CEO OPINION
Shannon Casas Editor in Chief The Times ’ Gainesville, Georgia
770-718-3417 | scasas@gainesvilletimes.com Weekend Edition - May 23-24, 2020
Hawkishness toward China fine, but what’s the goal?
In a sense, it’s point
less to debate whether
the United States
should have a more
hawkish policy toward
China, because we’ll
have one regardless of
how the 2020 elections
go. There’s a broad con
sensus among both of
the political parties and
foreign policy experts
across the ideological
spectrum that the U.S. will need to
be more confrontational and asser
tive with China in the years ahead.
But the more decisive factor is
that Americans have been souring
on China for years, and the pan
demic has only hardened feelings.
Last month, the Pew Research
Center found that two-thirds of
Americans have an unfavorable
view of China. A Harris poll found
that 90% of Republicans and 67 %
of Democrats think China was at
least partially to blame for the
spread of COVID-19. A new Polit
ico/Morning Consult poll found
that 31 % of Americans
flat out consider China
an “enemy.”
In short, the leaders
will be following the
voters. That’s why the
“debate” — really just
a two-way barrage of
insults — between the
Donald Trump and Joe
Biden campaigns boils
down to who can be
trusted to be tougher on
China.
Count me among the hawks. The
Communist Party of China may not
have any ideological connection to
actual communism anymore, but
it retains the brutality, bigotry and
authoritarianism that gave com
munism its bad name in the first
place.
But “hawkishness” or “tough
ness” or whatever word you pre
fer isn’t an actual foreign policy.
Hawkishness is a means, not an
ends.
So what are those ends? What
do we want to achieve? And what
calamities do we want to avoid?
The answers to the latter are
easiest. Only fools want an actual
war with China. Even if it didn’t
escalate to a nuclear exchange,
a major military confrontation
would offer few benefits for the
U.S. Personally, I’d be in favor
of regime change in China if that
were achievable with relatively
low costs in blood and treasure. But
I’ve seen no plausible plan for that.
We also do not want to create
an international financial crisis
or destroy America’s status as the
world’s reserve currency. So that
means defaulting on our massive
debt to China is out. Bringing all of
our industry home sounds attrac
tive, but if you ask any informed
person about that, it’s easier said
than done. Under the best of cir
cumstances it would take us years
to dismantle the supply chains that
currently exist without needlessly
damaging our economy.
Pick whatever goals you like; a
smart foreign policy would try to
bring the rest of the world with us
at the end of that process. If you
think of countries as customers for
our products and services, we do
not benefit if we break off from
China and no one comes with us.
Polls across Europe show grow
ing hostility toward China, but they
show a dismaying distrust of the
U.S. as well. Thirty-six percent of
Germans say the pandemic has
caused them to think less of China.
But the same poll found that 76%
of Germans felt that way about the
U.S.
Of course, countries aren’t just
markets for our wares. They’re
also current or potential allies or
enemies, and a policy that creates
more allies for China and fewer for
America would be foolish.
Consider Trump’s intensifying
attacks on the World Health Orga
nization and his threat to withdraw
all U.S. funding from it (which he
can’t actually do without approval
from Congress). Trump is right
about many of his complaints, even
if he gets some of the particulars
wrong. The WHO was too defer
ential to China in the early days of
the pandemic. But what would be
the net result of American with
drawal? China would be left stand
ing as an even bigger influence on
the organization.
It’s analogous to Trump’s mis
guided decision to pull out of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. That
was an effort to counter China’s
trade advantages in the region.
Trump’s unilateral withdrawal was
“hawkish,” but it was the kind of
hawkishness China welcomes.
Perhaps the goal with the WHO
is simply to remind it of its respon
sibilities, in which case a little
bluster is fine. But if we’re entering
into a great-power rivalry with
China, the goal has to be to line up
the most desirable players on the
board with us, not them.
That shouldn’t be hard, but I see
no reason why we should make it
harder just to sound tough.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief
of The Dispatch and the host of The
Remnant podcast.
AW*
JONAH GOLDBERG
goldbergcolumn@
gmail.com
The end of the beginning could mark great change
It was almost a
year after Pearl Har
bor before the British
scored their first
major victory of the
war. After Rommel’s
defeat at El Alamein,
Churchill said, “Now
this is not the end. It
is not even the begin
ning of the end. But it
is, perhaps, the end of
the beginning.”
As Georgia schools wrap up
the school year, we might say the
same.
These last few weeks have
proven, beyond all doubt, the
value and efficiency of America’s
system of public education. Teach
ers, schools, and school systems
pivoted on a dime, changing their
business model from traditional
to digital school. It was far from
perfect, but the transition was
astonishing. In my district, we
already had digital tools that we
could adapt to our needs. Highly
effective leadership at all levels
and the hard work of teachers
and staff enabled us to shift from
face-to-face school to School from
Home over a weekend. What other
institution, what business has the
agility and capacity for such a
conversion? And not only were we
providing instruction on day one,
we were still feeding children!
But this is not the time for us
educators to congratu
late ourselves. Our
work over these last two
months served the short
term needs of our com
munities. We provided
instruction, food and,
most importantly for
some of our families, a
source of normalcy and
routine.
But the purpose of
public education is deeper and
higher than mere survival. Our
three-fold job is to help prepare
your child for a working life and
the prosperity that will follow, to
be a knowledgeable and active
citizen and, above all, we want
her to have a full and rich life as
an adult. But our charge is more
audacious than just that; our task
is to provide all three of these for
each and every child in our land.
The ultimate mission and respon
sibility of public education is noth
ing less than a prosperous, free
and vibrant country.
If we teach in August as we did
in March, April and May, we will
be short of that standard. For all
of our efforts, we did not reach
every child. Of the children we did
reach, not all were able to keep
up. The children who did keep up
often had an exhausted parent
behind them, prodding and help
ing every step of the way. How
ever creative and well-planned
our lessons, we found that they
fell short of face-to-face instruc
tion. Teachers already knew that
the best learning depends upon
the teacher/student relationship.
We were lucky that School from
Home happened after these rela
tionships had been established.
But we found they were difficult to
sustain through a computer moni
tor. Finally, our district leaders
gave us a mandate, and correctly
so, that we should “hold harmless”
our students. They could improve
their grades but not diminish them
through this unprecedented time.
For public education to fulfill its
mission, we must and will do bet
ter come August.
So, as school systems around the
country wrap up the current year,
they must plan for the upcoming
campaign.
As in actual war, the situation
is fluid. It is impossible to predict
what August will look like, much
less November, January or next
May. We can hope for a vaccine
or herd immunity, but hope is not
a strategy.
It will be up to educational lead
ers to develop multiple plans to
fit whatever circumstances exist.
These plans must be developed so
that we can shift from one to the
other without loss of efficiency.
We know that it is imperative
for us to begin the year teaching
our students face-to-face! So, the
first plan will be for all students
to come to school, all day, every
day, with appropriate safety pre
cautions. The failsafe plan will
be School from Home. A third
plan may be some sort of hybrid,
allowing students to alternate
between face-to-face and digital
learning. This third plan would be
devilishly difficult compared to
the other two.
There is a maxim in politics:
“Never let a good crisis go to
waste.” We regular folks remind
each other to make lemonade.
However we say it, it is in our
nature to find meaning and
growth in bad experiences.
Although it was a stopgap mea
sure, our experience with School
from Home taught us many les
sons that, applied in the future,
will greatly improve instruction.
Perhaps we should think fur
ther outside the box than simply
alternating between face-to-face
and digital learning. Suppose we
brought the children together
for nine weeks, 45 school days.
Knowing that infections might
spread, we would plan to separate
them for three full weeks after
ward. Then, we would return to
school for 45 days followed by
another three week separation.
This would allow us to have face-
to-face instruction and prevent
spikes in infection rates. This is a
change that would not just allow
in education
us to survive this crisis. It would
actually improve instruction.
Our current school calendar
was designed for the sake of farm
ers so their children could be
home when their help was most
needed. Over the last 100 years,
educators have learned that is not
the best calendar for learning.
Students have two full months to
forget what they have learned
and to lose whatever momentum
they had built. In these days of
high-intensity learning, students
and teachers work themselves
past the point of exhaustion
before winter holidays and
summer break. As some of the
evolved structures of our society
are breaking down, perhaps this is
the time to restructure the school
year.
The war in Europe ended over
two and a half years after El Ala
mein. That victory required the
best efforts of the Allied powers
and their people. Some of their
pre-war customs and social struc
tures went by the wayside, but
through creative and intelligent
work, they rebuilt the world into a
better place.
We will do the same.
Chuck Bennett is an assistant
principal at Chestatee Academy and
has degrees from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill and
University of North Georgia.
Finest hour for
local media
Speaking to Parliament on June
18, 1940, just over a month after he
took over as prime minister, Winston
Churchill said when history looked
back at those dark times, it would be
“their finest hour.”
He was right. After Dunkirk, the Bat
tle of Britain and the eventual defeat
of Nazi Germany, history agreed with
Churchill’s prediction.
When history looks back at the
COVID-19 crisis, especially the work
done by local print and broadcast out
lets, it too will be judged as “their finest
hour.”
During my time as a news director
and executive producer in markets
ranging from Cheyenne to Phoenix I
learned a few things.
1. You never have enough money,
people or technology you want/need to
do the job.
2. When the big, huge, super crazy
story happens, well, see No. 1.
3. No, we all don’t join a daily con
ference call to see how we can make
everyone mad at us. We instead com
pete. It makes us all better at our job.
Note, I’m talking about local news
media, not the national outlets. The
folks putting The Times out every day
have something in common with their
readers. They live where we do. They
shop where we do. (Or try to) They too
are educating their kids at home while
trying to do their jobs at the same time.
On TV you see the same thing.
Anchors reporting from spare bed
rooms, and once in a while a child or
cat strolls into the scene. Journalists
now understanding the whole “fish out
of water” thing. Instead of water, it’s
the newsroom. Missing the camarade
rie and yes, even newsroom coffee.
But they’re getting the job done. Serv
ing their readers and viewers under
extreme circumstances. They’re show
ing up, albeit digitally, every day.
Who is the winner? We are. What they
do is essential to democracy.
I truly believe when all is said and
done, history will indeed say this was
“their finest hour.”
Brian Olson
Gainesville
The right progress
requires the right
people and action
We can’t change the climate or
human nature. What we have done is
change our environments and then
adapt, causing more change. By the
time legislation is considered, it is too
late. The urgency to conserve our envi
ronment is the moral of “Stand Up That
Mountain: The Battle to Save One Small
Community in the Wilderness Along the
Appalachian Trail,” by Jay Leutze. I
read: “The grand American experiment
is a lesson in building a country, in strip
ping a land and turning it into taxable
assets,” a microcosm of a story playing
out all over the world.
I have been horrified at the huge new
distribution centers and housing devel
opments built locally. From the air you
see acres of bare red clay, to be covered
by concrete and flat topped buildings.
What would we do without Amazon
Prime and UPS? Stakeholders vie for
rights and authority. Leutze’s gripping
story pits lifestyle and nature against
local, county, state and federal gov
ernments. Legislation cannot protect
against the corruption involved in
spending public monies. Leutze details
the complex interactions that keep law
yers excited. He balances local inter
ests with the political machine, where
lies accumulate. There’s always a point
when they would not dare tell the truth.
I’ve been told that “You can’t stop
progress!” I believe we can control it,
not with protests in the streets but with
research, phone calls, attendance at
local commission meetings and hear
ings. Of course, hearings have to be
provided. That was not done in Leutze’s
community. Political parties do not
define or fulfill our needs, desires or
our best interests. We do. We can talk
and work together for outcomes that
benefit all.
Easy to say, just as campaigning legis
lators promise to spend money to solve
our “issues.” Common sense doesn’t
seem to count as they ask for donations
to win elections. They rarely explain
strategies for carrying out their prom
ises, much less how the government can
manage its debts or save the planet.
Money does not buy my vote. I look
for proven integrity, experience and
realistic strategies. Thanks to the media
we see speeches and varying viewpoints
of history and global events, but we live
with what actually occurs. The current
administrative state has not lived up to
past promises but has indeed “funda
mentally changed our country.”
Truth is hard to come by in politics
and frequently ugly. I respect those
who have the conviction and honesty to
openly express it, not just to get elected
to earn power and big salaries but to
keep the United States the republic in
which I have thrived.
E.A. Marshall
Flowery Branch
USA BENSON I Washington Post Writers Group
BILL BRAMHALL I Tribune News Service
JOEY WEATHERFORD I Tribune News Service
