There’s a reason the phrase “politically correct” has become a scornful slam.

It’s the same reason there’s a ruckus over Wichita State University’s decision to withdraw its invitation to Ivanka Trump. And it’s the same reason the New York Times editorial page editor was forced to resign.

Let’s start with the WSU brouhaha.

Certainly, Ivanka Trump is a poor choice for commencement speaker at any public school. The WSU Tech official who made the decision to invite her put politics ahead of the interests of her school. Choosing a graduation speaker who is a highly divisive political figure, and whose status is due entirely to nepotism, is – to be kinder than is warranted – not very bright.

But withdrawing an invitation once it’s made is rude and possibly unconstitutional.

If you are among those who argue that rudeness is justified in the WSU case, you are part of the problem.

And if you are among those who think the opposite, and you want someone fired for snubbing a Trump, you too are part of the problem.

The problem is this: Too many Americans are hell-bent on berating and bashing anyone who disagrees with them.

The tendency to demean and demonize political opponents is epidemic on the left and right.

Intolerance drives both sides. It’s reflected in those who cannot abide an athlete taking a knee during the national anthem and in those who are outraged that the president’s daughter was invited to deliver a graduation speech.

This intolerance makes us all dumber.

Large segments of Americans now refuse to learn anything that they don’t already believe. They refuse to expose themselves to opposing opinions and often demand those who disagree with them be fired, jailed or silenced.

To justify such demands, they claim their opponents are racists, communists, antifa, socialists, traitors or whatever.

So when the New York Times printed Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton’s opinion piece, in which Cotton made an illogical and unprincipled call to militarily attack American citizens, liberals didn’t just dispute his arguments. They attacked Cotton personally, and then attacked the Times for publishing the piece, and then successfully forced the resignation of editorial page editor James Bennet.

About the same time as the flaps at WSU and the New York Times, the Associated Press found itself apologizing as well.

It’s sin?

In its daily feature called “Today in History” for June 3, the AP included a quote from Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who was born June 3, 1808.

The AP feature, which is used by many newspapers and news outlets, summarizes events and people historically connected to the day. AP’s offense was using this quote from Davis: “Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.”

Some AP members complained. Then, the AP apologized for the item, with a number of AP editors using words such as embarrassed, mortified and appalled.

While I agree that the United States has wrongly considered Confederate leaders honorable historical characters for way too long, the reaction of editors at newspapers and the AP seems overwrought.

Not every misstep needs to become a national news story. Not every disagreement has to be turned into an ultimatum. Not every mistake requires the destruction of people’s careers or reputations.

Often, a bit of tolerance, a measure of civility and an invitation for more dialogue would serve all our interests better.

 

 

Kansas is losing ground under current trade policy, as farmers nationwide see longtime trade surpluses turn into deficits.

Through the first four months of 2020, the nation’s agriculture-related trade balance is running at a deficit, a rare if not unprecedented event.

U.S. ag imports exceeded exports in three of the first four months of the year. The cumulative trade deficit stood at about $730 million at the end of April, the most recent figure available.

The numbers are what America has to show for President Donald Trump’s attacks on trade pacts and foreign alliances. COVID-19 has played a small but temporary role, as evidenced by the annual numbers since 2016.

That year, the United States exported $20.2 billion more in agricultural goods than it imported. The surplus has shrunk every year since, and in 2019, it was $5.6 billion. Exports of grains, meat and other farm commodities have been flat or falling, while imports of farm goods have increased.

Trump’s policies aren’t the only reason, but his destructive decisions and half-baked deals have damaged overseas markets, not only for farmers and ranchers, but for almost everyone who depends on international trade. That includes Kansas manufacturers that build aircraft, farm equipment and navigation systems, and thousands of other companies that do business internationally.

The pandemic does skew the picture somewhat. For example, a huge drop in all U.S. exports of goods and services in April is certainly connected to COVID-19.

But nothing in the longer-term trends suggests that Trump’s trade policies are helping U.S. farmers and companies grow international markets.

That’s because they are more of a political device than an economic strategy.

One need look no further than the president’s approach to China to understand the difference. When he ran for president, Trump promised that he would get tough with China on trade. Once elected, he raised taxes – aka tariffs – on goods imported from China and many other nations. Those tariffs cost U.S. consumers and businesses billions of dollars.

The stated goal was to compel manufacturers to move jobs back to the United States, but mostly, Trump’s tariffs hurt U.S. farmers, who saw most exports to China drop. Meanwhile, rather than move jobs to the United States, U.S. businesses tended to shift their international purchases to countries not targeted by Trump, or to countries and companies the president had granted tariff exemptions.

The result? The overall trade deficit in goods in 2019 was more than $850 billion, compared to a little more than $735 billion in 2016.

Lots of rhetoric, but little benefit – that’s the hallmark of this administration.

The president’s focus on politics also explains why Trump repeatedly praised China’s leaders until recently. Even as his intelligence agencies told him that China was providing misleading information about the pandemic, Trump continued to laud the country’s communist leaders.

Only after his administration seriously botched the response to the pandemic did Trump decide China was a bad actor. With the economy tanking and an election only a few months away, he needed scapegoats. So, as they have so many times before, short-term political ambitions superseded other considerations.

The president continues to hail his trade deals as the best deals ever made. But boasts and brags don’t change the numbers. And the numbers show farmers are losing ground as they try to compete globally.

When I turn my column in each week to newspapers, editors decide whether it will be published.

I have no constitutional right to see my thoughts appear in the paper or any other publication.

My First Amendment rights are great. But they are no greater than those who own and manage newspapers.

Similarly, President Donald Trump’s First Amendment rights should be no greater than the rights of any business, such as Twitter.

In reality, the president has more power and a much bigger voice than the rest of us. As president, he has the attention of the media and the resources of the federal government. He does not, however, have a constitutional right to punish people or businesses because he disagrees with them.

That, in fact, is what the First Amendment is about. Its free speech provisions were not meant to protect the president from mean things people might say. The First Amendment was intended to protect people from mean things government might do to shut them up.

Trump’s threats to punish Twitter are another instance in which he has broken with historic norms. They came after Twitter labeled one of his tweets. The label was a link to a fact-check of the president’s claims about election fraud and mailed ballots.

Trump earned a second label a few days later. That was after he threatened to shoot looting protesters in Minneapolis.

To be clear, Twitter is not treating the president as it would other users. Most other users with Trump’s record of false claims, name-calling and threats would have had posts deleted and their accounts suspended or banned.

But Twitter’s executives think the president’s tweets – and those of others who hold important positions – should be handled differently. About a year ago, after repeated complaints from Trump’s critics about unequal enforcement of the rules, Twitter announced it would label material posted by high-ranking officials that violated its standards.

And although the president subsequently flouted those standards, Twitter refrained from doing anything until the false posts on voter fraud. Then, the company did not delete Trump’s tweets. It did not change them. It did not say they were false. It did not punish the tweeter. It gave readers a way to check the validity of Trump’s claims.

Trump responded by threatening to eliminate federal protections that exist for companies that do business on the internet. Those protections are known as Section 230.

A piece in MarketWatch explains Section 230 like this: It “… shields companies that can host trillions of messages from being sued into oblivion by anyone who feels wronged by something someone else has posted – whether their complaint is legitimate or not.

“Section 230 also allows social platforms to moderate their services by removing posts that, for instance, are obscene or violate the services’ own standards, so long as they are acting in ‘good faith.’ ’’

The president argues there is no good faith. He claims Twitter and other social media companies treat conservatives unfairly. That’s more of a rallying cry than a fact. But, even if true, Trump’s punitive reaction seems ironic, counterproductive and unAmerican.

Ironic because Trump’s tweets are precisely the kind of content that is protected by Section 230.

Counterproductive because more litigation will stifle voices while making lawyers richer.

And unAmerican because it’s the kind of vindictive use of power our founders tried to guard against.