The money spent on political campaigns that last
too long and from which we learn little.
That about sums it up!
A socialist gets beaten by a ding
bat using socialism's concepts!
===
Yuval Levin has written an interesting article some of which I agree with and some of which I have to think more about.
I do not believe Trump should be thought of as a Republican. I see him as a political phenomenon who found it easier to run under the Republican banner at this time and then proceeded to strike a responsive chord with those who felt they have been betrayed by both parties. These 'betrayed' come from all walks of the political spectrum. Black and Hispanic Americans have been betrayed, though they may not realize it, and certainly white Americans have been betrayed and they do realize it. Let's face it, America has been betrayed but we have only ourselves to blame because we abdicated our authority, we walked off the playing field and left the goal line unattended to politicians of both parties.
Conservatism, in a political sense, means, to me, approaching every problem in a logical and balanced manner with the goal of resolving the problem in a way that is financially sound, does not radically alter the social fabric and character of our nation and doing so locally when possible and in a constitutionally sanctioned manner versus using the problem as a means of growing our centralized government.
Trump has become a convenient way for the discontented to unload their anger and frustration. He has been brilliant in the way he manipulated the press and media and he surely deserves credit for touching a myriad of 3rd rail issues. Yes, he has failed to offer concrete solutions but, if truth be told, he actually has run a campaign much like Obama, only with a bit more vulgarity.
If memory serves me correctly, Obama gave us a lot of rhetoric pertaining to Hope and Change but little by way of fleshed out solutions. I believe, after Obama became president, most were surprised by the way he governed and the way he imposed his will through "executive orders" versus working with Congress in the more traditional and Constitutional manner. Even when he had the numbers he chose not to work with Congress. He was more interested in blaming Republicans because confrontation and setting up straw men and offloading on others is his warped style of leadership.
Certainly the press and media did little to expose Obama's radical relationships and connecting his background to his person and, to this day, we know very little about the man we elected twice.
As for Trump, I believe he exposed the schism within the ranks of the Republican Party but a schism also exists among Democrats. They just have yet to face the discord and may not, because they are less desirous of recognizing they no longer are the party they once were since they seem on the path of philosophically rejecting so much of what made America the exceptional nation we once were.
I have always believed Democrats place winning above conviction and are more chameleon like, in that they will change and embrace most anything in order to win and retain power. Republicans seem always behind the curve and plodding when it comes to recognizing the need to embrace change. They are more likely to fight among themselves. Eventually when they come around it is often too late and they do a lousy job of articulation. Democrats are slick and quick, Republicans are dull and ponderous.
Perhaps the success of Trump and the threat he might pose to retaining their political strength and positions will awaken Republicans and they will actually begin to listen to the bright among their ranks and become more cohesive. If so, this would serve the nation well because we need an attractive and competitive buffer against the radicalization of the Democrat Party and the wreckage their insane and costly policies have wrought upon our nation over the decades beginning with Woodrow Wilson. (See 1 below.)
Meanwhile, Bernie, the wink and nod apologist, is dangerous for Democrats and America. Bernie is not the kind of Jew that makes me proud. In fact, he is an embarrassment and according to one author a moral narcissist. (See 1a and 1b below.)
===
David Petraeus always worth listening to. (See 2 below.)
===
My market guru friend has proved correct in his thinking the market would go up in advance of the earnings season. The stocks I liked participated but I still remain reluctant to chase.
It is ironic that the banks did well market wise but not earnings wise. The banks stocks were so oversold their poor showing was interpreted as better than expected.
Which reminds me of a joke about two dress manufacturers who had such a bad line no one bought anything. As they were staring bankruptcy in the face a buyer from Neiman Marcus came in and shopped their line.
She said if they did not hear from her by Western Union at noon tomorrow rejecting her offer that she would take the entire line and use it as a promotion and they were to ship it to Dallas. The next morning they waited hoping they would not get a visit from Western Union. As the clock struck 11:55 Western Union knocked and their hearts sank. One of the partners gave the Western Union delivery man his last quarter and he opened the telegram and said excitedly to his partner - Sam, good news your bother died.
===
Sunday, April 17, at 10AM at The JEA, the Israeli Consul General. Amb.Ido Aharoni, will be speaking and the public is invited.
The program is sponsored by The JNF. Should be interesting
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
The Next Conservative Movement
After Trump’s demagoguery, Republicans can revitalize their party by offering bottom-up solutions suited to the diverse, dynamic society America has become
ILLUSTRATION: TIM O’BRIEN
The American right is in crisis. This year’s presidential race, however it turns out, has
revealed deep fissures in the Republican coalition. A third to a half of Republican voters
in state after state have given their backing to Donald Trump, a divisive demagogue whose
case for himself has essentially nothing to do with conservatism. The rest of the party has
been left baffled—wondering what has happened to the Republicans and where American
politics might be headed.
To answer those questions, we need to see that they are not one and the same. The Trump phenomenon can help us to grasp what has happened but not what is coming next. Mr.
Trump marks not the beginning of a new phase in American politics but the end of an old
one—the exhaustion of a mid-20th-century model of national politics that can no longer
meet the needs of 21st-century America. Mr. Trump disgorges an angry aggregation of
failures and complaints, but he offers no solutions and no way forward.
Mr. Trump’s core message is often labeled as populist, but it would be better described as mournful or nostalgic. A populist argues that the people are being oppressed by the
powerful. But Mr. Trump claims not that our elites or the “establishment” are too strong
but that they are too weak—indeed, that the people who hold power and privilege in our
leading institutions are pathetic losers and that, therefore, nothing in America works the
way it used to and our country “doesn’t win anymore.”Understanding the roots and appeal
of his message can help us to understand how our politics has changed in recent decades.
More important, it can help us to see what the constructive next phase of the American
right could look like—a decentralizing conservatism of bottom-up solutions for our
increasingly fragmented society.
This contention taps into a powerful, widely shared sense that the U.S. has lost ground—
that we have fallen far and fast from a peak that many can still remember. Both Democrats and Republicans often appeal to such a sense of loss. For Democrats, the peak came in the
1960s, when cultural liberalization seemed to coexist with a highly regulated economy.
For Republicans, it came in the 1980s, when economic liberalization was accompanied by
a resurgence of national pride and a renewed emphasis on family values. By now,
American politics is largely organized around these related modes of nostalgia, and the
two parties address voters as if it were always 1965 or 1981.
Much of Mr. Trump’s appeal has to do with his even vaguer nostalgic message. He
mentions no specific peak to recover and offers little in the way of a policy agenda;
he just harks back to a lost American greatness and says that he alone can recapture
it by reversing globalization, immigration and other modern trends. And in the
cultural animosities of some of those who most resent the ways America has changed. He has taken the logic of our nostalgic politics to its absurd conclusion.
Workers leaving Boeing Plant 2 in Seattle, circa 1955. In the wake of a world war in which most
potential competitors had burned each other’s productive capacities to the ground, the U.S.
dominated the global economy. PHOTO: PICTORIAL PARADE/ARCHIVE PHOTOS/GETTY IMAGES
In its less cartoonish forms, today’s nostalgia is understandable. The America that our
exhausted, wistful politics so misses, the nation as it first emerged from the Great
Depression and World War II and evolved from there, was (at least for its white citizens) exceptionally unified and cohesive. It had an extraordinary confidence in large institutions
—in the ability of big government, big labor and big business to work together to meet
national needs. Its cultural life was dominated by a broad traditionalist moral consensus
that celebrated two-parent families with children born into wedlock and frowned on
divorce and abortion. And in the wake of a world war in which most potential competitors
had burned each other’s productive capacities to the ground, the U.S. utterly dominated
the global economy, offering opportunity to workers of all stripes.
But almost immediately after the war, that consolidated nation began a long process of
unwinding and fragmenting. During the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the culture liberalized, the
economy was deregulated to keep up with rising competitors, and an exceptional
mid century elite consensus in politics gave way to renewed divisions. In time, this
fracturing of consensus grew from diffusion into polarization—of political views,
economic opportunities, incomes, family patterns and ways of life. We have grown less
conformist but more fragmented, more diverse but less unified, more dynamic but less
secure.
All this has meant many gains for America: in national prosperity, personal liberty,
cultural diversity, racial inclusion, technological innovation and more meaningful options
and choices in every realm of life. But it has also meant a loss of faith in institutions, a
loss of social order and structure, a loss of cultural cohesion, a loss of security and stability
for many workers, and a loss of political and moral consensus. Those losses have piled
up in ways that to some Americans now often seem to overwhelm the gains and have
made 21st-century American politics distinctly backward-looking and morose.
Conservatives and liberals stress different facets of these changes. Liberals treasure the
social liberation and growing cultural diversity of the past half-century but lament the
economic dislocation, the loss of social solidarity and the rise in inequality. Conservatives celebrate the economic liberalization and dynamism but lament the social instability, moral disorder, cultural breakdown and weakening of fundamental institutions and traditions.
Part of Mr. Trump’s appeal has been that he basically laments it all—and thus unites the
anxieties of those who see no real upside for themselves in the evolution of modern
America.
But a politics of angry lamentation, whatever visceral appeal it may have, cannot look
forward. America cannot afford a competition of barren nostalgias. We need a politics that
builds on our strengths to address our weaknesses.
The greatest challenges that America now confronts are the logical conclusions of the
path of individualism and fracture, dissolution and liberation that we have traveled since
the middle of the last century. And the greatest resources at our disposal for tackling those challenges are the products of our having traveled this path too. We face the problems of a fractured republic, and the solutions we pursue will need to call upon the strengths of a decentralized, diffuse, diverse, dynamic nation.
For all the GOP’s troubles, it will actually be easier for conservatives than for liberals to
see their way toward such a forward-looking politics. For one thing, conservatives can
much more clearly see the bankruptcy of a nostalgic politics. Many liberals still cling complacently to the anachronism of social democracy as their vision of the future.
Conservatives, especially after this year of pandemonium, can hardly be so smug about
their own inherited agenda. But if conservatives can look past their own nostalgia, they
will be well positioned to grasp the appeal of a politics of decentralization and diffusion,
and thus to offer solutions suited to the society America has become.
Some traditional conservative priorities—especially an emphasis on economic growth—
remain vital to any such forward-looking politics. But that can only be a start. Beyond
growth, a modernized conservative policy agenda would seek to use the very diversity and
fragmentation of 21st-century America to meet its challenges. By empowering problem-
solvers throughout American society, rather than hoping that Washington will get things
right, conservatives can bring to public policy the kind of dispersed, incremental, bottom-
up approach to progress that increasingly pervades every other part of American life while reviving community and civil society to combat dislocation and isolation.
In health care, for instance, the old progressive approach has been to centralize decision-
making so that consolidated expertise could direct our immense health-care system more efficiently. Obamacare, like Medicare and Medicaid before it, embodies this approach—
and demonstrates its failings. The new conservative approach would liberate insurers and providers to offer many different models of coverage and care, empower consumers to
choose (including through financial assistance to those unable to afford insurance) and let
their choices matter—making the system more efficient from the bottom up.
New York construction workers, circa 1950. Both liberals and conservatives fall into the trap of wistfully looking back with nostalgia. They would be better served to look ahead. PHOTO:BEN MCCALL/FPG/HULTON ARCHIVE/GETTY IMAGES
Or consider primary and secondary
education, where the old progressive
model was the universal public-school
system—offering one product to all and administering it in as centralized a way
as public opinion would permit. The
new conservative approach would
instead direct its resources to let
parents make choices for their children
and allow the education system to take
shape around their priorities and
preferences.
As these examples suggest, such a bottom-up approach has long been championed by conservatives in some arenas, albeit with limited success against an entrenched progressive welfare state. But as the old progressive model exhausts itself, a new conservative
approach can make its case more boldly—both in familiar arenas and in new ones, from
welfare to higher education to local public administration and more.
A welfare system that could better address the problems of those left behind by the global economy or mired in intergenerational poverty wouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic
regime. Rather, it would empower local problem-solvers to mix resources, advice,
experience and moral leadership in a continuing process of bottom-up experimentation.
State and city welfare agencies will bring different tools to bear than religious charities,
local employers or community groups—and all should be allowed to try. That is what you
do when you don’t have all the answers.
A higher-education system geared to a 21st-century America wouldn’t reinforce a cycle of
rising tuition and declining value with inflationary federal loans. Instead, it would open up accreditation to allow for more options, let students and parents have more information
about outcomes and offer aid to the needy that rewarded high value, not high prices. Some
schools (like Purdue University) are experimenting with new models of aid, and some
states (like Texas) are leading the way toward lower-cost degrees. Conservatives should
make it easier for others to follow.
The work of government more broadly—especially at the state and local levels, where
most government happens—should abandon the model of the centralized, technocratic
industrial economy in favor of today’s decentralized, consumer-driven, postindustrial
economy, using public resources to encourage constructive experimentation with public
services rather than to impose tired dogmas from above. Some forward-thinking state and
local leaders, like Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, offer
useful models of how competition between private and public service providers can
improve both.
Such a modernized conservatism would also have much to offer to our troubled cultural
debates. In an increasingly fractured society, moral traditionalists should emphasize
building cohesive and attractive subcultures, rather than struggling for dominance of the increasingly weakened institutions of the mainstream culture. While some national
political battles, especially about religious liberty, will remain essential to preserve the
space for moral traditionalism to thrive, social conservatives must increasingly focus on
how best to fill that space in their own communities. That is how a traditionalist moral
minority can thrive in a diverse America—by offering itself not as a path back to an old
consensus that no longer exists but as an attractive, vibrant alternative to the demoralizing
chaos of the permissive society.
Indeed, the revival of the mediating institutions of community life is essential to a
modernizing conservatism. These institutions—from families to churches to civic and
fraternal associations and labor and business groups—can help balance dynamism with
cohesion and let citizens live out their freedom in practice. They can keep our diversity
from devolving into atomism or dangerous cultural, racial and ethnic Balkanization. And
they can help us to use our multiplicity to address our modern challenges.
Conservatives may not feel it just now, but they are actually equipped to take on that
challenge, once they see it clearly. The right’s decentralizing mind-set, disposition toward community and innate skepticism of technocratic government will serve them well—and
leave them far better equipped to address America’s modern problems than liberals who
have yet to confront the exhaustion of their own political vision.In the crisis of this
election year, the right has been brought face-to-face with the bankruptcy of its version of nostalgic politics. The conservatism that follows Mr. Trump will need to confront the
genuine public concerns into which he has tapped, about trade, downward social mobility
and diminished opportunity. But conservatives will need to offer an approach far more constructive than Mr. Trump’s vulgar and abusive demagoguery.
For the right, Mr. Trump marks the disastrous end of an era. But beyond the crisis that he
embodies beckons the prospect of a revitalized conservatism and a revitalized America.
Mr. Levin is the editor of National Affairs and the Hertog Fellow at the Ethics and Public
Policy Center. This essay is adapted from “The Fractured Republic: Renewing America’s
Social Contract in the Age of Individualism,” to be published in May by Basic Books.
1a)The US presidential race is President Barack Obama’s political legacy. Depending on who succeeds him, that
legacy will either fade or become the new normal.
To understand what he has wrought, a good place to start is with the man running to Obama’s left: Sen. Bernie
Sanders.
The socialist from Vermont knows how to play to the crowd. Sanders knows that the people captivated by his tales
The socialist from Vermont knows how to play to the crowd. Sanders knows that the people captivated by his tales
of avaricious bankers aren’t too keen on Jews either.
And as a Jew, he’s cool with that.
Sanders’s courtship of Jew-haters is a staple of his campaign. The depth of his efforts was made clear at the end
And as a Jew, he’s cool with that.
Sanders’s courtship of Jew-haters is a staple of his campaign. The depth of his efforts was made clear at the end
of a campaign event at the Apollo Theater in Harlem last Saturday when an audience member got up and began
spewing anti-Jewish slanders.
Sanders doesn’t have a problem telling bigots off. He did just that at another event when a questioner asked a
Sanders doesn’t have a problem telling bigots off. He did just that at another event when a questioner asked a
question he deemed anti-Muslim. Sanders is an unstinting champion of gay rights and black rights. So if he wanted
to tell off a Jew-hater, he could have done so easily.
In the event, the questioner rose and said, “As you know, the Zionist Jews – and I don’t mean to offend anybody –
In the event, the questioner rose and said, “As you know, the Zionist Jews – and I don’t mean to offend anybody –
they run the Federal Reserve, they run Wall Street, they run every campaign.”
Weathering a chorus of boos from his fellow audience members, the questioner then asked Sanders, “What is your
Weathering a chorus of boos from his fellow audience members, the questioner then asked Sanders, “What is your
affiliation to your Jewish community?” Sanders could have told the questioner to take a long walk off a short pier.
He could have told him he’d rather win without the support of bigots.
He could have used it as a teaching moment and told his audience that millions of Jews have been murdered
He could have used it as a teaching moment and told his audience that millions of Jews have been murdered
because of the lies the questioner just repeated.
Instead, he called him “Brother” and told he needed to hide his hatred better.
“No, no, no, that’s not what you’re asking,” Sanders insisted.
In other words, talking about Jewish bankers is not the way to go.
Sanders said he is proud to be Jewish, got the applause, and then changed the subject from the socially acceptable
Instead, he called him “Brother” and told he needed to hide his hatred better.
“No, no, no, that’s not what you’re asking,” Sanders insisted.
In other words, talking about Jewish bankers is not the way to go.
Sanders said he is proud to be Jewish, got the applause, and then changed the subject from the socially acceptable
Jewish bankers to the socially unacceptable Jewish Israelis.
Although the questioner was talking about Jews in America, Sanders said, apropos of nothing, “Talking about the
Although the questioner was talking about Jews in America, Sanders said, apropos of nothing, “Talking about the
Middle East and Israel, I am a strong defender of Israel, but I also believe that we have got to pay attention to the
needs of the Palestinian people.”
If that wasn’t enough, Sanders’s staff reportedly approached the man and told him to meet with Sanders’s
If that wasn’t enough, Sanders’s staff reportedly approached the man and told him to meet with Sanders’s
communication director after the event concluded. In other words, not only did he not stand up to the anti-Semite,
Sanders went out of his way to make the Jew-hating bigot feel loved and respected.
Sanders’s embrace of an out and out anti-Jewish bigot was not surprising. A consistent goal of Sanders’s campaign
Sanders’s embrace of an out and out anti-Jewish bigot was not surprising. A consistent goal of Sanders’s campaign
has been to court leftist anti-Semites.
Last month, Sanders was the only presidential candidate to reject AIPAC’s invitation to speak at its annual
Last month, Sanders was the only presidential candidate to reject AIPAC’s invitation to speak at its annual
convention.
Last week, he told the New York Daily News that the IDF killed 10,000 innocent Palestinians in Gaza during
Protective Edge in 2014, (the actual number was fewer than a thousand, and Hamas claims it was around 1,500).
When his slanders caused an outcry, Sanders shrugged his shoulders, winked and then pretended to correct
When his slanders caused an outcry, Sanders shrugged his shoulders, winked and then pretended to correct
himself while spewing still more inflated statistics. In so doing, he continued his public fight with Israel and the
Jews in America who support it.
Then there are his Jewish campaign officials.
They hate Israel.
Sanders’s director of Jewish outreach is Simone Zimmerman. Zimmerman is a prominent anti-Israel, pro-BDS activist. Among her greatest achievements, last year she published an expletive- filled post on her Facebook page describing how much she hates Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
And Zimmerman is not alone. Daniel Sieradski, who manages the Facebook page “Jews for Bernie,” is an anti-Israel activist.
By hiring anti-Israel Jews to serve in key Jewish positions in his campaign, Sanders signals to the anti-Semites that they have a friend in him. He and his Jewish campaign officials are not the bad “Zionist Jews.”
Sanders and his Jewish professionals are the good anti-Zionist Jews whom anti-Semitic leftists can embrace and so prove they aren’t bigots despite the fact that they think a Jewish conspiracy controls the galaxy.
Sanders isn’t empowering anti-Semites because he necessarily hates Jews himself. He may actually like Jews.
He is doing this because he is a populist demagogue.
Sanders isn’t in the race to solve his supporters’ problems. He is in the race to tell them whom to blame, whom to
Then there are his Jewish campaign officials.
They hate Israel.
Sanders’s director of Jewish outreach is Simone Zimmerman. Zimmerman is a prominent anti-Israel, pro-BDS activist. Among her greatest achievements, last year she published an expletive- filled post on her Facebook page describing how much she hates Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
And Zimmerman is not alone. Daniel Sieradski, who manages the Facebook page “Jews for Bernie,” is an anti-Israel activist.
By hiring anti-Israel Jews to serve in key Jewish positions in his campaign, Sanders signals to the anti-Semites that they have a friend in him. He and his Jewish campaign officials are not the bad “Zionist Jews.”
Sanders and his Jewish professionals are the good anti-Zionist Jews whom anti-Semitic leftists can embrace and so prove they aren’t bigots despite the fact that they think a Jewish conspiracy controls the galaxy.
Sanders isn’t empowering anti-Semites because he necessarily hates Jews himself. He may actually like Jews.
He is doing this because he is a populist demagogue.
Sanders isn’t in the race to solve his supporters’ problems. He is in the race to tell them whom to blame, whom to
hate. He caters to their hatreds.
Sanders is the legacy Obama has given the Democratic Party.
Eight years ago, to get elected to the presidency, Obama had to pretend to be a moderate. He dismissed the
Sanders is the legacy Obama has given the Democratic Party.
Eight years ago, to get elected to the presidency, Obama had to pretend to be a moderate. He dismissed the
importance of his longstanding ties to terrorists like William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. He pretended away the
significance of his intimate relationship with his Jew-hating preacher Jeremiah Wright and Nation of Islam leader
Louis Farrakhan. Obama insisted that he was a unifier, not a divider, and a star struck media supported his
propaganda.
Obama abandoned his promise of moderation immediately upon entering office. Over the past seven years, he has
Obama abandoned his promise of moderation immediately upon entering office. Over the past seven years, he has
turned Americans against one another. Racial tensions are higher than they have been since the 1970s.
Conservatives and liberals share less and less. Moderates have all but disappeared.
Indeed, one of Obama’s main accomplishments within the Democratic Party is the destruction of the moderate
Indeed, one of Obama’s main accomplishments within the Democratic Party is the destruction of the moderate
Democratic camp.
When he entered office, there were 54 moderate Democrats in Congress. Today only 14 remain.
Sanders, whose campaign slogan is “revolution,” is proof that Obama has transformed the Democratic Party.
When he entered office, there were 54 moderate Democrats in Congress. Today only 14 remain.
Sanders, whose campaign slogan is “revolution,” is proof that Obama has transformed the Democratic Party.
Without Obama, Sanders would have remained a quack from Vermont.
The Republicans have also been profoundly affected by Obama. Indeed, today the party is at war with itself.
The first product of this war is Sanders’s Republican counterpart, fellow populist Donald Trump.
Like Sanders, Trump has based his campaign not on offering solutions to America’s problems, but on telling his
The Republicans have also been profoundly affected by Obama. Indeed, today the party is at war with itself.
The first product of this war is Sanders’s Republican counterpart, fellow populist Donald Trump.
Like Sanders, Trump has based his campaign not on offering solutions to America’s problems, but on telling his
supporters who is to blame for their misery. Whereas Sanders blames the bankers, and wink, wink, nod, nod “the
Zionist Jews,” Trump blames the Mexicans and the Chinese.
1b)Why Bernie Sanders Says Terrible Things about Israel
It's been over a week since Bernie Sanders -- in an interview with the New York
Daily News -- made arguably the most defamatory factual error of campaign 2016
by drastically inflating Gazan casualties in the 2014 Hamas-Israel war with a
figure of "over 10,000 innocent people" allegedly killed by Israel. That number
dwarfed those reported by the UN and even (amazingly) Hamas itself. Here's the transcript:
Sanders: Look, why don't I support a million things in the world? I'm just telling you that I happen to believe...anybody help me out here, because I don't remember the figures, but my recollection is over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza. Does that sound right?
Daily News: I think it's probably high, but we can look at that.Sanders: I don't have it in my number...but I think it's over 10,000. My understanding is that a whole lot of apartment houses were leveled. Hospitals, I think, were bombed. So yeah, I do believe and I don't think I'm alone in believing that Israel's force was more indiscriminate than it should have been.
Indiscriminate? Actually it was Hamas and Islamic Jihad that were indiscriminate
by purposefully targeting Israeli civilians with their missiles, launched frequently
from schools and hospitals in order to encourage reciprocal civilian deaths of their
own people for propaganda purposes. And then there are the tunnels under
Israel that Hamas and co. are still building to attack Israelis in their homes. All this
after Israel withdrew voluntarily from Gaza.
Is it a coincidence that Sanders has chosen Simone Zimmerman, a BDS (boycott,
divestment and sanctions of Israel) sympathizer, to do his "outreach" to the Jewish community?
Such boycotts have been shown to hurt the Palestinians far more than they help
them, but never mind. What interest me here is why Bernie Sanders -- a U.S.
senator and the first Jewish presidential candidate -- would assert anything as
absurd as the Israelis killed 10,000 innocent Gazan civilians. Why wouldn't he
have the basic knowledge -- readily available to everyone as it is -- to know how
far off his numbers were? Didn't he care?
Well, no. And there's a reason.
That reason is moral narcissism, the underlying motivation behind what Andrew McCarthy so accurately calls "willful blindness." Bernie is willfully blind about
Israel, even though he spent time on a kibbutz and still has relatives in the country.
This moral narcissism that grips Bernie -- unlike the traditional narcissism of
Narcissus admiring his handsome reflection -- is a narcissism of ideas and opinions. The views that make you feel good about yourself, that make others praise you and make you part of the "club," are what is most important to you and your self-image
. They literally define you. Whether those views are based in fact or whether the
results of those views are the least bit salutary is immaterial.
The moral narcissist, therefore, is almost always blind to reality, indeed
disinterested in it. It's the pronouncements that count and are real. Moral
narcissism leads inexorably to politically correctness. It is, in fact, the mother's
milk of political correctness.
Lovable though he may appear, Bernie Sanders is a moral narcissist par
excellence and a particularly dangerous one. He thinks he knows best about
practically everything -- therefore he could "blue sky" a figure of 10,000 casualties
out of thin air, even if, especially if, it made Israel look bad and imperialistic. That's
the morally narcissistic position of the bien pensant in our culture in the media, entertainment, and, especially, the academy.
In this rare instance, because his claim was so outrageous, Bernie got caught,
walked back his "estimate," and feigned innocence, though he was far from
innocent. He was dishonest to others because he was and is fundamentally
dishonest to himself. He believes his nonsense.
=========================================================
2)5 ‘big ideas’ to guide us in the Long War against Islamic extremism
David Petraeus, the chairman of the KKR Global Institute, is a retired U.S. Army
general who commanded coalition forces in Iraq from 2007 to 2008 and
Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011 and served as CIA director from 2011 to 2012.
The formulation of sound national policy requires finding the right
overarching concepts. Getting the “big ideas” right is particularly
important when major developments appear to have invalidated the
concepts upon which previous policy and strategy were based — which
now appears to be the case in the wake of the Arab Spring.
To illustrate this point, I have often noted that the surge that mattered
most in Iraq was not the surge of forces. It was the surge of ideas, which
guided the strategy that ultimately reduced violence in the country so substantially.
The biggest of the big ideas that guided the Iraq surge included
recognition that:
●The decisive terrain was the human terrain — and that securing the
people had to be our foremost task. Without progress on that, nothing
else would be possible.
●We could secure the people only by living with them, locating our
forces in their neighborhoods, rather than consolidating on big bases, as
we had been doing the year before the surge.
●We could not kill or capture our way out of the sizable insurgency that
plagued Iraq; rather, though killing and capturing were necessary, we
needed to reconcile with as many of the insurgent rank and file as was
possible.
●We could not clear areas of insurgents and then leave them after
handing control off to Iraqi security forces; rather, we had to clear and
hold, transitioning to Iraqis only when we achieved a situation that they
could sustain.
Now, nine tough years later, five big ideas seem to be crystallizing as the
lessons we should be taking from developments over the past decade.
First, it is increasingly apparent that ungoverned spaces in a region
stretching from West Africa through the Middle East and into Central
Asia will be exploited by Islamic extremists who want to establish
sanctuaries in which they can enforce their extremist version of Islam and from which they can conduct terrorist attacks.
Second, it is also apparent that the attacks and other activities of such extremists will not be confined to the areas or regions in which they are
located. Rather, as in the case of Syria, the actions of the extremist groups are likely to spew instability, extremism, violence and refugees far beyond their immediate surroundings, posing increasingly difficult challenges for our partners in the region, our European allies and even our homeland.
Third, it is also increasingly clear that, in responding to these challenges,
U.S. leadership is imperative. If the United States does not lead, it is
unlikely that another country will. Moreover, at this point, no group of
other countries can collectively approach U.S. capabilities. This does not
mean that the United States needs to undertake enormous efforts to
counter extremist groups in each case. To the contrary, the United States should do only what is absolutely necessary, and we should do so with as
many partners as possible. Churchill was right when he observed, “There
is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting
without them.” And, if one of those partners wants to walk point — such as France in Mali — we should support it, while recognizing that we still
may have to contribute substantially.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++
Partners from the Islamic world are of particular importance. Indeed, they have huge incentives to be involved, as the ongoing struggles are generally not clashes between civilizations. Rather, what we are seeing is more accurately a clash within a civilization, that of the Islamic world. And no leaders have more to lose should extremism gather momentum than those of predominantly Islamic states.
Fourth, it is becoming clear that the path the United States and coalition partners pursue has to be comprehensive and not just a narrow counter-terrorism approach. It is increasingly apparent that more than precision strikes and special operations raids are needed. This does not mean that the United States has to provide the conventional ground forces, conduct the political reconciliation component or undertake the nation-building tasks necessary in such cases. In Iraq at present, for example, it is clear that the Iraqis not only should provide those components, but also that they have to do so for the results achieved — with considerable help from the U.S.-led coalition — to be sustainable.
Fifth, and finally, it is clear that the U.S.-led effort will have to be sustained for what may be extended periods of time — and that reductions in our level of effort should be guided by conditions on the ground rather than fixed timetables. While aspirational timelines for reductions in our efforts may have some merit, it is clear from our experiences under both post-9/11 administrations that premature transitions and drawdowns can result in loss of the progress for which we sacrificed greatly — and may result in having to return to a country to avoid a setback to U.S. interests.
To be sure, there is nothing easy about what I describe. Success in all such efforts will require sustained commitment, not just of our military forces, but also of the capabilities of other departments and agencies.
A comprehensive approach is neither easy nor cheap. But that is also true of the actions we have to take as inadequately governed spaces become ungoverned and in turn are exploited by transnational extremists.
The Long War is going to be an ultramarathon, and it is time we recognized that. But we and our partners have the ability to respond in a thoughtful, prudent manner, informed by the big ideas that I have described. Nothing less will prove adequate.
