Freeman’s call for civility misses the stakes

Dear Editor,

Brett Freeman’s recent column calling for a return to post-9/11 civility ("What about September 12th?" Sept. 17, Page 22) rests on a lovely sentiment, but it fundamentally misreads the perilous moment we are in.

Nostalgia for a fleeting period of national unity is no excuse for sanitizing history or ignoring the very real consequences of a second Trump term.

Freeman dismisses the dark side of his cherished era with a single, glaring understatement: “I know that period was not perfect.” That “imperfection” was a terrifying wave of Islamophobia and xenophobia that swept through our communities — a backlash that soon fueled disastrous wars in the Middle East. To gloss over that history is convenient, especially when anti-immigrant rhetoric has since become such a driving force in American politics.

That same impulse to smooth away uncomfortable realities runs through Freeman’s argument about the word “MAGA.” He’s right that a label shouldn't substitute for an argument. But we can't pretend the label has no meaning. MAGA is a very real movement that has reshaped the Republican Party and profoundly damaged America's standing in the world.

Freeman points to Tucker Carlson’s break with Trump over the war in Iran as evidence that the MAGA label is lazy. But the reality is that while Democrats and independents overwhelmingly oppose the war, the vast majority of Republicans firmly back military action and approve of Trump’s handling of the crisis. Carlson’s dissent is a fringe dispute, not proof of a fractured movement. And let’s be clear: Carlson is no principled voice of reason. He is a charlatan who continues to amplify dangerous conspiracy theories. His disagreement with Trump over Iran doesn't erase the extremism he has spent years promoting.

Freeman also asks us to debate policies — like Congressman Mike Lawler's push for Medicaid work requirements — by "assuming the best" of the politicians proposing them. But when a policy will predictably strip vulnerable people of healthcare, or when aggressive immigration enforcement tears families apart, "assuming the best" is a luxury reserved for those who won't suffer the consequences. Policies hurt real people. Good intentions, stated or otherwise, do not erase that harm.

Nor can we just wave away the blatant corruption of this administration as partisan caricature. The President's inner circle continues to blur the lines between public power and private profit — like Jared Kushner conducting high-level diplomacy while maintaining deep financial ties in the Middle East. We don't owe these entanglements the benefit of the doubt; we owe them fierce scrutiny.

It is especially hard to swallow a newspaper publisher lecturing readers on decorum while the administration is actively attacking the press. Just this month, the White House barred journalists from major outlets simply because the President disliked their coverage. At some point, demanding polite debate ceases to be high-minded — it becomes a convenient way to police the tone of critics while giving the powerful a free pass.

Twenty-five years after 9/11, invoking the solemnity of that catastrophe to argue for political passivity risks doing a profound disservice to the memory of those who were killed, wounded or forever altered by the attacks and the subsequent wars. It is profoundly sad that this is where we find ourselves: led by a president whose current self-dealing and campaign of political retribution pale only in comparison to his own felonious past. His movement continues to inflict enormous damage on this country, explicitly treating state power as an instrument of personal revenge — targeting perceived enemies and opening investigations against anyone who contradicts his latest whims. Tragically, the personality cult around him mirrors that malice, turning civic life into an arena of constant intimidation against fellow Americans. One need only witness the cesspools of X and Truth Social, where AI slop and disinformation swirl like global-sized storms endlessly feeding on themselves. To ask citizens to meet that abuse with polite deference is not civility; it is willful blindness.

If the opinion pages of Halston Media want to offer “arguments worth reading,” they should absolutely demand evidence and seriousness from their writers. But they must demand the exact same accountability from the people in power. Refusing to assume the best of powerful people after examining what they have actually done is not a failure of empathy. It is judgment. And judgment, supported by facts, is exactly what an opinion page is for.

-Edmund Sandoval, Somers