US press: pick of the papers

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

1. Elephants down under (New York Times)

In New Zealand and Australia, you could almost fit their entire political spectrum -- from conservatives to liberals -- inside the US Democratic Party, writes Thomas Friedman, from Christchurch, New Zealand.

2. Republicans are causing a moral crisis in America (Washington Post)

The real crisis of public morality in the United States doesn't lie in the private decisions Americans make in their lives or their bedrooms; it lies at the heart of an ideology -- and a set of policies -- that the right-wing has used to batter and browbeat their fellow Americans, writes Katrina vanden Heuvel.

3. A small step forward for Earth (LA Times)

To really make a difference, the EPA should crack down on existing coal plants. But during an election year, when short-term economic concerns are trumping long-term ones, we'll take what we can get, says this editorial.

4. Could defeat in court help Obama win? (New York Times)

If the new health care law's individual mandate to purchase insurance is upheld, it will be hailed as a big win for the administration. But the White House might actually reap more political dividends from defeat, says Ross Douthat.

5. The rich are different; they get richer (Washington Post)

A middle class enduring prolonged stagnation isn't likely to fund projects the nation needs to undertake -- such as rebuilding our infrastructure or increasing teacher pay -- or, ultimately, to retain its faith in the efficacy of democracy, writes Harold Meyerson.

6. Europe's firewall follies (Wall Street Journal)

This editorial says: As best we can tell, the world did not end (as widely predicted) when Athens was forced to restructure its debt, despite the benefit of previous bailouts. So why does Europe now need to double down on the same bailout medicine that so expensively failed to save Greece?

7. US foreign policy tries to lock up loose nukes (San Francisco Chronicle)

Neither of two major sources of worry - Iran and next-door North Korea - attended a recent summit. The get-together underlined the ostracized, outsider status of the two nations, which have refused to divulge the extent of their nuclear buildup, writes this editorial.

8. Streamline the federal government (Politico)

It is in the national interest to approve the president's consolidation authority, so that we can bring Washington into the 21st century by making it tech savvy and agile, a true partner for U.S. companies, small and large, that will be the source of jobs for years to come, write Jeff Zients and John Engler.

9. Ripping out Obamacare by the roots (Washington Examiner)

We are only beginning to scratch the surface of Obamacare. Never before has a piece of legislation empowered an unaccountable, unelected official, in this case the secretary of health and human services, to wield such enormous regulatory power, writes Rep. Michele Bachmann.

10. Income inequality does matter (USA Today)

Some think the problem is one of relative deprivation, that folks in the middle are doing OK. It's just a matter of envy. Not so, says Philip Meyer.

Symbols of the Democratic and Republican parties on display in Washington, D.C. in 2008. Credit: Getty Images
Picture: ANDRÉ CARRILHO
Show Hide image

Leader: Boris Johnson, a liar and a charlatan

The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. 

Boris Johnson is a liar, a charlatan and a narcissist. In 1988, when he was a reporter at the Times, he fabricated a quotation from his godfather, an eminent historian, which duly appeared in a news story on the front page. He was sacked. (We might pause here to acknowledge the advantage to a young journalist of having a godfather whose opinions were deemed worthy of appearing in a national newspaper.) Three decades later, his character has not improved.

On 17 September, Mr Johnson wrote a lengthy, hyperbolic article for the Daily Telegraph laying out his “vision” for Brexit – in terms calculated to provoke and undermine the Prime Minister (who was scheduled to give a speech on Brexit in Florence, Italy, as we went to press). Extracts of his “article”, which reads more like a speech, appeared while a terror suspect was on the loose and the country’s threat level was at “critical”, leading the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, to remark: “On the day of a terror attack where Britons were maimed, just hours after the threat level is raised, our only thoughts should be on service.”

Three other facets of this story are noteworthy. First, the article was published alongside other pieces echoing and praising its conclusions, indicating that the Telegraph is now operating as a subsidiary of the Johnson for PM campaign. Second, Theresa May did not respond by immediately sacking her disloyal Foreign Secretary – a measure of how much the botched election campaign has weakened her authority. Finally, it is remarkable that Mr Johnson’s article repeated the most egregious – and most effective – lie of the EU referendum campaign. “Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week,” the Foreign Secretary claimed. “It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”

This was the promise of Brexit laid out by the official Vote Leave team: we send £350m to Brussels, and after leaving the EU, that money can be spent on public services. Yet the £350m figure includes the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher – so just under a third of the sum never leaves the country. Also, any plausible deal will involve paying significant amounts to the EU budget in return for continued participation in science and security agreements. To continue to invoke this figure is shameless. That is not a partisan sentiment: the head of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, denounced Mr Johnson’s “clear misuse of official statistics”.

In the days that followed, the chief strategist of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings – who, as Simon Heffer writes in this week's New Statesman, is widely suspected of involvement in Mr Johnson’s article – added his voice. Brexit was a “shambles” so far, he claimed, because of the ineptitude of the civil service and the government’s decision to invoke Article 50 before outlining its own detailed demands.

There is a fine Yiddish word to describe this – chutzpah. Mr Johnson, like all the other senior members of Vote Leave in parliament, voted to trigger Article 50 in March. If he and his allies had concerns about this process, the time to speak up was then.

It has been clear for some time that Mr Johnson has no ideological attachment to Brexit. (During the referendum campaign, he wrote articles arguing both the Leave and Remain case, before deciding which one to publish – in the Telegraph, naturally.) However, every day brings fresh evidence that he and his allies are not interested in the tough, detailed negotiations required for such an epic undertaking. They will brush aside any concerns about our readiness for such a huge challenge by insisting that Brexit would be a success if only they were in charge of it.

This is unlikely. Constant reports emerge of how lightly Mr Johnson treats his current role. At a summit aiming to tackle the grotesque humanitarian crisis in Yemen, he is said to have astounded diplomats by joking: “With friends like these, who needs Yemenis?” The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. By extension, he demeans our politics. 

This article first appeared in the 21 September 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The revenge of the left