democrats shouldn’t allow themselves to be baited by Trump into opposing it, which only serves his political purposes. In fact, Democrats should insist on making English the official language and then demand that Trump learn to speak and write it properly.
Gail: Hehe. OK, that won me over.
Bret: The other thought I’d offer Democrats is not to make pathetic spectacles of themselves. Which reminds me: What did you think of Trump’s speech to Congress last week?
Gail: Well, let’s start with Representative Al Green’s attempt to heckle the president. I’m really sorry that happened, mainly because it diverted attention from the incredibly long and boring performance by Trump.
Bret: I almost preferred his heckling, which at least was gutsy and principled, to the sight of Democrats holding up tiny placards of protest. It made them look like the kindergarten brigade fighting Godzilla.
Gail: Let’s talk about the Trumpian spending-taxing plan itself.
Bret: Hang on: one more point about the speech. Aside from its various untruths, its Fidel-like verbosity, its not-so-veiled threats against Panama and Denmark, its trademark combination of self-pity and self-congratulation, I thought it was … a very effective political speech. It had energy and confidence and the promise of action and change. Its occasional roughness spoke to regular Americans, especially when he dwelled on hot-button cultural issues, like there being only two sexes. And it had moments of real human connection — a boy who survived brain cancer getting his Secret Service badge — that deserved a standing ovation from everyone, not the sullen, stone-hearted and politically idiotic reaction from most of the Democrats in the chamber.
Democrats need to appreciate Trump’s preternatural political gifts and find a way to get the better of them.
As for taxes: Cut, baby, cut.
Gail: Been looking forward to a tax argument. And while I know many average Americans are disturbed by the whole debate over transgender rights, the answer is to make the conversation serious and focused, not just hateful. For instance, people who are worried about letting male-turned-female athletes compete in women’s sports seem perfectly reasonable to me. But people who center a good chunk of their presidential campaigns stirring up fear and loathing deserved to be … feared and loathed.
Bret: Totally agree about a serious and unhateful conversation — one that’s not just about biological males unfairly outcompeting biological females in women’s sports. It’s also about respecting the right of adults to make deeply personal decisions about their gender identity, protecting minors from irreversible medical interventions they may later come to deeply regret and having good-faith conversations that don’t descend to name-calling, moral bullying and personal harassment.
Gail: About taxes: Looks to me like the Trump-Musk plan for slashing income taxes is just the prelude to their dream of strangling programs like Medicaid and preschool education. Disagree or eagerly anticipate?
Bret: My objection to the tax plans is that they don’t go far enough: If the government is going to jack up prices through tariffs, which is one form of taxation, it should compensate with other types of tax cuts and not just by extending the current tax rates or cutting taxes on tips and Social Security benefits. How about deeper cuts on capital gains?
Gail: Sorry, thumbs down. Whenever the capital-gains tax comes up, it brings out the knee-jerk lefty in me.
Bret: OK, let’s raise capital gains and compensate with a flat 15 percent income-tax rate for all earners, regardless of wealth, in order to reward hard work. As for Medicaid, Trump would be a fool to try to destroy the program. A lot of his base relies on it.
Education is another story.
Gail: How do you feel about that?
Bret: Personally? I’m for education, in case you were wondering, including pre-K. If your question is about the Department of Education, I wouldn’t object to getting rid of it.
Gail: Education is rightly a big, huge focus of national concern. Mainly, of course, it’s a state and local issue. But the whole country has the right to press for basic standards of quality. And the Department of Education, besides that role, is also the critical overseer of student-loan programs.
Bret: If the department has been looking after basic standards of quality — after years of falling literacy and numeracy skills — then I’m definitely in favor of eliminating the department.
Gail: On the other hand, Trump’s education secretary is Linda McMahon of World Wrestling Entertainment. So not holding out much hope for quality control at the moment.
Bret: Sticking to the general topic, Gail: The Trump administration just announced it was canceling $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University, owing to what it says is Columbia’s failure to protect its Jewish students from discrimination. Your thoughts?
Gail: My thought is that this is just the Trumpians enjoying a chance to save money and assault a quality university that’s never bred a whole lot of Donald-backing graduates.
We have a very serious issue in this country with antisemitic discrimination, and it hurts the cause of justice when this administration uses it in this way.
You?
Bret: Imagine a prestigious university in which a highly vocal contingent of white students, with the assistance of prominent members of the faculty, formed clubs with ostensibly political aims that had the effect of making life for Black students tense and frightening. Imagine those white students, usually wearing intimidating masks, illegally seized campus buildings while chanting slogans that are justifiably viewed by many as thinly veiled threats of violence. Imagine that university administrators spent months responding with timidity and hesitation, expressing regret but meting out punishments lightly, at least until they started fearing government action. Imagine that every time those administrators spoke out against anti-Black hate, they made sure to add that they remained opposed to anti-white hate, too. Imagine that one of the most prestigious historians of slavery in the country refused an invitation to teach at the university because she didn’t trust the university and didn’t want to be treated as a token.
If Columbia now gets taxpayer funding withdrawn and has to go begging to disgusted alumni — many of whom won’t give the school a cent until it cleans up its act — I don’t mind. Columbia is a private university: It can sink or swim on its own dime.
Gail: Having gone to school in the antiwar era, I’m pretty familiar with the ineptitude of colleges when it comes to handling political demonstrations. And there is absolutely, obviously, of course, no excuse for allowing any expression of antisemitism. But the students should have the right to protest actions by the Israeli government.
Bret: If the demonstrators were merely objecting to the policies of the Israeli government, I’d have no problem with their right to do it. Protesting Israel’s right to exist or the right of those who support Israel’s existence to have a place on campus meets the U.S. government’s accepted definition of antisemitism and violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It would be nice if people who think of themselves as anti-racists would oppose this form of racism, too.
Gail, before we sign off, I hope our readers won’t miss Fred Bernstein’s brilliant obituary/appreciation of Ricardo Scofidio, the architect who, with his wife and partner, Elizabeth Diller, are responsible for some of the most innovative and delightful buildings and projects in the United States, including New York’s High Line and the Broad museum in Los Angeles. Their firm’s “success came despite its tendency to treat a commission not as a chance to do a client’s bidding but as an opportunity to question the client’s goals,” Bernstein writes.
If only we could all have the guts and the vision.