Political Winds

Our representatives on Capital Hill like to engage in the quaint tradition of using the prefix “The Honorable” to add a little sheen to their dusky names. Those good and decent Republicans on Capitol Hill are once again engaged in a mindbendingly vicious and hypocritical attack on a Democratic candidate. This time of course, it’s John Kerry.

The line of attack is on Kerry’s anti-war activities since the Republicans have found it frustratingly difficult to create doubts about the candidate’s Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. So now they’re calling him “Hanoi John.” The Honorable Sam Johnson, Republican of Texas (where else), said that when Kerry criticized the war, he showed “his true colors, and they are not red, white and blue.”

As Dave Barry says, I’m not making this up - see EJ Dionne’s angry column in today’s Washington Post.

In my view, John Kerry should not be defensive in the least about his anti-war advocacy. He should remind Americans of the difference between his Vietnam-era years and those of George W. Bush: Kerry was a serious young man, engaged in the the towering issue of the time. He didn’t take the easy way. He had the guts to put himself in the line of fire on a swift boat in the Mekong Delta and then had the courage to speak out against an unjust war. Meanwhile, the Yale legacy admittee George W. Bush was leading his fraternity, drinking a lot of beer, cheerleading for the Yale Bulldogs in his plentiful spare time and then using his name to get into the “Champagne Unit” of the Texas Air National Guard.

Can you believe we’re even having this discussion?

Much of the debate about Israel and the Palestinians is appropriately centered on moral questions relating to terrorism, occupation, protest and self-defense. Employing moral arguments, defenders of Israeli policies tend to speak of what Israel has a right to do rather than what, as a practical matter, it should do. And that is at the core of my objections to American groups that are unwavering in their support of Ariel Sharon. As a strong backer of Israel and a Jew, I consider Sharon’s policies to be profoundly destructive of the interests of Israel. Like many in Israel, including four previous heads of Shin Bet, the security service, and the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, I believe Sharon’s policies are empowering Palestinian extremists and creating more terrorists, while not addressing the fundamental issues of sustainable coexistence. I know the response to this argument is that the Palestinians haven’t been able to stop terrorism and demonstrate that they can be a reliable partner in moving toward a two-state solution. I don’t dispute that claim. Moroever, I agree with the corollaries to this criticism of the Palestinians, namely, that the world, Europe in particular, applies a double standard to Israel, that Arab governments have cynically used the Palestinian problem to engender domestic political support, and that anti-Semitism underlies a significant part of the most vitriolic anti-Israel sentiment.

All that said, the question is, what Israeli policies are likely to create the emergence of moderate Palestinian leaders and weaken the influence of terrorist groups? In other words, what policies will actually enhance Israel’s long-term security and insure the continuance of a stable, democratic and Jewish state? And, yes, I think those policies can and should be consistent with Israel and Judaism’s moral imperatives.

Unfortunately, it has become virtually impossible to have a useful discussion of Israeli policy in the US political arena today. One reason is the mainstream news media’s inability to handle complexity and historical perspective and its tendency to generalize about blocks of people, i.e. “Jewish voters.” Thus, when President Bush embraces Sharon’s latest self-destructive scheme, you automatically see headlines about winning Jewish voters. Well, I’m a Jewish voter and I feel strongly that Bush’s unquestioning support of Sharon is harmful to the interests of both Israel and the United States. The fact is that many, if not most Jews I know feel exactly as I do.

That brings me to another factor accounting for our flaccid national discussion of Israel and the US role in the Middle East. A number of major national Jewish organizations so stongly discourage criticism of Israel that they make it virtually impossible for a politician to engage in an honest discussion about Sharon. Believe me, I understand these organizations feel that they must unequivocably support the elected government of Israel in the face of unrelenting national and international hostility. Again, however, I would suggest that such an approach is ultimately counterproductive. Moreover, I resent the implication by Jewish organizations that they represent the views of American Jews in general. In fact, American Jews have much more nuanced views than most of those organizations or the media would have you believe.

So it’s upsetting to me, for example, that the Anti-Defamation League, an admirable and important organization and one with which I’ve been associated, gave the expected, indeed automatic thumbs up to Bush’s recent statement of support for Sharon’s Gaza and West Bank policies. Is it any surprise that John Kerry refused to differentiate himself from Bush by even a hair on this point? It reminds me of when my own rabbi told me of the 2002 campaign visit of our (now former) Representative Jim Maloney (D-CT) to the synagogue. Of course the congressman was absolutely unstinting in his support of Israel. So much so, said the rabbi, that some members of the congregation were frustrated with Maloney’s unwillingness to talk openly and constructively about the challenges of bringing peace and stability to Israel and the Middle East. Maloney, who by the way, is a good guy, just couldn’t let slip a hint of doubt about Sharon to his Jewish constituents even though they themselves harbored such uncertainties.

The Jewish organizations to which I refer will say to you that it’s not the place of American Jewry to publicly criticize the duly-elected government of Israel. The problem with that argument is that these influential groups are de facto political players in Israel. Their public support of Sharon and the political impact of that support in the US amounts to political ammunition for Sharon back home. One final point - when we as a nation talk about how to best employ US power to insure the security of Israel, I think our discussion should approach the robustness of the debate in which the citizens of the democratic state of Israel routinely engage.

I have a fantasy that one day the majority of Americans watching George W. Bush try to explain his policies will finally be forced by overwhelming evidence on the TV screen to ask themselves, is this the best we can do? How can it be that the inarticulate, incurious and incautious Bush is the leader of the United States of America?

Of course, I realize that this will remain a fantasy. For once again, after viewing what I regarded as a dismal, embarrassing and at times shockingly inept performance by the president, I woke up to the usual and predictable divide among commentators. I have to wonder if in the privacy of their own homes, right wing pundits such as Fred Barnes will acknowledge, if only to themselves, that Bush isn’t sounding dumb by design with the aim of bypassing the “political elite” and talking to the “mass.” C’mon guys, Bush can’t speak as well as probably 80% of senior managers in American companies and 90% of college professors. And, as far as I’m concerned, Dan Rather needs to go undercover again somewhere to get back in touch with reality. Dan called Bush’s show “steady, competent and forceful.”

Josh Marshall, I think, had it right:

I don’t know how to give a meaningful analysis of how the president did tonight. (I didn’t watch it live, but taped, later in the evening.) Perhaps my opinions of the man and his record are too set in stone for me to provide an objective take. But, even setting aside the awkward moments where the president couldn’t think of any mistake he’d ever made on foreign policy since 9/11, what I saw was a man with a quiver of cliches and a few simple stock arguments. Whatever the question, he grabbed a handful of those and tossed them back.

It’s become a bit impolitic in Washington to question whether the president really knows what he’s doing or whether he has any sort of a detailed handle on what’s going on on his watch. But I didn’t see much sign of either.