US Press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. Indefinite detention violates American values (San Francisco Chronicle)

Compromise is part of the political process, but the foundational principles of this nation should not be tendered as the cost of passing a bill about national defense, this editorial argues.

2. Can I vote for a Mormon? (Washington Post)

Ken Starr argues that the Constitution, not faith, matters.

3. My Baloney Has a First Name, It's M-I-T-T (Slate)

Will Newt Gingrich's attack on Mitt Romney's "pious baloney" change the New Hampshire race? John Dickerson discusses.

4. Holder's Texas Intrusion (Wall Street Journal) ($)

The Supreme Court will rule on a racial redistricting ploy. This review investigates.

5. Talking to the Taliban (Los Angeles Times)

As the insurgents say, the U.S. has the watches but the Taliban has the time. Rajan Menon writes about the "new phase in a long struggle".

6. Drug-testing proposal discriminates against poor (Detroit Free Press)

More than a decade after courts wisely rejected Michigan's efforts to drug-test welfare recipients, state legislators are considering a new version of this discriminatory practice, this editorial writes.

7. Can U.S. adjust to Islamist Mideast? (Politico)

William B. Quandt writes that whoever is president in 2013 will want to have good relations with Turkey and Egypt.

8. Just the Ticket (New York Times)

Why Hillary Clinton is the answer. Seriously, writes Bill Keller.

9. Republicans Versus Reproductive Rights (New York Times)

Voters should not be fooled. The assault on women's reproductive health is a central part of the Republican agenda, this editorial warns.

10. Why should Prop. 13 be sacrosanct? (Los Angeles Times)

According to Jim Newton, the core provisions of Proposition 13 remain weirdly off-limits to normal political debate. It's time for that to end.

Getty
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

The world shared a stunned silence when news broke that Boris Johnson would be the new Foreign Secretary. Johnson, who once referred to black people as “piccaninnies” and more recently accused the half-Kenyan President of the United States of only commenting on the EU referendum because of bitterness about colonialism, will now be Britain’s representative on the world stage.

His colourful career immediately came back to haunt him when US journalists accused him of “outright lies” and reminded him of the time he likened Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to a “sadistic nurse”. Johnson’s previous appearances on the international stage include a speech in Beijing where he maintained that ping pong was actually the Victorian game of “whiff whaff”.

But Johnson has always been more than a blond buffoon, and this appointment is a shrewd one by May. His popularity in the country at large, apparently helped by getting stuck on a zip line and having numerous affairs, made him an obvious threat to David Cameron’s premiership. His decision to defect to the Leave campaign was widely credited with bringing it success. He canned his leadership campaign after Michael Gove launched his own bid, but the question of whether his chutzpah would beat May’s experience and gravity is still unknown.

In giving BoJo the Foreign Office, then, May hands him the photo opportunities he craves. Meanwhile, the man with real power in international affairs will be David Davis, who as Brexit minister has the far more daunting task of renegotiating Britain’s trade deals.