Roots

In 1976 Alex Haley published Roots his landmark novel inspired by The Saga of [his] American Family.  For sure Haley was not the first writer to explore his roots and other portraits had been written about the lives of African Americans.  Haley admitted later to have incorporated some of that writing in his book, but he was making a statement.  All of us come from somewhere; we have a deep history without which we would likely not have come to this place or to who we are.  Focusing on his ancestry that way — giving a Black family the gravitas of a written biography — Haley was taking the civil rights struggle to a new and transcendent place.  In a sense, Barack Obama’s 1995 Dreams of my Father built on that foundation.  It said he too came from somewhere, a necessary grounding and a powerful credential for his political career to come.

The horrendous travail of the past weeks also has its roots and sometimes we forget what they are, how deep and how much past actions predestined this moment.  Democrats like to say the current economic climate is rooted in the years of Reagan excess and deregulation culminating in the infamous Bush tax cuts and unfunded wars.  I’ll stipulate to those roots.  Republicans have to live with their lineage, but let’s not pretend Democrats come to this moment without their own history or, more importantly, with clean hands.

We Democrats pride ourselves on the fact that, when he turned in the White House keys, Bill Clinton left the country in surplus.  So he did and so our self-congratulatory story line goes, almost with mythic proportions.  We accuse the GOP with squandering Clinton’s prudence and do so with much justification.  But we also suffer from selective memory.  Sadly, much of what we’ve experienced in these dreadful years can be traced directly to the policies and crucial decisions of the Clinton Administration.  Those good years led to a culture of excess in which the government may have experienced a fiscal surplus but many of its citizens were sinking deeper into debt, some on their way to inevitable insolvency.

Clinton was carried into office with the assertion that the economy under George Herbert Walker Bush was in deep trouble and with a promise to focus all his attention in righting the ship.  It’s the economy stupid.  Truth is the economy was already on its way toward recovery laying the foundation for the boom days from which Clinton (and we) happily benefited.  Attributing its success to his economic term, albeit in hindsight with more credit than was due, we bestowed virtually walk-on-water status to Bob Rubin and Larry Summers.  How could one argue with such success?  We were happy and so too was the business community, most especially Wall Street.  They had good reason.

Capping off what turned out to be Clinton’s too pro-business stance was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the 1933 legislation that had successfully separated commercial banking from other financial businesses, particularly stock brokerages.  The purpose of Glass-Steagall was to once and for all break the back of speculation and inevitable conflicts of interest.  Without its 1999 repeal those mortgage-backed securities would probably never have been possible.  Let’s not even consider that Rubin, under whose stewardship it took place, went directly from government service into the employ of Citigroup whose very existence (a combination of Citibank and Travelers/Smith Barney) had been enabled by the legislation.  They had lobbied hardest and had gained most from the repeal.  Clinton himself would be profoundly rewarded.  A man who didn’t even own his own home until months before leaving public office, emerged wealthy a year later thanks to out-sized lecture fees paid mostly by banks and other business heavyweights.  So, too, has the Clinton Foundation been bankrolled by many of those who benefited from his policies.  It may do some excellent and commendable work, but that doesn’t change its roots.

The consequences of gutting Glass-Steagall were entirely predictable.  Just as President Obama has been saying in the last weeks about a crisis manufactured by Washington, the great recession, fueled by the house of cards collapse of the real estate market, was bestowed upon us by reckless policies, private and public.  Many of the critical missteps were bi-partisan in nature.  Hurray for that!  It isn’t only that Reagan or the Bushes failed us, it’s that our leaders including Bill Clinton failed us, and did so in a monstrously big way.  Where we are now reflects from where we came — from our sadly misbegotten roots.

The votes just taken in the House and Senate along with the President’s signature have left a bitter taste in our mouths.  Yes Democrats and Republicans signed on, but it would be better to describe their action as a survival Hail Mary (for themselves) rather than anything we can call bi-partisan.  Our house is deeply divided and we have no one to blame but ourselves.  This is not to give those who claim to lead a pass — none of them, repeat none of them, deserves it.  But let’s be honest with ourselves.  To one degree or another the vast majority of us play along to get along. 

We game the system and in the end are gaming the country.  All of those predatory come-ons from banks and the like were (and still are) despicable, but we signed on.  Sure predators’ prey most and do best with the untutored, but many of those now in default should have known better.  And I don’t only mean in default on a mortgage, but default on our common responsibilities.  No demonstrations were held against our financial institutions, no sense of urgency about the kind of people we elected to office or whom many of them really represented.  We deplore how money buys our elections, but too many of us fail to use our no-cost right to vote.  In the end votes — the number of them cast — do count.  Deficits aren’t always enumerated in hard currency.

I’ve suggested several times here that what’s happened to us was determined by our roots, that consequences have been predictable.  But I’m no determinist, not by a long shot.  I do think that somehow we will get out of our current mess; at least I hope that to be the case.  But to do so will require that we stop pointing fingers and begin to take some responsibility.  Did Obama give away the store?  Should he have invoked the 14^th?  Should he have been more vocal and assertive?  Should he be the man we had in our dreams rather than the person he probably always has been? 

Perhaps all those things, but then again should we have done things differently ourselves.  Did we in fact inflict upon ourselves that costly 2010 enthusiasm gap, premised to some large degree on disappointments in our own dreams, misconceptions and unrealistic hopes?  Is 2011 the result of a self-inflicted wound?  Say what you will, but it is we who rendered our President weaker than he could have been, made it harder for him to deliver.  Some good friends think I am not hard enough on Obama and that probably is true.  Like many others I had incredible hopes for him thinking that he was the solution to all our problems.  He would instantly get us out of Iraq, refuse to escalate in Afghanistan and perhaps most of all wave his wand and make our economy better.  Has he done less in these areas that he might?  Probably, but only probably.  Was a less than perfect, some say imperfect, healthcare bill worth doing or was it a fools errand, an unnecessary distraction from the economy stupid?  Wish I could say for certain.  The point is that all these things are more complicated than we’d hope, and that talking, including blogging and campaigning, is far easier than executing and governing.  That is hardly news.

When talking of roots, it’s probably fair to say that Martin Luther King, Jr. as much as Barack Obama, Sr. was integral to what took Barack, Jr. to the White House.  These were both men of great ideals, especially Martin.  I am among the privileged to have crossed his path and shared his fight.  The thing about King was that he was free to speak his mind, to strive for the ideal.  That doesn’t mean that he didn’t have a practical side and be assured he made some compromises to accomplish his goals.  But ultimately, Martin King in the White House or even the State House would have been someone totally different, and we would have been sorely disappointed.  Governance in a democracy just isn’t ideal and it certainly isn’t pure or pretty.  The streets have to be paved and the sewers cleaned of our waste.

Our power as citizens is sorely limited, but we are not impotent.  If we want Obama to do better, the country to do better, he will need a lot of help.  We’ll also have to think seriously about from where we came.  That’s not from where we wish we had come or from some fairy tale.  Let’s be honest about our own resumes, our own roots, and perhaps we’ll better understand the work that has yet to be done.  We’ll soon have a chance to do our part and hopefully to make a difference.  Yes we should hold his feet to the fire, but only if we hold our own to it as well. 

A third party taking us over the edge.

Perhaps only future historians will be able to fully assess why voters cast their lot with Tea Party candidates in 2010, effectively changing the dynamic of American political life. As we have witnessed in the last few weeks, it was so much more than Republicans retaking the House.  By the way, all of this was set in motion by a small geographically contained minority.  A mere 17% of the eligible participated in the primaries that ultimately determined the general election outcome.  Don’t ever say getting out to vote isn’t important. Whether or not these new folks have staying power remains an open question, but for the moment it doesn’t much matter. 

Again it may be too early to understand why this happened and what it means.  That said, I’d venture that one way to look at the Teas is as a stealth third party.  It’s true that their ascendency came through the established primary process, but that may have been more opportunistic than out of any special loyalty to Republicanism.  It was an expedient and quick way to power.  Just consider how they have functioned once in office, especially how unresponsive they are to old guard GOP leadership.  They have shown themselves eager to diss norms of legislative governance — norms established by generations of both Republicans and Democrats.  And, at this point, they steadfastly cling to their differentiating Tea Party identity.

Whether Teas are a stealth third party or just old-fashioned insurgents pursuing a palace coup, the class of 2010 has turned the GOP (and one could argue the country) on its head.  The Reagan-Bush party known for its discipline and ability (unlike Democrats) to stay consistently on message now seems in disarray.  The Teas go along only when it suits their agenda and ideology, is in their self-interest.  Whatever the future may bring, at this point they sure act like a party within a party.  And it’s one far to the right even of the Republicanism of the W years, dangerously close to the edge.

So the rise of Michele Bachmann should come as no surprise.  More than her presumptive rival Sarah Palin, she represents Teas who come not from the frontier but mostly from America’s traditionally conservative Midwest and Southern heartland.  What’s lost in the current news cycle is that the Tea’s have much more in mind than budgets and fiscal responsibility.  For one, there is immigration some how conflated with fear of the Other (think Arizona and Birthers).  Then too, many among them want to restore the essentially fundamentalist religious ideology that seemed to recede with Bush’s exit from the White House.  No one (see NY Times July 16, For Bachmann, Gay Rights Stand Reflects Mix of Issues and Faith) is a more suited standard bearer for these multiple causes than the lady from Minnesota.

I happened to be thinking about the religious side of the Tea Party just at the moment when news broke of Anders Behring Breivik’s murderous rampage in a usually peaceful Norway.  What caught my attention was his being identified by that country’s press as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian.  Since September 11, 2001, we’ve become accustomed (conveniently so) to equating religious based violence with Muslim fundamentalism.  Even with Oslo, much like Oklahoma City, early reports assumed Islamists had carried out the bombing.  That’s a tribute to an Islamophobia that now pervades much of the West and especially in Europe.  In fact, the potential for going over the edge has little to do with one religion or another, but with fundamentalism of any ilk.  And in the case of Breivik, whose writings suggest resurrecting the Christian-Muslim holy war, that fundamentalism may also include rightist political ideology.   Breivik, seen in a larger context, reflects a disturbing swing toward the extreme right in many places, our own country included.  Among others, this rightist trend manifests itself in growing Xenophobia especially evident across Europe where it has extended to traditionally progressive countries like Denmark.  It constitutes an eerie déjà vu that echoes Europe’s dark past when fascism took hold with disastrous results.  What should further raise a red flag for all of us is that sharp turn to the right was also born out of harsh economic times.  History can repeat itself.

I’m certainly not suggesting that Michelle Bachmann or the Tea Party either advocate or intend violence.  Nonetheless, both in rhetoric and in action they are clearly putting additional logs on an already hot fire.  That can have unintended consequences, ones that even they may not wish.  We continue to suffer high unemployment, a sputtering recovery and an ever-growing disparity between the very rich and everyone else.  The seeds have been sown and the ground made fertile right here for the kind of at-the-edge rightist politics that she and they represent. 

Those to the left of the Teas (and I’m including a wide swath of the body politic) seem both flummoxed and out maneuvered.  President Obama may head that list for obvious reasons but it includes the likes of Mitch McConnell who, in this new environment, seems like a moderate — perhaps not in fact, but you get the point.  I would argue that one of the things working against the President and everyone else is the misguided idea (reinforced by the media) that they are grown-ups while the Teas are infantile.  Nonsense.  To take that view is to miss the point of what’s happening and more self-destructively to underestimate the opponent — the kiss of death in any conflict.

The Teas are adults with a clear and perhaps even revolutionary agenda.  Their vision of America is different and, in my view, dreadfully wrong, if not dangerous. It’s one that can potentially undermine much or all of that we cherish, not the least of which is a nation and cares for those in need and welcomingly opens its doors to immigrants.  The irony is that there are powerful and contrary forces at work these days, especially among the young, whose minds and hearts are more open than perhaps any preceding generation.  That’s encouraging, but open minds and hearts won’t be enough in this high stakes game.

L'affaire DSK.

None of us really know for certain if Dominique Strauss-Kahn is guilty or innocent of rape.  What we do know is that since his arrest at JFK Airport, he has been the story de jure.  Perhaps it hasn’t reached the OJ level, but coverage has been both sensational and obsessive.  To be sure, such a rapid fall from grace for the IMF’s Managing Director and a presumptive candidate for the Presidency of France is legitimate news.  DSK was expected to mount a defense that the sex was consensual — there appears to be some physical evidence that it took place.  But isn’t it fair to ask what brings one of the world’s top financial leaders, a married man to wit, to have sex with a 32-year-old Guinean hotel housekeeper?  What was he thinking?  Inexplicably, some in DSK’s party in France have indicated that, if exonerated, his career might well get back on track.  Right.  He also remains popular in the country’s opinion polls.  Go figure.  Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Mark Sanford et al take note.

However intriguing the particulars may be to some, I see l’affaire DSK as an opportunity not to be missed.  Rape (an often white-collar crime) deserves far more of our attention than it gets.  The real take away from this unfolding story is familiar to any woman in America and probably throughout the world.  Rape is a crime rarely witnessed, one that boils down to that already doubt-casting characterization: she says, he says.  That dubious premise is compounded by the predictable claim of consensual sex — she wanted it.  Once a defense is mounted by the accused, it almost always focuses on the credibility — and perhaps more so background and reputation — of the accuser.  In contrast, the accused’s history is often deemed inadmissible and prejudicial.  So inevitably it’s the victim who is put on trial.  In this case, the New York District Attorney’s office is also being put in the dock, accused of a rush to judgment, of excessive reaction.  The point is to focus attention elsewhere and to blame anyone but the accused. What’ we’re witnessing here follows a classic pattern.

Indeed it is this predictable course that accounts in part for rape being the most underreported crime. Moreover, according to a CBS study only 25% of accused rapists are arrested (much lower than for other crimes) and of course just some of them end up in court, much less are convicted.  But the difficulty of gaining a conviction is just one problem.  Rape, especially for some cultural and religious groups, is a mark of shame.  Just as defense lawyers focus on the victim’s past or culpability, many women feel themselves, or are made to feel, guilty.  How could I let that happen to me; how could I do that to my family or to the man in my life?  In some societies, raped women are punished, even killed, transformed from victim to the criminal who had sex with a man other than her husband.  Even in America, married women or those in a relationship can feel too ashamed to report their rapes to a partner assuming (often with good reason) that he may think less of them or consider them damaged goods.

The perpetrators of rape are often men of power — people like DSK but also fathers or, as we have learned in the past years, trusted priests.  One of the defense points being made in this case is that the woman delayed in reporting the attack.  She went on to clean perhaps another powerful guest’s expensive room before coming forward.  In fact, counselors and other professionals dealing with rape will tell you that delayed reporting is not at all unusual, and we’re talking here about a matter of hours, fast enough to prevent DSK’s takeoff on the same day.  Just think of the still uncounted number of rape victims of predator priests who waited not hours but years, even decades, before reporting their abuse.  Again, I have no way of knowing if the victim in this case is telling the truth, but challenging her credibility because she didn’t run to a supervisor or immediately phone the police is, in context,  ridiculous on its face.

As information unfolds regarding his accuser’s misstatements to police about her life, it has been reported that many in France are expressing indignation over how their beloved DSK has been treated and anger in general about our system of justice.  Again, absent all the facts, it’s premature to know if this was indeed a rush to judgment or even if the case will ever be tried.  When it comes to rape and the hurdles that must be overcome, even a not-guilty verdict in court doesn’t necessarily mean that the accused is innocent.  Rape is more often than not a serial crime.  One of the reasons New York authorities were so quick to act is that DSK has a reputation and indeed a French writer, Tristane Banon, is expected to file an attempted rape complaint against him in the next few days.  Father rapists with more than one daughter often repeat their crime with the younger sister and those priests all abused multiple youngsters (in this case boys), often over a long period of time.

The French may be angry because they, like many Europeans, claim to have a less Puritanical view of sex than do we, including a tolerance for infidelity. Mark Oppenheimer’s June 30 Times Magazine piece on infidelity may shed some light on whether that perception holds water.  It is a fact that, while President François Mitterrand openly maintained a mistress (and a second family) without penalty, we impeached Bill Clinton for Monica.   I’ll let you judge whose mores on infidelity make more sense, but even the open-minded French should know that rape falls into an entirely different category.

What is it that these men don’t understand about the word no?  Whether Strauss-Kahn is guilty or not, it now appears that he may very well walk.  In doing so, he’ll be following the norm, the rule not the exception in rape cases.  There is something terribly wrong, no rotten, about that.

 

Affirmation of Marriage Act

Archbishop Timothy Dolan characterized it as not good for the common good, adding his assessment that…society and culture is at it’s peril.  I couldn’t disagree more.  The day the Republican controlled Senate passed and Democratic Governor Cuomo signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in New York was exceedingly good for the common good, a glimmer of hope for our society and culture.  It merits the traditional prayer invoked by Jews in giving thanks for sustaining us and bringing us to this day.  As the Psalmist put it, This is a day the Lord has made, let us be glad and rejoice in it.  Indeed, rejoice — each and every one of us straight and gay, followers of a religion or not — and be very glad.  The Archbishop would do well to read Frank Bruni’s touching June 25^th column, To Know Us Is to Let Us Love, one I hope you’ll check out as well.  I can’t think of a better lesson in society and culture.

President Obama, who believes it unconstitutional, has ordered the Justice Department to stop representing the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by, yes, Bill Clinton in 1996.  That misguided legislation, initiated by self appointed arbiters of family values, assumes that defining marriage narrowly, in the traditional way, will somehow protect the institution.  That’s nothing short of snake oil sold to the public by rightist and religious ideologues.  We all know uniting a man and woman in wedlock is no guarantee of marital success.  America’s divorce rate is disturbingly high.  If traditional marriage has been undermined, we can only blame the different-sex partners whom our society has long allowed the exclusive privilege of tying — and breaking — the knot.

While divorced myself, I continue to believe strongly in the institution of marriage and in the underlying idea it tokens — human commitment.  Make no mistake, what happened in New York and in too few other places, is perhaps the most powerful affirmation of marriage we have seen in our lifetime.  It is the most concrete statement that nothing bespeaks a commitment between two people more than marriage.  No one should be robbed of that ultimate statement.  Civil Unions, the better-than-nothing copout available in some places, fall short — far short.  Faux, however we may dress it up, is never the real thing and we all know it.

I may totally disagree with Archbishop Dolan and deplore that he and other likeminded religious leaders across many faiths have lobbied so hard against same-sex marriage or have sought to impose their often narrow beliefs on the lives of the greater public.  Nowhere is this more egregious than on the issue of abortion whose latest manifestation is defunding Planned Parenthood under the guise of fiscal responsibility.  Like others, I deeply resent that they have invaded my private space.  

That said, I applaud the New York legislature for indemnifying religious institutions that opt not to sanction or host same-sex marriages under their roofs.   This has been portrayed as a pragmatic tactic in gaining the necessary majority, and that is undoubtedly the case.  But I think it far more significant and, as such, should not be seen as merely an expedient.  In fact, supporters of same-sex marriage (religious or not) should embrace any affirmation of religious freedom, perhaps especially for religious ideas with which we totally disagree, as much as the legalization of marriage equality itself.  Just as the government has no business in our bedrooms, it has no right to impose its will in our church, synagogue or mosque.  If clergy or a church refuses, a couple has other options and, from a legal standpoint, one could say more direct even if not preferable options.  Clergy who officiate at a wedding — execute a marriage license, which makes it binding — do so as agents of the state, surrogate civil servants if you will.   Real civil servants, judges and the like, officiate at weddings all the time.

What happened in New York is just another step on a long journey, perhaps one that will take years.  The President himself has not come out unambiguously in support of same-sex marriage.  It’s high time that he do so, but even that won’t turn the tide in 29 states that have adopted Constitutional Amendments and thus far, a change in recent polls notwithstanding, voters have turned down marriage equality whenever it has appeared on a ballot.  Also, the Supreme Court will be asked to rule on this subject and, given their current ideological makeup, one can’t be sure how they will interpret the Constitution.  Building even wider public support and enacting legislation where possible, biding for time, is probably not such a bad thing.  Also, with a growing number of states that have adopted marriage equality, same-ex couples now have options not available in the past.  Perhaps one day I'll have the privlege of officiating at the wedding of two loving partners finally afforded the marriage right and opportuntiy that I had, a brith right that should have been equally their's, and now will be in New York.

For the moment, let’s not think of the obsticals ahead but of the progress that has been made.  On June 23, 1963, John F. Kennedy traveled to Berlin where a wall had been erected separating East from West.  In an affirmation of solidarity, Kennedy famously declared, Ich bin ein Berliner.  It’s been five years since I moved to North Carolina from New York where I lived for most of my adult years.  I may be voting and paying taxes in Chapel Hill, but last Friday I was a New Yorker, and damn proud of it. 

 

Job Killers

Has anyone really caught on to what’s happening with all this talk (and action) about deficits and the national debt?  Republicans have done it again.  They’re controlling the conversation and in doing so are creating an environment calculated to win the 2012 election.  Why.  Because the immediate effect of their cost cutting is to increase unemployment and keeping unemployment high is the only chance they have of regaining the White House.  So every time you read or hear of this Republican governor or legislature slashing a budget think of killing jobs, creating unemployment.  Not prudence but raw politics.  Think about the teacher or sanitation worker who is suddenly out of a job and, like fellow leveraged neighbors, is becomes an unwilling candidate for foreclosure.  At the very least don’t expect the formerly employed public servant to be buying up a storm at the local supermarket or mall.  And don’t think cutting the fat from government, think rather of the ripple effect on businesses large and especially small whose revenues will be pinched right along with their customers.  Can they hire, or more accurately risk hiring, with the prospect of lower revenues?  These are not unintended consequences they are caluculated and insiduous.

To add insult to injury, acclaimed Republican front runner Mitt Romney announces his candidacy blaming Obama for unemployment and claiming that he will be a job creator.  Really?  Romney famously decimated jobs in the companies that his Bain Capital took over during those years where he built his much touted business credentials.  And during his tenure as governor, Massachusetts ranked 47^th in job growth.  This is the same man who calls for repeal of the Affordable Care Act trying to rob the rest of Americans of the very healthcare benefits he promoted for his own state.  It’s par for the course in a field that includes a serial family values fraud and a performer/entrepreneur on a tease tour who’d like to be called President but found it impossible to complete her own term as governor.   In other words the title but not the work or responsibility.

The job situation is grim and there is no reason to believe it will get better soon.  That it hasn’t measurably imporoved may reinforce the contention of Paul Krugman and others that the stimulus was far too modest.  But it may also suggest the limits of Presidential power or that of the government in righting a systemically damaged economy.  Americans are long term victims of the great hoax perpetrated by greedy realtors and loan sharks (sadly that’s what our bankers seem to be) facilitated by a string of political leaders — yes Ronald Reagan but equally Bill Clinton.

What is it they say about the devil and details?   Cutting spending to reduce the deficit sounds great until we read the fine print and experience its inevitable consequences.  You don’t hear anyone suggesting that the number of state legislators or the House members be cut in half.  No those jobs, albeit supposedly up for grabs on Election Day, are secure.  Maybe Romney isn’t so out of place.  Elected officials these days are exactly like corporate titans who downsize (a euphemism for firing a lot of hard working people) while going on their merry way, their lifestyle or appetites unimpaired.

Democrats, you want a slogan to run on this year?  Brand the Republicans Job Killers, it’s a title that passes the both the fact and emotional test, one that can stick.  At the very least remind Americans what’s really afoot and start taking control of the conversation.  Please!

Bibi, have you heard the news?

Coming from a family that saw the creation of a Jewish State in the wake of the Holocaust as redemptive, an official visit by an Israeli Prime Minister was nothing short of thrilling.  That such a leader might actually address a joint session of our Congress, which Yitzhak Rabin did in January of 1976, was simply unimaginable.  The only analogy that comes close — and equally unimaginable — was that we would have an African American sitting in the White House.

It is in this context that I found the appearance of Bibi Netanyahu lecturing that President in the Oval Office, and seeking to undermine him on Capital Hill so profoundly disheartening.  What’s most troubling is that the Prime Minister and many of his supporters in Israel, at AIPAC and in the Halls of Congress don’t seem to understand that Barak Obama, like the tireless Bill Clinton before him, is among Israel’s best and truest friends.  It’s precisely the kind of friendship that any of us should want.  As Obama defined it at AIPAC real friends talk openly and honestly with one another.   A West Bank settler told a reporter that he feels sorry for President Obama, whom he characterized as being out of touch with reality.  Perhaps all those who so cheered Netanyahu on Capital Hill (political theater that shouldn’t be considered seriously) agree with that assessment, but I think the man has it exactly backwards.  He (and his Prime Minister) might do well to look in the mirror.

The winds of change in Israel’s neighborhood have been making headlines for months.  So it really boggles the mind that so many people there (and here) seem oblivious to the implications of what is, even at this early date, a total game changer.  The region’s durable fixture Hosni Mubarak who was grooming his son for inevitable succession is out of power and they both have been indicted for murder.  Israel is not immune to these seismic changes.  Whether they fired the first bullet (they didn’t) or can point to their own dislocations (they can) should be, but probably no longer is, relevant.  Netanyahu, with the assurance of an owner may talk about being generous and insist on a military presence on the Jordan, but he may not be in full control of the future.  Just ask Obama (or any President) how easy it is to see the best-laid plans go out the window when events take over.   In the face of a sea change, none of us, certainly not Israel, can rely on long held assumptions.  More important, those who blindly encourage staying the course are endangering Israel’s future not protecting it.  I’ve written about the implications of the Arab Spring before (Gandhi rebooted and Moment of Truth), so let me not repeat myself.  But do take a look at Tom Friedman’s similar views expressed in his excellent May 24 column, Lessons from Tahrir Sq.   Both he and I are American Jews who desperately want Israel to survive.

Bibi Netanyahu is a canny fellow when it comes to American politics, which is not surprising.  He spent part of his childhood here and was later educated in American universities.  He speaks unaccented English, the kind of foreigner we Americans instinctively like.  His politics are aligned with the Republican Party (the Boehner invitation), especially now that it has turned so far to the right.  George W. Bush was a soul mate; Barak Obama is not.  From the moment he arrived last week, Bibi has done everything possible to undermine our President, most especially playing Congress against him.  Of course, that they, including Democrats, followed like blind sheep may speak more to the condition of our own politics than his. 

Watching Netanyahu giving his history lesson in the Oval Office and addressing Congress on Tuesday (with the word for word text he might used before the Arab Spring) put the difference between being President and being a legislator in sharp relief.  Legislators have the luxury of posturing, which they seem unable to resist.  Presidents have the burden of getting things done.  Cheering, talking tough and saber-rattling is cheap and easy.  Sending young people into battle or negotiating peace is something entirely different.  The pundits and the public should keep that in mind when scoring these past days.  Netanyahu did great we're told; Obama was rebuked (including by Harry Reid).  Maybe so, but I’m with the President here and most especially with his sober straight talk. 

American Jews and Israelis would do well to pause for a moment and consider what our President’s told AIPAC attendees on May 22.  Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, he said, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority.  It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels.  It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies.   It’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing [already far larger than to any other country] to record levels.

Everyone who cares about Israel — and we all should — would do well to read the entire text.  As to that real friends talking openly and honestly with one another, consider just these listed facts that he suggested we all must confront: 

• First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories.  This will make it harder and harder -- without a peace deal -- to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.


• Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.


• Third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region.  A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders.  Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

Netanyahu ignored all three.  His focus was the ’67 borders and the width of the Washington Beltway.  He catalogued all the things that were wrong with the Palestinians — many of which are true — but absent from his forcefully delivered talk was even a single mention of something Israel might have done wrong.  He spoke of that generosity, but shut the door tight on even a discussion of Jerusalem (speak of unrealistic).

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians certainly can’t be blamed for all that’s wrong in the region or for all of the hostility of some Muslims toward the West.  We don’t know what will happen the day after a peace agreement is signed.  That the absence of an agreement has been used and manipulated by various nations and groups for their own purposes can’t be denied.  So, too, does Israel bare a greater burden in the blame game and is it often unfairly portrayed as the sole villain.  But at some point all of that ceases to have much meaning.  Settling the Israel/Palestine issue, the President has made clear, is in the vital interest of the United States.  For valid reasons, exagerated or not, it impacts on world peace.  Real friends level with each other.  So don’t be fooled by all the cheers that will turn on a dime if the wind blows in another direction.  Self-interest, perceived or real, ultimately prevails.

But also don’t lose heart.  Menachem Begin, founder of the party that was the seed out of which Bibi’s Likud grew, began his career as a terrorist.  As Prime Minister some years later, he signed the treaty with Sadat.  He is remembered not for the bombs he detonated in the pre-Israel Palestine but as a peacemaker.  Sharon was an often-ruthless warrior and provocateur whose last active days were focused on achieving peace, actually ceding Gaza as a sign of good faith.   I fear the current generation, is more interested in claiming their rightness and protecting an untenable status quo than moving forward.   Netanyahu’s aggressive foray into Washington didn’t allay that fear, quite the contrary.  Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Mike and Erik

I am a believer and follower of Jesus Christ…[the] decision is a spiritual one.  That I was undertaking it (a run for the presidency) without God’s full blessing was unthinkable.  With those words, spoken on his Fox talk show, Mike Huckabee took himself out of contention in 2012.  He didn’t go quite as far as to claim that God whispered specific instructions not to run in his ear, but the implication was clear.  Jesus Christ, God and presidential primaries — here they go again.  It seems some of our politicians can’t resist putting words in God’s mouth.  Perhaps that shouldn’t surprise us coming from a group of people who depend so much on speech and ghostwriters to put words in their mouths or author their books.  In any event, the mix of religion and politics, especially with the return of social conservatives dressed in Tea Party costumes, is alive and well in America.  It’s not merely religion in general, but Christianity in specific.  Think of the disgraceful hoax about Obama’s alleged foreign birth, one routinely linked to the claim that he is a closet Muslim (wrong religion) not a follower of Christ like Mike.

The Huckabee story coincided with a New York Times investigative report detailing the United Arab Emirates mounting a mercenary army gathered and trained by Reflex Responses, the latest Erik Prince (of Blackwater fame) venture.  Like all those pulled and assumed gone forever destructive weeds in my garden, the entrepreneurial former Navy Seal keeps reappearing with more or less the same script.  His is the dark side story of the Special Forces that we so celebrated for undoing Osama Bin Laden and who, in retirement, people his and similar enterprises.  The Times exposé, clearly just the tip of an iceberg, is chilling.  The U.A.E. creating such a paramilitary force seems especially significant in light of the Arab Spring, though it was coming together long before Tunis and Egypt.  Who says these revolts came as such a surprise?

Aside from appearing at the same time, the Mike and Erik stories may seem unrelated, and to a large degree are.  But what caught my attention and connected them was Erik Prince’s governing recruitment rule: hire no Muslims.  His rationale, call it justification, is that Muslim soldiers could not be counted on to kill fellow Muslims.  Others (assumably mostly Christians) the directive infers, would have no such problem.  They can surely be counted on to follow orders and do whatever killing the contract requires.

In all fairness, Mercenaries are almost always made up of people not associated with the population they are meant to fight.  So Prince’s argument probably makes perfectly good military sense, or at least as people like him and his current client Sheik Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan see it.  One can’t help but wonder whether the employers of Blackwater in Iraq — the US government — saw things the same way.  As often as we are assured that not to be the case, countless Americans see us, a Christian nation, at war with Islam.  Of course, it’s not only some religious people who hold this view.  A leading anti-Islam voice is the best selling atheist writer-polemicist Sam Harris.  At least he’s upfront and honest about his views, which should be seen as part of his more global anti-religious stance.  What makes Harris different from the many others is that he (to paraphrase Orwell) believes all religions are bad; Islam is just more bad than others.

The bottom line is that we find ourselves not merely in times of extreme economic and political stress but also caught in a religious war.  And it is not a war restricted to military encounters with Muslims in the Middle East.  A version of it can be seen in the assault on say Planned Parenthood or when self-described libertarians want government out of our lives except that is when it suits their purpose or personal ideology. For example, our bedroom or doctor’s office.  It manifests as a war within, pitting fundamentalist against modernist Christians and without between proclaimed people of faith and those they brand unbelievers.

The growing disparity between the select few who have much more than they can reasonably use and the very many who are barely getting by is in itself a potential powder keg waiting to explode.  Make no mistake, the Tea Party, with all of its inconsistencies (and regardless of who is manipulating if for their own purpose) is but a symbol of widespread unrest that transcends conservative ideology.  There are plenty of social and political liberals who find themselves, their parents or their children out of work, buried in debt (including college debt) and with only the dimmest of prospects.  At the same time Banks, Insurance and Oil Companies are registering historic profits.  Every time I go shopping prices seem on the rise — our dollar isn’t buying what it did just a few weeks or months ago.  The nightmare that we may be headed for class warfare is sufficient to keep me up at night and fretting throughout the day.  Add religion to that mix and you have a potential incendiary that history tells us can be catestrophic.  That’s what makes me cringe when Mike Huckabee and others inject their religious beliefs and ideology into politics and what tells me that Erik Prince’s no Muslims need apply policy is a mindset that will, by definition, lead to no good.