I write this on Election Day, and in a few hours, probably before the polls have closed in California, the television news shows will probably have predicted a clear winner; the loser may even have conceded the landslide. But before any of that occurs, I want to get something on the table.
Many have written and spoken about the symbolism of the Obama candidacy. The fact that an African-American could win the nomination of one of the two major parties is a wonderful testament to our nation, our people, our political system. This is the case regardless of the outcome of the general election.
But we have been hearing a number of people in the news and other public figures speak of the necessity of an Obama victory, not only because of his policies and leadership qualities, or of the need to change parties in the White House. Rather, they hold out the prospect that if Obama loses the general election, the United States will be proven to be a racist country run by Dick Cheney, and the American people will be branded as racists.
Consider this exchange between Charlie Rose and Ted Koppel a few weeks ago:
Koppel: It clearly is a change from what our Euro, Asian and Middle Eastern friends regard as the arrogance of the Bush Administration. Whether they are correct in this perception or not I'm not here to argue right now, but that's the way our friends overseas see us. Seeing America with a black president has to change that. Has to.
Rose: You have to take another look at America, a country that could elect this young man at this time, against very powerful and impressive people.
Koppel: They will look at, they have looked at the actions of the Bush administration, this preemptive strike into Iraq, for example, and they assume that he represents the American people in doing this, and we all have been tarred with the same brush. They clearly will have to change their point of view, and if they see an America that is capable of electing an African American, even if there are many millions who are horrified by the notion, it signals that there is a fundamental decency about America that you and I know exists, but that's been a little hard to point out over the last few years.
So America has been the captive of an evil dictator during the past eight years, who was bent on conquering the world and enslaving and torturing innocent muslims and liberals. We, like the innocent Germans of 1945, or the Beefeaters protecting the castle of the wicked witch of the west, can emerge from captivity and be welcomed once again into the community of man. And the only way we can demonstrate that we are really good, the only way to purge ourselves of our collective sins, is to elect our black candidate, Barak Obama.
Unstated by Koppel, but so clearly implied, is that if the white candidate wins the election, it will be a victory for the "very powerful" people whom Charlie Rose sees working against Obama, and the "many millions" of American racists who the enlightened Koppel believes we have yet to purge.
By framing the issue of Obama's candidacy in these terms, we Americans are being effectively blackmailed: Elect Obama, or else be damned by the media and "our Euro, Asian and Middle Eastern friends" as a racist, "fundamentally indecent" country. I'm uncomfortable voting with a gun to my head.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Bronfman Doth Protest Too Much on Obama and Israel
The wealthy Jewish philantropist Edgar Bronfman, Sr. recently created a stir by posting a piece on Huffington Post entitled "Israel's interest is a morally strong America." I haven't provided a link, but you should go take a look at it. In a nutshell, he argues that Israel will benefit from having a US president that is much better liked around the world than George W. Bush and who is not seen as being too one-sided in the conflict between Israel and her neighbors.
We on both sides of the Presidential candidate divide have been engaging in various rationalizations. We McCain supporters have certainly struggled to rationalize his pick of Sarah Palin, and why he remains the better choice despite it. But I'd say that American Jewish supporters of Israel, including Edgar Bronfman, are probably struggling to rationalize their support of Obama with their support for a strong Israel. Clearly, Bronfman has become caught up in the Obama mystique; the seventh paragraph of his piece reads like it was excerpted verbatim from Obama's web page. I really doubt Israel has been the major factor in his decision to support Obama rather than McCain.
I am surprised and a bit disappointed that Bronfman's piece expresses a point of view about Israel and America that reflects the perspective of the outside world, rather than that of America and Israel. He says that Israelis have "felt besieged," as if that were a symptom of paranoia rather than a description of the actual facts. He blames America for all of the hatred and war in the middle east, and seems to believe that America needs redemption because of its evil ways.
There is a feeling around that Obama is good for our foreign policy because he will restore the affection of the world toward the US that George W. Bush alienated; Bronfman echoes this point of view and seems to believe further that it will inure to Israel's benefit. Well, recall that the Arab street rejoiced on September 11, 2001, less than 10 months after Bill Clinton left the White House, and the Europeans' sense of affinity for the US only lasted for around the first 30 days of mourning after the attacks.
Yes, the Bush administration adopted a stridency in its rhetoric and may have believed for a period of time excessively in the viability of an entirely unilateral foreign policy, and I believe that a President McCain or a President Obama will take advantage of a limited opportunity to forge fresh relationships abroad and set a better tone. But in either case we will soon see a remarkable degree of continuity of policies and priorities in foreign affairs: Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, not to mention Iran, will still be just where they were in the previous Administration, and the Arab world will continue to publicly disparage Israel and the US, even as it privately seeks our help in preventing the hegemony of Iran. Neither they, nor Russia and China, will be the least bit influenced by the multicultural background of our new president. Indeed, as Joe Biden so forcefully stated, they are more likely to put Obama to a significant test, perhaps on a large scale. That's good; we need another foreign policy crisis.
Bronfman does seem to acknowledge that perhaps Obama does not have as deep a connection to Israel as we may like, but says, "Whether an American president is prepared to preside over another handshake--one that could build lasting peace--should not be measured by his professed love for one side or the other, but by his judgment." Bronfman comes right out and says that peace between Israel and its neighbors requires an "honest broker that will push both sides," which means a US not perceived as too wholeheartedly siding with Israel in the conflict. We have yet to see a US president who was truly able to push anybody but the Israelis since, after all, what leverage do we have with the other side.
Any American president will be confronted with foreign leaders and domestic foreign policy advisers arguing for a softer pro-Israel stand - not outright abandonment, but a greater degree of acquiescence to the forces seeking to weaken Israel's security. For me, it is all the difference in the world to know that the person sitting in the oval office believes in his gut in Israel's survival, believes in the fundamental goodness of Israel and the necessity of its strength. I think we had that with Reagan and with Bush 43, not with Bush 41. And I think we did OK with Clinton. There's no reason to think that Obama cares much about Israel, and we know that some of his advisers regard it as a net liability for the US and speak with disdain about the Jewish lobby. I'm getting reconciled to Obama becoming our next president, and plan to make the best of it from a pro-Israel perspective. But I think that pro-Israel advocates, and supporters in Congress will have their work cut out for them in an Obama administration.
We on both sides of the Presidential candidate divide have been engaging in various rationalizations. We McCain supporters have certainly struggled to rationalize his pick of Sarah Palin, and why he remains the better choice despite it. But I'd say that American Jewish supporters of Israel, including Edgar Bronfman, are probably struggling to rationalize their support of Obama with their support for a strong Israel. Clearly, Bronfman has become caught up in the Obama mystique; the seventh paragraph of his piece reads like it was excerpted verbatim from Obama's web page. I really doubt Israel has been the major factor in his decision to support Obama rather than McCain.
I am surprised and a bit disappointed that Bronfman's piece expresses a point of view about Israel and America that reflects the perspective of the outside world, rather than that of America and Israel. He says that Israelis have "felt besieged," as if that were a symptom of paranoia rather than a description of the actual facts. He blames America for all of the hatred and war in the middle east, and seems to believe that America needs redemption because of its evil ways.
There is a feeling around that Obama is good for our foreign policy because he will restore the affection of the world toward the US that George W. Bush alienated; Bronfman echoes this point of view and seems to believe further that it will inure to Israel's benefit. Well, recall that the Arab street rejoiced on September 11, 2001, less than 10 months after Bill Clinton left the White House, and the Europeans' sense of affinity for the US only lasted for around the first 30 days of mourning after the attacks.
Yes, the Bush administration adopted a stridency in its rhetoric and may have believed for a period of time excessively in the viability of an entirely unilateral foreign policy, and I believe that a President McCain or a President Obama will take advantage of a limited opportunity to forge fresh relationships abroad and set a better tone. But in either case we will soon see a remarkable degree of continuity of policies and priorities in foreign affairs: Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, not to mention Iran, will still be just where they were in the previous Administration, and the Arab world will continue to publicly disparage Israel and the US, even as it privately seeks our help in preventing the hegemony of Iran. Neither they, nor Russia and China, will be the least bit influenced by the multicultural background of our new president. Indeed, as Joe Biden so forcefully stated, they are more likely to put Obama to a significant test, perhaps on a large scale. That's good; we need another foreign policy crisis.
Bronfman does seem to acknowledge that perhaps Obama does not have as deep a connection to Israel as we may like, but says, "Whether an American president is prepared to preside over another handshake--one that could build lasting peace--should not be measured by his professed love for one side or the other, but by his judgment." Bronfman comes right out and says that peace between Israel and its neighbors requires an "honest broker that will push both sides," which means a US not perceived as too wholeheartedly siding with Israel in the conflict. We have yet to see a US president who was truly able to push anybody but the Israelis since, after all, what leverage do we have with the other side.
Any American president will be confronted with foreign leaders and domestic foreign policy advisers arguing for a softer pro-Israel stand - not outright abandonment, but a greater degree of acquiescence to the forces seeking to weaken Israel's security. For me, it is all the difference in the world to know that the person sitting in the oval office believes in his gut in Israel's survival, believes in the fundamental goodness of Israel and the necessity of its strength. I think we had that with Reagan and with Bush 43, not with Bush 41. And I think we did OK with Clinton. There's no reason to think that Obama cares much about Israel, and we know that some of his advisers regard it as a net liability for the US and speak with disdain about the Jewish lobby. I'm getting reconciled to Obama becoming our next president, and plan to make the best of it from a pro-Israel perspective. But I think that pro-Israel advocates, and supporters in Congress will have their work cut out for them in an Obama administration.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Same Sex Marriage by Judicial Fiat
If you want to get married in Connecticut, you only need to find a willing priest, minister, rabbi, or judge. And apparently, if you want to overturn the law of the land as to what marriage means and who is eligible, all you need is to find one willing judge.
This past Friday the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled by a 4-3 vote that homosexual couples have a right under the state constitution to marry, and that the state's civil union statute -- the first such statute in the country -- granting a full panoply of legal and economic rights to gay couples, violated the state's equal protection clause by denying the official status of marriage to gay couples.
I'm not going to take on the issue of gay marriage, nor will I get into the legal merits of the Connecticut case. I want to address a larger question that goes beyond same-sex marriage. Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health involves not an arcane area of administrative law, but a question that goes deep into the gut of American politics. It brings about a result that both Presidential candidates and their running mates have eschewed, and which, under the "full faith and credit" provision of the US Constitution, might have to be given effect in other states. (Unless successfully challenged on constitutional grounds, the 2004 federal Defense of Marriage Act permits any state to not recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state).
The Connecticut case was decided in a split decision, with three judges vigorously dissenting. I do not believe that a high court should put forth a decision involving significant social, moral or religious consequences other than by a strong majority. Brown v. Board of Education, perhaps the most well-known and lauded court decision of the 20th Century, was unanimously joined by the nine members of the US Supreme Court. While today we regard its rejection of "separate but equal" as self-evidently correct, it overturned precedent and overcame significant legal arguments and was hardly a preordained result. Most important, Chief Justice Warren and his colleagues understood that a decision certain to result in deep and far-reaching conflict in the ensuing years must be presented in a united front by the Court.
Even the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a right to privacy protecting a woman's decision to have an abortion reflected a very strong 7-2 majority. I would hope that in the event the Supreme Court takes up this controversial issue in the future, those justices who believe, as do many legal scholars, that the 1973 decision rested on shaky legal grounds, would not only be hesitant to overturn what is now long-established precedent, but would in any case ensure that any significant change to the law in this area not be by a narrow 5-4 majority.
This is part of a larger subject, about which I shall write more, namely, the roles that various participants have played in fanning the flames of social and religious conflicts in society being played out among the body politic. Without arguing the broad proposition of judicial activism, I will say that nothing displays judicial arrogance quite so much as the overturning of the will of the people on a matter of deeply held cultural and societal norms, by a majority of one.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Sarah Palin - A Bridge Too Far?
OK. I've just surfed my way through the Sunday morning news shows, got the poop on John McCain's selection of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. One thing I can report about the reporters: the roundtable discussions finally got around to asking about Obama and the Democratic convention as a near afterthought near the end of the broadcast. So one goal was accomplished by the well timed announcement of John McCain's surprise running mate - finally generating some press excitement in what he was up to and pushing Obama off the front page.
Lots of talk about Hillary's women, Reagan Democrats, and the experience issue. One point I didn't hear addressed, though, is the following:
If I were singly focused on seeing a woman elected President of the United States at the earliest possible moment, my vote would now have to go to John McCain. If Barack Obama is elected, he will presumably seek a second term, ruling out a woman Democratic candidate until 2016, probably too late for Hillary Clinton to be in the running. On the other hand, if McCain is elected this year, as a one term President his Vice President will likely be handed the baton to run in 2012, so we have Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket. And, as Maureen Dowd pointed out in her inimitable way in an August 20 NY Times column, a loss by Obama this year should deliver the 2012 Democratic nomination to Hillary with little more than a perfunctory nod to the competition.
Now that I've got that on the table, let's turn to a few early observations about the new lineup.
No doubt Sarah Palin will be a person with whom many Americans can identify, who represents values and a way of life that connect to the voters in a way that Barack Obama can not, and who will interest them to a degree that John McCain apparently does not. She also sits out there now as siren to the Obama campaign, tempting them to utter the challenge of "experience"; each time they do so, they will be clobbered with the fact of their own candidate's dearth of relevant experience for the job he seeks. Indeed, if anyone's going to learn how to be President while on the job, let it occur while living in the Naval Observatory rather than the White House.
With all of that said, however, I admit to being a bit put off by the apparent fact that the Republicans, and John McCain in particular, think that the race for President can be won merely by putting out the right symbol to the voters. True, McCain might well perceive that what he is running against is little more than a symbol, so they're only fighting fire with fire. But as a citizen, I hope that the process by which we choose our leaders will prove itself to be more serious than just another season of American Idol.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Did General Clark Unfairly Dis Captain McCain?
General Wesley Clark, since retiring from the NATO command a prominent Democratic politician, and until a few days ago an appealing potential running mate for Barak Obama, declared last Sunday: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
First, let's note that the words chosen are about as disparaging as they could possibly be. McCain doesn't even get credit for flying the plane, only riding in it. And for those of us who get past that to recall that McCain was actually piloting the plane, Clark tells us that he apparently wasn't very good at it because he couldn't keep the plane up in the air. Harrison Ford did better than that in Air Force One.
Had the good general been a bit more fair, he might have presented the more sober question whether being a Navy pilot was a relevant, let alone, material qualification for the presidency. Indeed, to be even more fair and objective, he could have suggested that being a decorated war hero was not a particularly relevant qualification for the presidency. Indeed, based on the fact that Bill Clinton -- if not a "draft dodger," then at least a fellow who thought he had more worthwhile things to do than serve in the military during the Vietnam War -- handily defeated two decorated World War II veterans, George Bush and then Bob Dole, it may be reasonable to infer that a majority of the American people may agree with that statement.
But of course, getting shot down in the plane was only the beginning. Maybe something about the ensuing five years enduring physical and psychological harassment and torture in a North Vietnam prison would be relevant. Candidate Obama demonstrated once again the natural skills that have propelled him to his present position as presumptive successor to Mr. Bush. At the same time as he eschewed General Clark and his comment, he spoke sympathetically of Captain McCain: "For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country, no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. " Speaking in Indpendence, Missouri, Obama also made the following statement: "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when others question mine."
Very good stuff. First, Barak Obama praises John McCain the veteran, John McCain the victim. Good man, served his country, let's wish him well, pin a medal on him and send him off to a well-deserved retirement. But then, a little slight of hand, casting the Wesley Clark comment in terms of questioning patriotism, he turns the sword into a shield. In fact, nobody, not even Wesley Clark, has questioned John McCain's patriotism; this is a problem that is entirely unique to Barak Obama. I'll keep my henchmen away from your heroic accomplishments if you keep your henchmen away from my lapel pin, wife and middle name.
But then, why the whining from the Republicans? Several McCain supporters jumped in to defend the candidate; Senator Warner of Virginia expressed shock at General Clark's comment. The fact is, stripped of its sarcasm, the statement contains a worthwhile point that does not denigrate McCain or his experience as a POW, but notes the virtual truism that those experiences don't qualify him to be President.
Finally, we get to the real issues, which are twofold. First, if General Clark is throwing down the gauntlet on relevant experience, what does his candidate have to offer alongside John McCain's more than 25 years in national politics, including four years in the House and more than 20 in the Senate? Does raising the qualification issue really help the Democractic candidate?
And second, General Clark does appropriately raise the question of why John McCain's war record and experience should be taken into consideration by the electorate. But the answer, an obvious one, can not be welcome to the Democrats. It's about character. John MCcain is more than a guy who suffered. He volunteered repeatedly for service to the country, and when captured by the enemy and suffering from severe wounds, he chose solidarity with his fellow soldiers and loyalty to his country over physical comforts and even freedom offered by his captors. You can talk about red states and blue states, one issue or another, but McCain has a brand of patriotism, honor, loyalty and trust that no amount of campaign spending or denigration can damage.
Which makes you wonder: If you were running against this man, why would you want to draw any attention to this stuff?
First, let's note that the words chosen are about as disparaging as they could possibly be. McCain doesn't even get credit for flying the plane, only riding in it. And for those of us who get past that to recall that McCain was actually piloting the plane, Clark tells us that he apparently wasn't very good at it because he couldn't keep the plane up in the air. Harrison Ford did better than that in Air Force One.
Had the good general been a bit more fair, he might have presented the more sober question whether being a Navy pilot was a relevant, let alone, material qualification for the presidency. Indeed, to be even more fair and objective, he could have suggested that being a decorated war hero was not a particularly relevant qualification for the presidency. Indeed, based on the fact that Bill Clinton -- if not a "draft dodger," then at least a fellow who thought he had more worthwhile things to do than serve in the military during the Vietnam War -- handily defeated two decorated World War II veterans, George Bush and then Bob Dole, it may be reasonable to infer that a majority of the American people may agree with that statement.
But of course, getting shot down in the plane was only the beginning. Maybe something about the ensuing five years enduring physical and psychological harassment and torture in a North Vietnam prison would be relevant. Candidate Obama demonstrated once again the natural skills that have propelled him to his present position as presumptive successor to Mr. Bush. At the same time as he eschewed General Clark and his comment, he spoke sympathetically of Captain McCain: "For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country, no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. " Speaking in Indpendence, Missouri, Obama also made the following statement: "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when others question mine."
Very good stuff. First, Barak Obama praises John McCain the veteran, John McCain the victim. Good man, served his country, let's wish him well, pin a medal on him and send him off to a well-deserved retirement. But then, a little slight of hand, casting the Wesley Clark comment in terms of questioning patriotism, he turns the sword into a shield. In fact, nobody, not even Wesley Clark, has questioned John McCain's patriotism; this is a problem that is entirely unique to Barak Obama. I'll keep my henchmen away from your heroic accomplishments if you keep your henchmen away from my lapel pin, wife and middle name.
But then, why the whining from the Republicans? Several McCain supporters jumped in to defend the candidate; Senator Warner of Virginia expressed shock at General Clark's comment. The fact is, stripped of its sarcasm, the statement contains a worthwhile point that does not denigrate McCain or his experience as a POW, but notes the virtual truism that those experiences don't qualify him to be President.
Finally, we get to the real issues, which are twofold. First, if General Clark is throwing down the gauntlet on relevant experience, what does his candidate have to offer alongside John McCain's more than 25 years in national politics, including four years in the House and more than 20 in the Senate? Does raising the qualification issue really help the Democractic candidate?
And second, General Clark does appropriately raise the question of why John McCain's war record and experience should be taken into consideration by the electorate. But the answer, an obvious one, can not be welcome to the Democrats. It's about character. John MCcain is more than a guy who suffered. He volunteered repeatedly for service to the country, and when captured by the enemy and suffering from severe wounds, he chose solidarity with his fellow soldiers and loyalty to his country over physical comforts and even freedom offered by his captors. You can talk about red states and blue states, one issue or another, but McCain has a brand of patriotism, honor, loyalty and trust that no amount of campaign spending or denigration can damage.
Which makes you wonder: If you were running against this man, why would you want to draw any attention to this stuff?
Monday, May 26, 2008
Appeasement? The shoe fits pretty well.
So it's George Bush's fault that Barak Obama has taken personally the President's comments to the Israeli Knesset about appeasement of Iran. On May 15, President Bush addressed the Knesset during a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. In the course of what was an extraordinary speech expressing deep support for the Jewish state, the president spoke with specificity about Iran, its proxies and Al Qaeda and their expressed intentions with respect to Israel. He then proceeded to talk a bit about how we in the West react.
"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
"Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you."
So, the President describes what might be referred to as three levels of naivete among otherwise well-meaning Americans. The first group, well meaning and peaceful, sees the world through a self-reflecting lens that virtually filters out words of hatred and violence toward them and theirs. The second group hears the words, and in a mix of naivete and arrogance, believes it can persuade those who utter them to turn over a new leaf. And the third group more thoroughly accepts the statements of evil intention toward Israel and the US, but chooses to accept at face value that all America need do to be left alone is to throw Israel to the wolves. Not only naive but cowardly, they would do so, only to find the wolves' appetite only whetted.
Somehow, Senator Obama and his supporters found a spot for him in there among the second category. Never mind that the more obvious personification of the type would have been Jimmy Carter, who had so recently returned from an ill-fated trip to the region to negotiate peace for his dear friends in the "Apartheid state" of Israel. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel jumped in promptly to cry "foul."
As the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it. I would add, if Senator Obama does not fit into the category of people who think that they can sit down and "reason" with President Ahmadinejad, then why choose to see oneself as the fairly well veiled reference point for Mr. Bush's appeasement comment?
Going beyond the words, and the accusations, and the politics of the moment, we have this question: Is the comparison to 1930's Europe an appropriate one, and does the ghost of Neville Chamberlain really lurk about our political house in 2008? Indeed, the word and the name have been used excessively and at times inappropriately. But there is an essential similarity between Islamist Iran and Nazi Germany that goes well beyond their shared hatred of the Jews.
In 1938, not only was appeasement a politically popular approach, it was virtually the only approach open to England and France, because they had allowed Germany to boldly rearm and openly breach the Treaty of Versailles with complete impunity. By the time they met with Hitler in Munich, the Chamberlain of England and Daladier of France had no choice but to acquiesce and cede the Sudetenland to Germany, hoping that this would sate Hitler's appetite. Really, all he was after was a restoration of some of the national pride so unfairly taken away from the country in 1919. Appeasement is what necessarily follows from acquiescence and complaisance.
So what of Iran? Yes, Israel is fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran, as a mouse placed in the tank of a hungry viper might be fearful of the viper -- the latter presents what we call an "existential threat" to the mouse. (Yes, this mouse has the best air force in the region and its own nuclear weapons, but I'm still going with the analogy). But surely that's not why Egypt, Iraq, the gulf states and everyone else in the region fears a nuclear Iran. Indeed, once it adds nuclear arms to its already formidable armed forces and medium and long-range missile systems, Iran, like Nazi Germany 70 years earlier, only needs to declare its wishes, rattle its sabre, and appeasement will surely follow. Once you know one player holds the trump card, the game is already over.
It so happens that we have a very recent illustration of what modern-day appeasement looks like. The world is congratulating itself on the "peaceful settlement" of the conflict in Lebanon. Ostensibly a resolution to an internal conflict that might otherwise have inflated to another civil war, the mutual acceptance of General Michel Suleiman as president, on the heals of a settlement between the Cabinet and Hezbollah, surrenders to Hezbollah on each issue that had precipitated the military conflict of a few weeks ago. Hezbollah keeps its telecommunications network, continues to control Beirut airport, and now has the longed-for veto in the Cabinet. The key meeting took place not in Munich, but in Qatar, and at least, unlike the Czechs in 1938, the Lebanese were invited to this party. But this agreement marks a milestone in the world's acceptance of Iran's and Syria's domination of Lebanon, and as in 1938, we call it a victory for peace.
"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
"Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you."
So, the President describes what might be referred to as three levels of naivete among otherwise well-meaning Americans. The first group, well meaning and peaceful, sees the world through a self-reflecting lens that virtually filters out words of hatred and violence toward them and theirs. The second group hears the words, and in a mix of naivete and arrogance, believes it can persuade those who utter them to turn over a new leaf. And the third group more thoroughly accepts the statements of evil intention toward Israel and the US, but chooses to accept at face value that all America need do to be left alone is to throw Israel to the wolves. Not only naive but cowardly, they would do so, only to find the wolves' appetite only whetted.
Somehow, Senator Obama and his supporters found a spot for him in there among the second category. Never mind that the more obvious personification of the type would have been Jimmy Carter, who had so recently returned from an ill-fated trip to the region to negotiate peace for his dear friends in the "Apartheid state" of Israel. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel jumped in promptly to cry "foul."
As the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it. I would add, if Senator Obama does not fit into the category of people who think that they can sit down and "reason" with President Ahmadinejad, then why choose to see oneself as the fairly well veiled reference point for Mr. Bush's appeasement comment?
Going beyond the words, and the accusations, and the politics of the moment, we have this question: Is the comparison to 1930's Europe an appropriate one, and does the ghost of Neville Chamberlain really lurk about our political house in 2008? Indeed, the word and the name have been used excessively and at times inappropriately. But there is an essential similarity between Islamist Iran and Nazi Germany that goes well beyond their shared hatred of the Jews.
In 1938, not only was appeasement a politically popular approach, it was virtually the only approach open to England and France, because they had allowed Germany to boldly rearm and openly breach the Treaty of Versailles with complete impunity. By the time they met with Hitler in Munich, the Chamberlain of England and Daladier of France had no choice but to acquiesce and cede the Sudetenland to Germany, hoping that this would sate Hitler's appetite. Really, all he was after was a restoration of some of the national pride so unfairly taken away from the country in 1919. Appeasement is what necessarily follows from acquiescence and complaisance.
So what of Iran? Yes, Israel is fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran, as a mouse placed in the tank of a hungry viper might be fearful of the viper -- the latter presents what we call an "existential threat" to the mouse. (Yes, this mouse has the best air force in the region and its own nuclear weapons, but I'm still going with the analogy). But surely that's not why Egypt, Iraq, the gulf states and everyone else in the region fears a nuclear Iran. Indeed, once it adds nuclear arms to its already formidable armed forces and medium and long-range missile systems, Iran, like Nazi Germany 70 years earlier, only needs to declare its wishes, rattle its sabre, and appeasement will surely follow. Once you know one player holds the trump card, the game is already over.
It so happens that we have a very recent illustration of what modern-day appeasement looks like. The world is congratulating itself on the "peaceful settlement" of the conflict in Lebanon. Ostensibly a resolution to an internal conflict that might otherwise have inflated to another civil war, the mutual acceptance of General Michel Suleiman as president, on the heals of a settlement between the Cabinet and Hezbollah, surrenders to Hezbollah on each issue that had precipitated the military conflict of a few weeks ago. Hezbollah keeps its telecommunications network, continues to control Beirut airport, and now has the longed-for veto in the Cabinet. The key meeting took place not in Munich, but in Qatar, and at least, unlike the Czechs in 1938, the Lebanese were invited to this party. But this agreement marks a milestone in the world's acceptance of Iran's and Syria's domination of Lebanon, and as in 1938, we call it a victory for peace.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Will Hillary Jump the Shark?
I have been among those voicing support for Hillary Clinton's persistent pursuit of the Democratic nomination, and strongly condemning those in the press and the Democratic party who were urging her to concede defeat in the name of unity. And on the whole, I've regarded a President H. Clinton as the lesser of the two evils compared to a President Obama, with the latter being far too unpredictable, or worse, in the foreign policy arena, and too predictable in the domestic arena.
For a while there was something comforting about the knowledge that Senator Clinton didn't feel very deeply about much of what she was saying on the stump. When, in the Pennsylvania ABC debate, she shuffled her way through her Iraq withdrawal position, while Obama sailed swiftly and smoothly through his, to me that only confirmed that she was merely talking the talk of Democratic primary politics, but in the White House or back in the Senate next year she would once again walk a more sensible walk.
Barak Obama would describe this as "politics as usual." And he'd be right. I recognize that both he and Hillary intend to raise my taxes, and I admire the fact that he's a bit more forthcoming in telling me that. And while he's been pilloried (what a waste of a good rhyme) for suggesting an increase in the wage cap for the Social Security tax, this illustrates a willingness to do what mainstream politicians have been systemically unable to do - speak frankly about the choices available to remedy problems in the Social Security and Medicare programs. He might even be crazy enough to suggest curtailing or means-testing benefits.
For a while there was something comforting about the knowledge that Senator Clinton didn't feel very deeply about much of what she was saying on the stump. When, in the Pennsylvania ABC debate, she shuffled her way through her Iraq withdrawal position, while Obama sailed swiftly and smoothly through his, to me that only confirmed that she was merely talking the talk of Democratic primary politics, but in the White House or back in the Senate next year she would once again walk a more sensible walk.
Barak Obama would describe this as "politics as usual." And he'd be right. I recognize that both he and Hillary intend to raise my taxes, and I admire the fact that he's a bit more forthcoming in telling me that. And while he's been pilloried (what a waste of a good rhyme) for suggesting an increase in the wage cap for the Social Security tax, this illustrates a willingness to do what mainstream politicians have been systemically unable to do - speak frankly about the choices available to remedy problems in the Social Security and Medicare programs. He might even be crazy enough to suggest curtailing or means-testing benefits.
Hillary will probably win in Indiana, and may even fare adequately in North Carolina. But as her rhetoric becomes ever more populistic, the desperation that drives her becomes more apparent. Not only has she embraced the temporary gas tax repeal (not one of McCain's proudest moments, either), she's now lashing out at "these Wall Street money grubbers [sic?]," suggesting that they be "held responsible for their role in this recession." Yes, the bankers know she doesn't mean it, and will be there to welcome her with open wallets when this nonsense is over. But words, even those uttered in a primary campaign, are not entirely meaningless, and New Yorkers may not be quite as inured to cynicism as Washingtonians.
They say that a sure sign that a long-running TV series is in its death throes - the creative barrel nearing empty - when it turns to bizarre plot gimmicks. This is called "jumping the shark," named for the Happy Days episode when Fonzi, water skiing with his emblematic leather jacket, jumped over a shark, seen as a turning point signalling the downward spiral of the show. As Hillary waxes about her fondness for her daddy's shotgun, speaks to factory workers about the evil money lenders while she downs another Crown Royal boilermaker, one wonders whether we are seeing a campaign in its death throes, even as the other network continues with a somewhat tarnished but still popular American Idol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)