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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)