Empathic Rationalist

2012-01-28T14:07:00.001-08:00

AN UNABASHED PLUTOCRAT

I hope you all have been watching the Republican debates. Lord knows I have. I’ve watched them week after week, month after month, despite the incredible redundancy, for the same reason I’ve watched the Godfather movies and various Kubrick movies a zillion times. It’s called developing a taste for twisted humor. There’s no other way to explain how I can spend so much time watching Mitt Romney strut his stuff like the proudest of peacocks without losing my lunch.

In South Carolina, Mitt lost his way because he was afraid – the prospect of releasing his tax returns chilled him to the bone. It was as if he knew he had something to hide. But why? When his returns were released this past Tuesday, it became clear that Mitt was doing everything the system asked of him. And sure enough, his Republican rivals have been rather muted in criticizing Mitt’s tax returns. For a Republican, those returns are practically holy objects. They are the fruits of living the American dream.

Sure, Mitt paid only a 14% tax rate, or well under that paid by workers who make as much in a year as Mitt makes in a one-hour speech. So what? He paid what is required of him under our system, which taxes those who make big bucks through financial speculation at a much lower rate than it taxes the middle class. According to the Republican talking points, there is nothing inappropriate about taking advantage of a low capital gains rate, and every reason to lower that rate so as to encourage investing. They would add that a low capital gains rate is only fair, because the money that is being invested has already been taxed once. How can we justify taxing it twice – especially when this would lower our national investment rate? In the long run, is that really going to help the middle class or the poor?

Or so goes the Republican argument. By the time Barack Obama gets through with him, Mitt Romney will have given that argument a face. And the more that I think about it, his is just the perfect face for the job.

In a twisted sort of way, Mitt is a moral exemplar. His is the classic American success story. Here we have a wonderful family man, deeply committed to his faith, hugely successful in one business venture after another, and highly productive as the Governor of a populous state. Mitt exudes, if not an aura of comfort around other people, at least a high degree of self-adulation. And what’s not to adulate? Mitt is a winner. He knows it, you know it, and if you don’t like him or what he stands for, it must be because of your “envy.” Or so he says.

Deep down, I don’t really have anything against the guy. I remember knowing people like him when I went to Harvard Law School, one of Mitt’s own alma maters. I didn’t generally dislike them – not even the ones who were as aloof as Mitt. They were, after all, upstanding members of the community, people of their word, and altogether sane and rational. (I never had them pegged for being the type who would strap a dog to the roof of their car.) I knew back then that they’d end up making a large multiple of the income that I made when we got out of school, and I never begrudged them their choice of career any more than they’d begrudge me my GS 15. They were making their choice; I was making mine. Envy had nothing to do with the equation. We both could easily have taken the other path. It was totally a matter of choice.

Mitt must understand that liberals don’t support progressive tax policies based on envy but rather because they simply have a different ideology than he does. Not only was he schooled at Harvard – a bastion of progressivism – but he went on to govern the state of Massachusetts, or “Taxachusetts” as it is also known. You can accuse Mitt of many things, but being unfamiliar with progressives is not one of them.

So why, then, would Mitt shrug off his critics by accusing them of envy? Because it was his way of brushing off the discussion about taxes and economic equity. Until recently, he hasn’t been comfortable debating those issues at any length. Rather than engaging his opponents on such a third-rail topic, he wanted to win the nomination in what is known in sports as a “walk over.” Clearly, he was hoping that his superior endorsements and war chest would allow him to simply show up, smile awkwardly at the camera, boast about how damned moral and successful he has been from the minute he has taken his first step on this earth, and watch his opponents simply dry up as soon as their money did the same. Then came a feisty critter known, non-anthropomorphically, as “Newt.” And the next thing you know, Mitt was in a real fight.

Unfortunately, that fight seems poised to end soon. Like many bullies, Newt has a glass jaw. So once Mitt arose from his nightmare in South Carolina and started throwing haymakers to every part of Newt’s head and body, the former Speaker has been asking for a “truce,” rather than throwing anything back. What Newt and Mitt both understand, you see, is that this election will ultimately be about taxes and the Republican Party has no choice but to own our non-progressive system of taxation. And nobody owns it more smugly than Mitt Romney. So given that fact, the GOP might as well select Mitt to be the guy to trade blows with Barack about the roles and responsibilities of the wealthy. Next to such a poster child as Mitt, Newt is as poor and “unsuccessful” as the lowly government workers, whose pay Mitt has announced his desire to slash as soon as he is elected.

I don’t remember in my lifetime a candidate for President who better represented the modern plutocrat than Mitt Romney. He doesn’t exude even a shred of respect for the argument that rich people need to pay more in taxes not only because they are the ones who can best afford to pay, but also because they owe much of their wealth to the working-class or middle-class employees who form the backbone of most businesses. Those principles, for me, are a basic element of fairness. To the modern Republican, however, they are viewed instead as justifications for socialism. The Grand Old Party would give us Americans a choice: virtually unbridled capitalism with a non-progressive tax structure, or Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. In the Republican mind, there is no middle ground – no opportunity to combine private-sector competition with progressive taxation. Romney is holding himself out as the businessman whose noblesse oblige led him to politics but without stripping him of his devotion to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. He will be proud to show that Barack Obama is clueless about the value of the market and all too ready to place trillions of dollars in the uninspired hands of unelected bureaucrats. That’s the Republican game plan.

I don’t know about you, but I’m kind of psyched to see it all play out in the fall. It is high time we had a referendum on whether America should be an unabashed plutocracy. Barack Obama would like to turn this election into such a referendum. And Mitt just might be cocky enough to oblige him.

2012-01-21T08:57:00.000-08:00

A PECULIAR INSTITUTION

Today is supposed to be all about South Carolina. And South Carolina is supposed to be all about Newt Gingrich. With one boffo debate performance after another, Newt has taken the Palmetto State by storm. He showed up like a prize fighter, boasting that this primary would be “Armageddon.” And wouldn’t you know it -- throughout the past 10 days, he has retained the kind of fire in the belly that would have made John C. Calhoun proud. Calhoun, you may recall, was the in-your-face South Carolinian Senator who wasn’t satisfied simply by talking about slavery as a necessary evil; he hailed it as a “positive good,” one that resulted in treating working class blacks far more humanely than the “free” working class of Europe. Newt, unfortunately, hasn’t shown Calhoun’s skill in staking out the truly courageous and groundbreaking positions. Instead, he has confined his passion to such issues as whether the mainstream media should begin debate telecasts by talking about infidelity. It seemed a relatively small point to me. Yet somehow, it was important enough to garner TWO standing ovations at the candidates’ final debate. The Palmetto wind is now at Newt’s sail. What a country! What a state.

As a liberal political observer, I could be expected to spend today reflecting on the road kill that is the Republican Party and the fact that its open sores are being exposed in precisely the same state that is most associated with right-wing extremism. This isn’t just the state of Calhoun. It’s the home of Fort Sumter. And more recently, it gave us Strom Thurmond, the refusal until 1969 to ratify the 19th Amendment (enabling women to vote), and the longest tenure for displaying the Stars and Bars at the State House. What Massachusetts has been to the North, South Carolina has been to the South. It’s hardly surprising, then, that this state could be the Waterloo of that smug shape-shifter from Bean Town, Mitt Romney.

The truth is, though, that today, at least until the polls close, I’d rather not think about South Carolina … or any of its “peculiar institutions,” including the one rhapsodized by Calhoun. My thoughts have focused instead on a very different institution, one that is associated not with politics but with religion.

These days, anything identified with religion is mocked. The institution I have in mind is no exception. For many, it is linked primarily with hypocrisy and such values as rampant materialism and narcissism. Then again, we live in a time where it is trendy to expect religious institutions to live up to their ideals, and then blast them to smithereens when they fail to do so. The truth, of course, is that there no institutions – religious or otherwise – that live up to those ideals. But that isn’t an argument against the ideals; it’s merely a reminder that human beings are animals whose greatness consists largely in the fact that we are able to posit grand ideals and at least strive to live up to them. For my money, it is preferable to strive sincerely to live a religious life, even if this means you will largely fail, rather than blowing off the project altogether and mocking religion for its inevitable hypocrisy. That latter attitude is like the curmudgeon who decries romantic love and prefers remaining lonely, bitter and cynical … all the while feeling proud that he will never makes a fool of himself chasing the wrong skirt.

I’ve been thinking largely about a certain religious institution because I have two godchildren who have finally reached “that age.” They are Jewish, you see, and “that age” is 10. That’s around the time that Jewish kids first start focusing in earnest on a rite of passage that will swallow up much of their spare time until they turn 13.

In a society where kids live at home until they are at least 18, and commonly stay in school well into their 20s, it’s peculiar to think of them as “adults” as soon as they become teenagers. But the idea of a Bar or Bat Mitzvah is that a 13-year old boy or girl is supposed to be a “Jewish adult.” (Traditionally, a girl could become a Bat Mitzvah at 12, but most modern Bat Mitzvahs involve 13 year old girls.) S/he is then viewed as responsible in ways that younger children are not – obliged, for example, to honor certain commandments, such as the need to fast on Yom Kippur. As is so often the case in Judaism, what it means to be honored is expressed largely in terms of accumulating more duties. It’s no wonder that we’re not exactly competing for the title of the world’s most populous religion.

If you live in communities with lots of Jews, you’ve probably noticed one oddity of the Bar/Bat Mitzvah process: the biggest and best parties in middle school are all thrown for Jewish kids. Gentiles might get their sweet 16s, but we all know that the middle school years are truly the most formative ones. That’s when kids develop their propensity to work hard, show ambition, and channel their energies … or, by contrast, get disaffected, disgruntled, or disinclined to fight to “do their best.”

Similarly, if you live in communities with lots of Jews, you’ve probably noticed that the B’nei Mitzvah party is often a lavish affair. Indeed, stories abound about how some of these functions are ostentatious to the point of absurdity. Five-figured affairs are becoming the norm, and six- figured affairs are not out of the question for those who have money to burn. Needless to say, the cynics among us have no shortage of material here. According to their narrative, the B’nei Mitzvah process is primarily an opportunity to teach Jewish children that what matters most in life is grabbing attention, making money, and spending money. As for the religious trappings of the event, we can just consider that an “accessory” that goes with the ensemble.

While I have no doubt that such mockery is valid for certain families, and perhaps even for certain zip codes, I’m not buying into it as a general rule. My godchildren, for example, live in an upper middle-class neighborhood of Bethesda, Maryland. Their parents “do OK,” as the saying goes, but they’re not one-percenters, and neither are most American Jews. When we throw a B’nei Mitzvah party, we do it in much the same way that gentile families throw a wedding. Sure it costs a bucket of money, but the idea is not to sell our souls in the process. Quite the contrary – B’nei Mitzvah ceremonies, like weddings, are only successful when they reflect the best of our values.

When I think about the opportunity that my godchildren are about to have, I can’t help but smile. Just at the time of life that is most central to their development as adults, they will engage in one wholesome activity after another. In addition to their regular school and their weekend Jewish school, they will now attend a separate class to learn the Hebrew language. They will be expected at their Bar or Bat Mitzvah not only to read Hebrew prayers but, if possible, to chant sections of Hebrew Scripture with a particular trope. And they will have to chant this foreign tongue in front of many scores of their classmates, friends, family, and clergy. It can be a scary prospect, particularly if you are not gifted at memorizing trope or singing in front of large groups. And how many of us are?

What’s more, these middle-schoolers will be expected to deliver one or more mini-sermons, as if they were a rabbi. These kids will take the weekly Torah portion (in the Jewish calendar, each week is devoted to a different portion of the Torah), focus on certain verses or themes from that portion, and then apply those verses or themes to the thing in life that mean the most to them. Typical B’nei Mitzvah talks focus on economic justice, world peace, environmental protection … the same kinds of themes that are regularly trashed or at best ignored by the politicians in South Carolina. In fact, not only are these kids expected to write and deliver orations concerning these issues, but they usually take on a “B’nei Mitzvah Project” in which they attempt to repair the world through action, and not merely words or prayers. Many of the kids ask for cash, as opposed to other presents, and then give away much or all of this cash to a charity that they’ve selected in connection with their B’nei Mitzvah Project.

In short, far from selling their souls, kids who experience this process the way it’s intended to be experienced are actually developing their characters in wonderful respects. They grow in many ways, including courage, wisdom, dependability, spirituality and generosity. Plus, they are developing these qualities in the context of what is ostensibly an “extra-curricular activity,” which means that they are learning the importance of going above and beyond the call of duty. Indeed, when it comes to what a Bar or Bat Mitzvah can accomplish during the course of this process, the sky is the limit.

As for my own kids, their Bat Mitzvahs were among their most transformative and fulfilling experiences. My younger daughter, Rebecca, went through that whole process with the dream of being a rabbi. Now that she is at college, she is regularly attending Jewish services and planning to devote her life to one of the so-called “helping professions.” As for my older daughter, Hannah, who is graduating college this June, she will begin a five-year program in September in the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. I can’t tell you how proud that makes me.

So, my fellow political junkies, tonight after the polls close in South Carolina, you will probably be compelled to turn on the television and tune in Newt, Mitt, Rick, Ron and all the talking heads whose lives consist of “idolizing” the political process (that’s the term MSNBC’s Chuck Todd used to refer to his own attitude, when he claimed to be “offended” that Steven Colbert dared to make fun of our political process and the Republican party). Don’t apologize for tuning in tonight, for politics is important and political campaigns are great theatre. But please know that there are far more profound things in life than politics. In other words, we must not let our cynicism about political institutions form our attitudes about institutions in other domains of life. Sometimes, we can come across traditions that are truly inspiring. Even then, a brilliant satirist like Colbert can mock them. And unlike Chuck Todd, we should be able to put up with it, assured as we are that these traditions are beautiful.

2012-01-14T09:56:00.000-08:00

LEARNING FROM THE BAIN EXPERIENCE

“There are two questions concerning Mitt Romney’s service at the private equity firm Bain Capital. The narrower question is: Did Bain help ailing companies and add value to the economy or did it plunder dying firms? The larger question is: Does Romney’s success in business tell us anything about whether he would be a successful president?”

David Brooks, from his 1/13/12 New York Times column, “The C.E.O. in Politics”

Brooks has indeed put his finger around two issues that many of us have been asking lately. In my opinion, however, he has placed the importance of these issues in reverse order.

Let’s examine the trivial issue first: Does Romney’s success in business tell us anything about whether he would be a successful president? Do you know why this issue is trivial? Because barring some sort of September or October surprise – such as a war with Iran into which Obama is reluctantly dragged – Romney is going down hard, whether we like his business record or not. And why is he going down? Because he fails in the critical test of what it now takes to be elected President of the United States.

I’ve pointed this test out before, and I’ll do it again: when it comes down to the general election, the man or woman we elect as President is almost invariably the candidate whom we’d rather see as the color commentator for a National Football Conference Championship game. Why the NFC Championship game? Because it is typically held on a cold and/or windy day and it is marked by hard hits, guts, strategy and heart. The analyst for this game has to be informed, honest (i.e., willing not only to point out the future hall of famers but also the posers and chokers), and able to relate to the common person in TV land. These games have a lot on the line – a Super Bowl appearance, to be precise – and those of us in the audience don’t have the patience to listen to blowhards, bull-shitters or wimps spew clichés. Not when it’s 20 degrees on the field and some of our favorite players are limping off with injuries, and even those who aren’t limping are hiding the fact that their bodies have taken so many shots over the past few months that the next morning, they’ll have trouble getting out of bed, win or lose.

Say what you want about Tricky Dick, but he knew his football and he knew how to “make it real” when he spoke. Most of us would have rather had him than McGovern do the commentary when the Redskins hosted the Cowboys in the ’72 season.

Now the situation in ’76 was an anomaly. Gerald Ford was once a heck of a football player and yet he lost the election. Still, Ford was the epitome of a dullard when it comes to speaking – so when the Vikings hosted the Rams in the ’76 season, we’d probably turn down the sound rather than listen to the ever-sanctimonious Carter or the bumbling Ford announce the game.

The situation returned to form in the 80s. We’d definitely prefer listening to Reagan (a former sportscaster!) to Carter when the Eagles hosted the Cowboys in ’80, or to Mondale when the 49ers hosted the Bears in ’84. In ’88, when the Bears hosted the 49ers, we sure would have preferred listening to George H.W. Bush, a huge fan of both football and golf, to Michael Dukakis, who was such a geek that he couldn’t even summon some genuine passion when he was asked how he would feel if his wife was brutally assaulted.

In ’92 and ’96, all but the most partisan Republicans would have loved to listen to William Jefferson Clinton display his seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of sports – and maybe throw in a few comments about the cute cheerleaders – when the Cowboys were hosted by the 49ers or the Packers hosted the Panthers. Then, in ’00 and ’04, W would have been our choice to talk about the Giants hosting the Vikings or the Eagles hosting the Falcons. W might not have been as informed as Gore or Kerry when it comes to domestic or foreign policy, but he did once own the Texas Rangers baseball team, and it’s difficult to imagine anything he enjoyed more than sports.

Finally, in ’08, when the Cardinals hosted the Eagles, we would have much rather watched Barack Obama do the game than John McCain. Obama is extremely articulate, likeable, and enamored with sports, whereas McCain comes across as a crusty jerk. We don’t need our announcers to be crusty jerks. The game itself is hard-hitting enough.

I went through all those elections so that you can truly see for yourselves how infallible this test is. Perhaps it didn’t work in 1976. Then again, Ford was essentially given the nomination on a silver platter, and all Carter had to do was show up and say “I wasn’t hand-picked by an impeached President.” (Besides, would you really want to listen to Gerald Ford announce a football game?) In other words, that election was unique, and not representative of much of anything. In all the other cases, the guy who wins the “regular guy” and “sports fan” award went on to win the election. Always.

This year, the Republicans are giving us the second coming of John Kerry. Mittens comes across as smug and out of touch, which is not what anyone is looking for in a color commentator. Obama should win. Hands down.

Now that we’ve dispensed with Brooks’ political question, let’s look at his second question, the one he refers to as narrow: “Did Bain help ailing companies and add value to the economy or did it plunder dying firms?” I suppose that if you frame the question precisely like that, it is of limited interest. So allow me to rephrase it a bit: What can we as a society learn from Bain Capital to better inform us about the industry of venture capitalism?

Once that question is asked, others immediately come to mind. Many of these are being asked by critics on the left (and a few opportunists on the right): Do we believe that venture capitalists often behave like vulture capitalists? Do we want to see additional regulations introduced in this industry? Do we believe that venture capitalists have moral obligations to take care of the communities and employees served by the business that they acquire such that even when they are engaging in legal profit taking, they may still be behaving immorally? Hasn’t the media demonstrated a tragic bias by closely scrutinizing even the slightest misstep by federal government officials, while allowing venture capitalists to plunder corporations with hardly any public attention?

Other legitimate questions can be asked by observers on the right: Does our society owe much of its long-term economic success over the decades to the unheralded role played by venture capitalists? Isn’t the overall track record of venture capitalists one of massive job creation, not job loss? Has our society been poorly served by the constant vilification of venture capitalists by Hollywood, which inevitably dwells on the failures of the industry rather than the successes? Is the current attack on venture capitalists simply a thinly veiled attack on capitalism generally?

Normally, when I post a blog, I don’t raise questions without at least trying to answer them. This time is different, though. I need to raise these questions both because they fascinate me, and because they ought to fascinate anyone who is concerned about our economy. But I raise them as open questions because up until now, our society has made such a minimal effort to shed light in this area that those of us outside of the business world have little ability to answer them. Regardless of the industry, when it comes to the conduct of our big corporations, our media has seemed disinterested. It is only when something disastrous happens that anyone even begins to pay attention, and only then for a short time. The big companies pay for the advertisements that fuel the media, and that fact appears to give these companies Teflon. Sure, you’ll see a few companies vilified on shows like 60 Minutes, but an occasional exposé is hardly going to give rise to a national debate, like the debates we have whenever a politician or a political party acts in a questionable manner. In a democracy, it is essential that our society engages in such national debates in order to give “the people” a voice, and there is no reason why we shouldn’t have a voice in the world of business just like we have one in the world of politics.

There are those in Hollywood who may think that they have been encouraging such a debate by portraying the leaders of big corporations as soulless pigs. That is almost invariably the way Hollywood treats the folks who run companies like Bain Capital. Even when a movie or TV show is not centered around a “greed is good” theme, you can bet that the men and women in the boardroom, whenever they are shown, will be depicted as amoral at best. As a result, those of our “best and brightest” children who are influenced primarily by Hollywood may avoid the world of business like the plague, and concentrate instead on more movie-friendly occupations like law, medicine, law enforcement or vigilante justice.

Something tells me that whereas Hollywood hasn’t been giving these venture capitalists enough credit, the media has been giving them too much of a free ride. Now, hopefully, thanks to the candidacy of Mitt Romney – and the counter-attacks of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry – we might get a more serious and balanced vision of the venture capital industry. At least that is my hope. I want to learn more about this industry myself. I’ve watched the 28-minute attack ad against Bain Capital by googling “When Mitt Romney Comes to Town” – and while it seemed overly negative, it did whet my appetite for more.

Throughout my adult life, I personally have (a) trumpeted capitalism philosophically as a preferable mode of production to the available alternatives, and (b) preferred to work as a public servant rather than a businessman for moral reasons. And yes, I’ve often wondered if that combination of choices reflects a fundamental inconsistency and unwillingness to come to terms with uncomfortable beliefs. Have I overrated capitalism in the abstract by refusing to recognize that its intolerable excesses are a necessary part of the model? Have I sold short the contribution to our society made by the typical successful venture capitalist or banker? Or is it possible that I have concluded that bankers and venture capitalists may harden their hearts and corrode their souls as individuals, but end up playing a tremendous progressive role in society?

I won’t attempt to answer those questions today. But I hope to be able to answer them better in the upcoming weeks and months. Here’s wishing that the media will NOT drop the ball when it comes to examining Bain Capital. Oh sure, you know they’ll attack these issues to the extent they see them as relevant to the “horse race” of Presidential politics. But I want them to evaluate Bain’s conduct as an exemplar of the large modern venture capital firm. And I want them to use Bain as a window on which we as a society can better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the capitalist system as a whole.

I still have a bias in favor of capitalism, having seen all too well the problems with government as a producer of services. But that is not to say that our approach to capitalism can’t be improved. If the lessons from Bain Capital can enlighten the public enough to demand such improvements, we will all be thrilled that the Republican electorate ignored that Mitt Romney comes across neither as knowledgeable about football, particularly honest, or able to relate to the common person. In other words, though the Republicans are poised to set themselves up for failure in November, at least, as we sports fans would say, they seem to be “taking one for the team.”

2012-01-07T06:26:00.001-08:00

SICK BODIES AND SICK MINDS

I sincerely hope that each of you had a great holiday season. Lots of presents. Lots of rest. Lots of family. Lots of football. Lots of hope that you will honor your New Year’s resolutions, and that the new year will be one we can all look back on with a smile.

Me? I’m just glad the holiday season is over.

When I reflect on the past few weeks, mostly what comes to mind is getting sick. First it was an ear infection. Then it was a sore throat. Then it was bronchitis – and the return of the ear infection. Then it was back spasms. And most of this was going on when I was away from home. As fun as it is to be on the road when you’re healthy, that’s how miserable it is to be on the road when you’re sick. In my case, the more I coughed and sneezed, the more I threw out my back. As the great philosopher Rosanne Rosannadanna used to say, “If it’s not one thing, it’s another thing.” Or in my case, it seemed to be EVERY thing piling up at the same time. Some vacation.

Fortunately, there were some bright spots – and I’m not just referring to the old adage that “A bad day wincing, coughing and sneezing is better than a good day working at the office.” My trip, you see, was to a place that Sarah Palin might refer to as “real America.” Central Indiana, to be specific. I was visiting my in-laws, most of whom I have always thought of as Republicans. But this time, when the subject of politics came up, I was pleased that they are as fed up with the Republican Party as I am. One of my most conservative in-laws even said that the only thing more disgusting than the Democratic Party is the Republican Party. My thoughts exactly.

Just look at what’s been happening during the past week. John Huntsman, the sanest of this year’s crop of GOP candidates, is the only one who seems destined never to experience any surge whatsoever. By contrast, the two newest names to get their 15 minutes of fame include Ron Paul (who could probably care less if all the residents of the Eastern and Southern Hemispheres blew themselves to smithereens as long as they didn’t take the U.S. with them) and Rick Santorum. That’s right: Rick Santorum. I get that he’s the punch line. And I understand that the joke is on us. What I don’t quite get is the joke.

Santorum-mania is all the rage among Christian fundamentalists. They realize that they blew it four years ago when they failed to rally quickly enough behind their ideologue of choice, Mike Huckabee. So in an effort not to make the same mistake twice, some prominent fundamentalists are now requesting that the other remaining suitors for their vote – Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry – back out of the race and throw their support for Santorum. If that happens, then the fundamentalists and other representatives of the hard right may indeed be able to mount at least a semi-serious threat to the man affectionately known as “Mittens.” Otherwise, we’ll soon be done with this primary season and ready to begin the competition between Obama and Romney for the title of “Chameleon in Chief.” I think we all know how that will turn out: Obama will win, the country will stagnate for another four years, and Mittens will remain every bit as smug as when he and his briefcase used to be dropped off at school in a limousine.

But I digress. This blog post isn’t about Mittens, nor Obama. It’s about the Man of the Moment – Rick Santorum. I still can’t get over the fact that the guy is poised to collect millions of votes. Sure, he’ll eventually lose. This is, after all, the 21st century, and we have made considerable progress on social issues since the time Santorum’s views were formed. Still, the fact is that he is likely to finish “in the money” in delegates for the Republican Nomination. Not since George Wallace captured five states in the 1968 Presidential race has an unabashed bigot waged such a formidable campaign for President. Doesn’t it just warm the cockles of your heart?

Santorum, for his part, doesn’t see himself as a bigot. He’s the first one to tell you that he blames the sin, not the sinner. In other words, he has no problems with homosexuals. It’s just “sodomy” that bothers him. And, after all, shouldn’t all of God-fearing, heterosexual Americans be concerned with it? As the Great Santorum pointed out, “[I have] a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery,, you have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."

Poor Rick. He was on such a roll at the beginning of that statement. He was only pointing out what every small-minded bigot thinks about when the word “homosexuality” comes to mind. Why did he then have to bring man-on-dog sex into the equation? And for that matter, what is man-on-dog sex? Does it actually happen? Is it like man-on-knothole sex? Personally, I’ve never heard of a man trying to have intercourse with a tree before, but then again, I’ve never heard of a man trying to hump a dog either.

I don’t mean to make light of the situation. Homophobia is every bit as serious to me as racism. Every bit. It’s not homophobia that I take lightly, it’s Rick Santorum. I could have marshaled a number of other myopic Santorum quotations about such topics as contraception, welfare, the Middle East … you name it. But I just can’t get past his homophobia. It’s so out-in-the-open that I almost want him to win the nomination so that we can have a national debate about homophobia. Then, unfortunately, I realize that he would be having the debate with a President who is too sheepish and phony to announce his support for gay marriage … at least not until he no longer faces re-election.

Gay people have little to fear from Rick Santorum or his supporters. It’s just a matter of time before homosexual activities are accepted in our society, much like interracial love is now accepted. Santorum knows the trends. He knows that the halcyon days, where gays were closeted and every family was led by a man (and supported by a woman), are coming to an end. He’s legitimately concerned about this trend.

Come to think of it, I’ll say this for the troglodyte: at least we know that there is something he truly cares about enough to lead him to take a courageous stand. I’m not sure I’d say the same for the other politicians we’ll be hearing from this summer and fall.

2011-12-24T08:19:00.001-08:00

IT’S TIME FOR THE EMPATHIC RATIONALIST AWARDS (the "EMPYS")

“All they do is give out awards in Los Angeles. Greatest Fascist Dictator, Adolf Hitler.”

Woody Allen, from Annie Hall

Hollywood loves to give out awards. The Empathic Rationalist? Not so much. That’s why I only give them out once a year, and even then, I don’t give them much thought.

With that in mind, feel free to read on and reflect a bit about the best – and worst – of 2011. This will be the last post of the year. So let me wish you a Happy Holiday – or if you are a Republican, a “Merry Christmas” – and a Happy New Year.

Person of the Year

Who shot J.R.? Nobody -- it was only a dream.

Who shot Osama? Somebody – but we won’t find out who any time soon.
That man (or is it a woman?) is my person of the year. Anonymous. Uncelebrated. Not particularly well paid. But heroic as hell.

Give Obama credit for authorizing the mission to go well into Pakistan and risk pissing off the Pakistani Government in order to get the madman who murders thousands of innocents for sport. But give our “Person of the Year” even more credit for risking his (or her) life to get that same madman, and actually getting it done. Someday, we’ll find out this person’s name and gender. For now, we’ll just have to say “Thanks, hero!” and leave it at that.

Laughing Stock of the Year

The Empathic Rationalist tends not to give out this award because it would not be very “empathic” to turn someone into a complete object of ridicule. But this year, let us make an exception.

The laughing stock is each and every one of us political junkies who religiously watch the Republican Debates. Why do we do it? For the comedy? Because we’ve discovered a form a self abuse that doesn’t make us go blind or sprain our wrists? You’d think after two or three of these debates, we’d find something else to do with our time. But no – the prospect of hearing grown men (and a Stepford Wife) pander to the most extreme and ignorant elements of our society is apparently irresistible to us. And so we turn on the next debate. And the next. And the next. … And this will probably continue until it’s May, and Mitt Romney is alone on the stage with Rick Perry who forgot that he was only getting 1% of the vote.

So, my fellow political junkies, congratulations – you are all deserving of this award. Maybe if we’re lucky, someone will come up with political methadone this summer, so we won’t have to watch all the Romney-Obama debates. There, the pandering to Neanderthals will be replaced with vapid BS that has nothing to do with how either one intends to govern. As it stands now, however, I expect to watch all of those events as well.

Entertainer of the Year

Jon Stewart. He hosts the only show I can watch without getting bored – other than the news and sports. OK, OK – perhaps his show could be called news. But I prefer to think of it as “comedy,” not news. It just so happens that it is more informative about the news than virtually anything on MSNBC or Fox News (which are essentially mirror images of each other).

I considered giving this award to “Adele” because she’s so freaking talented. Then again, to be totally candid, her sound isn’t really my cup of tea. And besides, I didn’t even know who she was a week ago. So if you really want an informed view of who the Entertainer of the Year is, you should probably consult a forum written by someone who actually enjoys what comes out of Hollywood or Nashville these days. Sadly, when it comes to the entertainment industry, the Empathic Rationalist is still stuck in the 60s and 70s (note, for example, the quote at the top of this blog post).

Athlete of the Year

This is really painful. REALLY painful. But if Empathic Rationalism stands for anything, it’s the unwillingness to lie to oneself. This is why I never became a defense attorney – I was never willing to convince myself that it just so happens that my clients almost never break the law.

So here goes: the athlete of the year is Aaron Rodgers. He once quarterbacked U.C. Berkeley, the arch rival of my beloved Stanford Cardinal. And now, he quarterbacks the Green Bay Packers, the arch rival of my beloved Minnesota Vikings. Rodgers started the year winning one playoff game after another until he finally captured the Super Bowl. Then, after a tumultuous off-season that almost resulted in a football strike, he continued to win games – 13, to be exact, until finally losing last Sunday. It’s pretty darn good in any sport to lose your first game of the year in mid-December.

Rodgers already has an unparalleled touchdown/interception ratio for his career. And he still figures to have several more years left in his prime. The best QB ever? Maybe not. But more and more people are making that claim, and nobody is laughing when they do. Certainly I’m not. I’m crying.

Tragedy of the Year

Earthquake. Tsunami. Nuclear meltdown. That is not a Trifecta anyone ever wants to hear about. And yet it happened this year in Japan, thanks to a quake that measured 8.9 on the Richter scale.

Most of us cannot even imagine how awful such a quake could be. We had one in Washington, DC this year that measured less than a 6.0, and it shook our buildings for several seconds. 8.9? That is truly a nightmare.

Let us be thankful for all the noble souls in Japan who worked long and hard to make sure that the damage to the nuclear reactors was kept to a minimum. At times like that, you can see human beings at our very best … and nature, at her very worst. These events are also a reminder that much of what is written in our Scriptures is not to be taken literally. God, I dare say, doesn’t bury people alive on purpose.

2011-12-17T08:50:00.001-08:00

THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND THOSE WHO WOULD ERASE THEM

In discussing the horse race known as the contest for the Republican nomination, I have dealt only superficially with the candidates’ positions. What do you say we delve a bit into a recent debate about an extremely important issue. The discussion was sparked by – who else? – Newt Gingrich. Say what you want about that windbag, but at least he is willing to throw out ideas before they have been poll tested. I like that about him. I just don’t happen to like his ideas.

So let’s go back to a bit more than a week ago when Newt first decided to let her rip on the topic of the Middle East. In an interview aired by the Jewish Channel, Newt once again showed off his vast command of all things historical. Referring to the situation in the Middle East in the early part of the previous century, Newt said: “I believe that the commitments that were made at the time – remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”
Then, last Saturday night at the nationally televised debate, Newt decided to have a little more fun at the expense of the Palestinians. “The fact is, the Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story,” he said. " 'Palestinian’ did not become a common term until after 1977. This is a propaganda war in which our side refuses to engage and we refuse to tell the truth when the other side lies.”

Newt received a ton of applause for his comments. And to do so he touched on some of the ultimate Republican talking points. To begin, he played the ever-popular terrorism card: “These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools.” But even more importantly, he placed himself in the mold of the Republican’s greatest political hero, the Gipper: “I think sometimes it is helpful to have a president of the United States with the courage to tell the truth. Just as it was when [Ronald] Reagan went around his entire national security apparatus to call the Soviet Union an evil empire.”

You’ve got to give the guy an A+ for rhetoric. Unfortunately, Newt is also claiming to be a historian and a public policy maven. In those regards, he failed miserably.
Before I explain precisely what is noxious about what Newt said, let’s look at the reaction by his fellow candidates. Frankly, they came across as equally tone deaf to Palestinian history.

First, we have Romney: “I happen to agree with most of what the speaker said, except by going out and saying the Palestinians are an invented people. That, I think, was a mistake on the speaker’s part. … Ultimately, the Palestinians and the Israelis are going to have to agree on how they’re going to settle their differences between them. And the United States of America should not jump ahead of Bibi Netanyahu and say something that makes it more difficult for him to do his job.”
Santorum’s comments were similar: “I think you have to speak the truth, but you have to do so with prudence. …This isn’t an academic exercise. We have an ally, and the policy of this country should be to stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally.”
And here are the comments from Perry: “Let me just say that I think this is a minor issue that the media is blowing way out of proportion. ...This president is the problem, not something that Newt Gingrich said.”

Clearly, none of these mainstream Republican politicians were willing to praise Newt for proclaiming that the Palestinians were an “invented people.” Then again, none were willing to take up the Palestinian cause as to why they have a right to call themselves a “people” and demand their own state. Perry seems to suggest that this is all just a tempest in a teapot. Romney went so far as to suggest that Newt spoke the truth about the Palestinian’s lack of history as a people, but just shouldn’t have done so publicly. And both Romney and Santorum suggested that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian divide, American statesmen are obliged to stand behind our one ally (Israel), and Newt’s mistake was that he made statements of which Israel itself may not approve.

It all sounds like a debate you could expect to hear at an AIPAC meeting, doesn’t it?

Let me begin my response to Newt by pointing out that what Israel needs most from America is not just another “ally” but a powerful broker for a just and secure peace. Obama tried to serve in this capacity, and I applaud him for that attempt. The only problem is that he didn’t have a friggen clue what he was doing. (As I’ve pointed out on different occasions, his crucial mistake was to skew his concrete, controversial demands so heavily against Israel that it allowed the Palestinians to stand firm on virtually all of their positions and put Israel on the defensive about their own. Brilliant!)

As an honest broker, we need to envision what a just and secure peace would look like. And we need to be willing to speak out in favor of whatever is conducive to creating those conditions and against anything that prevents such conditions from flourishing. There is plenty to criticize on both sides of this debate, but there are also principles we must affirm. And none is more important than that both the Jews and the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the same land, and both can legitimately call themselves a people. Our choice is either in dividing up the land so that they each can have their own “peace of oith,” or supporting the right of one people to dominate the other. There are plenty of extremists on each side who favor a de facto one-state solution. Let us pray, in the name of justice, that they are not successful.

Before we can take exception to the views of the extremists, we must first understand their perspectives. What’s interesting is that both the anti-Israel and the anti-Palestine positions commonly depend on a similar idea: erasing the peoplehood of those who claim the right to a state that would conflict with one’s own desire to dominate the region.

On the Palestinian side, you will find plenty who effectively deny that the Jews are a “people,” at least in any relevant sense. On the surface, this would seem preposterous, given that the Jews have been around for thousands of years. But this erasure of the Jewish people is actually quite simple – just replace the emphasis on the Jewish culture/civilization/peoplehood with that of the Jewish RELIGION. This perspective is not only voiced by one-staters in the West Bank and Gaza but is also shared by many members of the American left. They equate the idea of a “Jewish State” with that of a theocracy based on Orthodox Jewish legal principles and doctrines, which would grossly discriminate against all secular-Jews and gentiles, regardless of whether they are technically viewed as citizens. According to this perspective, any religious state – whether Jewish, Islamic or otherwise – will ultimately turn out to be an opportunity for a group of clerics to impose its will on a society based on the pre-modern teachings of religious law. And indeed, they argue, Israeli society is becoming more and more segregated and the Israeli government is increasingly willing to tolerate Orthodox practices (e.g., there are now Israeli buses in which all women are expected to sit in the back). This is why, the argument concludes, if we allowed a Jewish State to take firm root in the Middle East, the result would be nothing like the Jeffersonian democracy envisioned by Israel’s original founders, most of whom were secular and hardly Orthodox. It would instead take on some of the worst characteristics of the most antiquated and oppressive Islamic regimes.

On the Israeli side, you will find many who subscribe to the perspective of Newt Gingrich. They view the gentiles with whom they currently share the Holy Land as members of a people who historically thought of themselves simply as Arabs, rather than as Palestinians. According to this perspective, it is only right and just that these Arabs be taken in by their own people, whether it is by Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, or wherever, and allow the Jewish people to occupy their own ancestral homeland in peace. The adherents to this position will correctly point out that prior to the 20th century, the area known today as Israel/Palestine was, as Newt suggested, part of the Ottoman empire and it was not until the Jews began settling more and more of the land towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century that the Arab inhabitants of the land began seeing themselves not merely as Arabs but also as “Palestinians.” Thus, the argument concludes, the Palestinians aren’t so much a historically-rooted “people” as a social group that has coalesced relatively recently in opposition to the Jewish people, which has a prior, and therefore superior, claim to the disputed land.

The central problem with both of these perspectives is that the historical facts from which they draw are extremely selective. Let’s start with the anti-Zionistic perspective.

Those who oppose Zionism can legitimately point to certain respects in which the Orthodox Jews have gained disproportionate power and enacted discriminatory laws. But there is nothing inherent in the idea of a “Jewish State” that suggests that it will favor one group of Jews over another. Like any other democracy, Israel will see different groups battle it out for social hegemony and some will be more successful than others at different times. Here in the United States, we have seen all sorts of discriminatory legislation in the past, and we may well see more in the future. But that doesn’t mean we have lost our faith in democracy, or in the principle that even if the majority should rule, the minorities should have rights. I am confident that Israel will remain a democracy and will continue to protect minority rights. But the key is that it is up to Israel – with its Jewish majority -- to make those decisions. And the decisions will be made by all Israelis voting at the ballot box, regardless of whether they view themselves as Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or secular Jews … or as Israeli-Palestinians.

As for Newt’s perspective, it completely ignores the importance of what happened in the last century. The dispute between Jews and Arabs in Palestine didn’t begin in 1948. It had been growing for decades before that, as Jews were clearly demonstrating their desire to re-settle en masse in the area. Yes, the area had been controlled by the Ottoman Turks prior to World War I, but it was the ancestors of those who today call themselves “Palestinians” who lived and worked on the land. They were, in short, rooted in such cities and town as Beersheba, Haifa, Jerusalem and Hebron. And that sense of rootedness only grew when they were told by non-Arab peoples that they would have to be displaced by the Jews.

Imagine yourselves as an Arab booted out of your own home, together with several hundred thousand other Arabs. Imagine the depth to which you would have felt ties to that home, not to mention your neighborhood, your city, and indeed, the entire area known to you then as “Palestine” -- which was being cleansed to make room for a totally different people. The Jews have strong and multifarious claims to that same land, to be sure. But the rationale that was most often voiced was surely that the United Nations was giving them this land – your land, your people’s land – because of the unspeakable way the Jews were treated by the Germans in Europe. And imagine just how unjust that would sound: that just because one group of Europeans mistreated another, the victimized people would be given YOUR land.
If that didn’t give rise to a sense of peoplehood on the part of the Palestinians, I don’t know what would.

Of all of Newt’s comments, the one that truly made my jaw drop is when he said that the word “‘Palestinian’ did not become a common term until after 1977.” Really? I was 17 in 1977, and I remember that term being commonly used for years. You can say what you want about the Palestinian claim to peoplehood prior to the 1940s, but once the better part of a million of them had to flee from their homes in the so-called “Nakba” (translated as “disaster” or “catastrophe”) of 1948, you can better believe that they referred to and saw themselves as Palestinians … and so did everyone else who had at least an ounce of compassion for their plight.

Folks, I am a staunch Zionist. I am committed to the continuation of the Jewish State. And I refuse to join the blame-Israel-first organizations that have the chutzpah to call themselves Zionist but are afraid to call out the Palestinians for their anti-Zionist practices. But that doesn’t make me anti-Palestinian. The only path to peace is for us to be both pro-Zionist AND pro-Palestinian.

As for Newt, I don’t know what kind of history lessons he gave to the folks at Freddie Mac, but I’m assuming they had nothing to do with the Middle East. The next time he wants to delve into Middle East history, my suggestion is to do so as a student, and not as a teacher.

2011-12-10T08:09:00.000-08:00

THAT OTHER GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT

In the past few weeks, I’ve posted on different occasions about the Occupy movement and how my fellow liberals need to support it, in spite of its obvious and inevitable growing pains. Today, though, allow me to talk about the OTHER grass roots movement -- the one on the right. This movement is broader than the “tea party,” though the tea party did catalyze it. The movement encompasses every Republican who is nearly as sick of their Party’s establishment as of the so-called “liberal elites.” The members of this movement see the leaders of the GOP as complicit in an ever-expanding federal role over their lives. And it is because of that federal role that they are “mad as hell and not going to take it any more.” I suspect that even if the GOP wins back the White House, as long as our federal government stays huge, this movement will stick around. And as long as there is a Democrat in the White House, the representatives of this movement will remain the dominant group of Republican primary voters.

I am writing about this movement because, unless you understand it, it is impossible to fathom what has happened with the Republican Presidential campaign to date. I know that some of you are completely incredulous about this campaign. You’ve been wondering why the Republicans are so loathe to embrace the one and only candidate who is intellectually, experientially and temperamentally qualified to be President – not to mention electable. By contrast, the candidates they have romanced seem better suited for a David Lynch movie than for Pennsylvania Avenue. And in this latest romance – the one involving Newt “Sorry, Honey, but I’ve found a blonde I like better” Gingrich – you’ve convinced yourself that there’s a whole Party of people who are borderline certifiable. Am I exaggerating? Perhaps a little. But from listening to the talking heads on MSNBC, who probably speak pretty well for Blue America, I’m probably not exaggerating by much. Democrats all over the country are truly puzzled by what the Republican voters are thinking. And the questions are always the same: Why not Mitt? And why, of all people, the Newtster? Let me explain what’s going on.

Democrats generally make the mistake of thinking that the right wing voters who now dominate the GOP are focusing primarily on which Presidential candidate they love the most. Wrong. They focus on the one Presidential candidate they hate the most. His name is Barack Obama.

In 2000, the GOP electorate wasn’t focusing on their love for George W. Bush. They were concentrating on their hatred for “Algore the robot.” Nor was the GOP electorate focusing on their affection for President W in 2004. They were consumed instead with John Kerry, a man viewed not as an innocuous professional politician and former war hero but rather as a wind-surfing, flip-flopping, hypocritical limousine-liberal. In 2008, they tried to focus on their hatred on Barack Obama, but the problem is that their distaste for the erstwhile liberal, John McCain, was pretty robust as well. Now, though, John McCain has mercilessly left the public stage, and they are left with Barack Hussein Obama. To the grass roots of the GOP, Obama is truly an enemy, and any politician who can rip him a new one is their kind of guy (or gal).

I know it might sound partisan of me to categorize the modern GOP voter as so hate-based, but keep in mind that I am not saying they are hateful of all ideas and principles. They love capitalism. They love the market. They love economic freedom. They love America. And they love a strong, American military. What they hate is big government and the politicians responsible for propping it up. This is why it is difficult for them to embrace a would-be President who hasn’t proven his mettle as someone willing to take an ax to the bureaucracy.

GOP voters have seen enough Republicans act like the Bushes, who claimed to be “small government conservatives” but are afraid to do what’s necessary to tear apart Club Fed. If you are such a voter, it is difficult to get excited when some slick guy in a business suit boasts about his conservative bona fides. GOP voters know all too well that in office, this politician will be tempted to forsake his campaign promises and concentrate instead on getting along with the Harry Reeds, the Nancy Pelosis and the K-Street lobbyists. As a result, no matter how much he may theoretically hate government, once elected, he’ll keep the tax code complex, the welfare state bloated, and the tort lawyers wealthy. That’s the only way he can assure himself that he’ll continue to be the darling of the beautiful people and the “best and the brightest” who love to suck up to Presidents.

From talking to some hard-right GOP friends, I’m convinced that there is nothing more nauseating to them than images from galas in which the Obamas are having the time of their life while being surrounded by adoring celebrities. Whether these celebrities come from the world of politics or from Hollywood hardly matters. To the rank-and-file GOP voter, they represent the cheerleaders of big government, and their adoration is seen as the reward that is offered to any politician who keeps feeding the meter. GOP voters are desperate to find someone who will take on such politicians – to speak “truth” to power, as we liberals like to say. GOP voters want to go on the attack. And they seek a pit bull of a candidate who will launch himself onto the Obamas’ legs and bite to the point where the President is forced to say uncle.

Let’s take a whirlwind tour of the Republican campaign to date. Perhaps the first figure to be embraced was Donald Trump. To the malcontents who comprise so much of the Party, it made sense to look at Trump as a political outsider who is secure enough in his millions (or is it billions?) to rip into Washington and unmask it as a silly, self-important hamlet -- which is precisely how it is viewed on the right.

It soon became clear that Trump was more of a clown than a candidate, so the GOP voters next took a long look at Michelle Bachmann. She seemed to be the closest thing available to the last candidate that the GOP truly embraced, Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, the photogenic Palin was brought down when she opened her mouth on the issues, and Bachmann was brought down when she opened her eyes on a magazine cover – and looked like she belonged in a horror movie. So it was time to search for another candidate.

For a time, Rick Perry fit the bill quite nicely. And why not? If Bachmann looked like a Stepford wife, Perry looked like a star of Westerns. Nice hair, nice pecs … what’s not to like, right? The problem is that he turned out to be a barrel-chested version of the Scarecrow. And sadly for Perry, the Republican debates weren’t musicals. (He could dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry, if he only had a brain. Sigh.)

Do I have to remind everyone who came next? The Herminator. That was the comedic apex of this campaign. The GOP loved him because he had the private-sector experience they seem to respect so much and because he inoculated them to charges of racial bigotry. Yet gradually he started losing his luster. First, it became clear that when it comes to foreign affairs knowledge, he made Sarah Palin look like Averell Harriman by comparison. Then, he felt compelled to answer every domestic affairs question in the same manner: first by saying “9-9-9” and then by saying “I didn’t proposition her, honest I didn’t.” It became an embarrassment.

So then there were four: (1)Ron Paul – who wants the government to be so small that even the GOP voters thinks he’s nuts. (2) Rick Santorum – whose name, if you google it, is defined as “a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” (That was the result of an orchestrated, and apparently effective, campaign to destroy him after he bashed gay people one time too many.) (3) Mitt Romney. And (4) Newt Gingrich. The pundits are going CRAZY that the GOP voters are starting to turn to Newt instead of Mitt.

But I ask you, folks: if you really, really hated Obama and thought he was a narcissistic phony more motivated by adulation than principle … if you resented him for being viewed as brilliant simply because he is glib and went to some fancy schools … if you longed for the day when we had a leader who actually showed a little gumption and passion instead of pretending that he was too cool for school … then why in God’s name would you fight for Mitt Romney? Isn’t Mitt Romney just Obama-lite?

Just consider Romney’s two most hyped ads so far in this campaign. In his first, he mocks Obama by quoting him as saying “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” In fact, though, what Obama really said was “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” Is this Romney’s best shot? Really?

Now, Romney is taking out an ad talking about how he has been with the same wife for 42 years. Yet to the Republican voter, I can just imagine the reaction: “Obama’s been with the same wife all his adult life too. So what? We care less about flip-flopping on wives than we care about flip-flopping on the issues.”

Barack Obama is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Mitt Romney is a graduate of Harvard Law School. Barack Obama smiles a lot and rarely raises his voice and Mitt Romney smiles a lot and rarely raises his voice. Also, according to conventional GOP wisdom, Barack Obama is unwilling to stand and fight for any particular principle and Mitt Romney is unwilling to stand and fight for any particular principle; both are candidates who choose their views opportunistically. But even the GOP electorate would have to recognize that unlike Mitt Romney, Barack Obama at least has a winning personality. So if the two went head to head, wouldn’t it be a sleep fest in which Obama would have the advantage? That logic sure makes sense to me.

And then there was one.

Conventional wisdom says that Newt can’t win. Indeed, conventional wisdom says that Newt doesn’t have much of a chance at the nomination, let alone the Presidency. We keep hearing from the men who served with him in the Congress about what a pompous, out-of-control ass he has been. Plus, we keep hearing about what a colossal hypocrite he is for criticizing Clinton as a philanderer and for criticizing the power of K Street. If that’s not enough, we also hear about how he has no campaign infrastructure to speak of, reflecting the fact that he didn’t join this campaign to win so much as to sell books. And for every talking head who points out that he is soaring in the polls, there are five more who are willing to snicker about how that lead will last about as long as one of Newt’s marriages.

Well, folks, don’t look now but Newt’s marriages tend to last more than a year, and that’s about as long as his lead would have to last for him to win the next election. Am I predicting that? No. His “negatives” really do go through the roof, and yes, he is capable of crashing and burning at any minute. But can you truly blame the GOP voters for seeing him as the best of a woeful lot? I personally predicted his ascendency several weeks ago when I heard him suggest that he wants to engage in a series of Lincoln/Douglas-style debates with Obama. At that point, he was nowhere in the polls. And yet his idea didn’t seem like an absurd one, for Gingrich has always been the one person in this field who would seem truly to delight in going toe-to-toe with Obama on wonkish policy ideas. The GOP rank-and-file would desperately like to see someone argue with Obama about the issues and reveal the intellectual bankruptcy of Obama’s thoughts. That would be so much more satisfying than seeing Mitt Romney fight Obama by blatantly and shamelessly taking his words out of context in staged advertisements.

It is chic in Blue America to condescend to the Republican rank-and-file these days. Democrats might as well call them “retards,” because that’s about how much respect the Republican voters are being shown. But I ask you: isn’t Gingrich’s recent surge a sign that the Republicans want to engage Obama in the realm of ideas? Isn’t Gingrich’s appeal that he, unlike Romney (or Obama), is a gutsy man who doesn’t mind a good fight? Can we in the Blue States not appreciate why voters would be sick and tired of business as usual, and isn’t Romney the epitome of business as usual – a slick politician who nobody trusts to say what he really means? Can the Republicans really be looked at as crazy in not embracing such a standard holder?

Maybe Gingrich is morally reprehensible. And maybe he does make more than his share of irresponsible and even offensive statements about public policy. But when you truly are “mad as hell and not going to take it any more,” maybe you just don’t care about all that. Remember: the Republican voter is not focused on the Newtster, they are focused on Obama. And anyone who reminds them of Obama – whether he is black, Mormon, or Southern Baptist – is going to have one hell of a time winning the nomination.

Say what you want about Newt, but he at least has spine. In this year’s Republican race, that goes a long, long way.

2011-12-03T09:52:00.000-08:00

FORGET THE 1% OR THE 99%, LET’S TALK ABOUT THE 9% AND THE 43%

Even in this quadrant of cyberspace, there has been a lot of talk lately about the 1% and the 99%. Honestly, though, you don’t have to be in the top 1% to be filthy rich. In fact, if you find yourself anywhere in the top 10%, you’re probably doing pretty well. It’s everyone else who I’m concerned about. There is something fascinating about the fact that our nation’s bottom 90% owns less than the top 1%. Indeed, it says a lot about this country that when you’re talking about wealth, it’s most meaningful to talk about the top .1, 1 or 10%, and to simply lump everyone else together into some sort of small, miscellaneous category. The myth of a thriving middle class still survives, but it is inexorably working its way out of our vocabularies. Soon enough, we will reach the point where we’re either ultra-rich or part of the “bottom X%”-- and that X will be a two digit number beginning with a 9. Who knew that 519 years after Columbus found America while looking for India, we would find India while looking for America?

Today, though, I’d like to leave aside the above numbers and focus instead on two different ones. Let’s talk about the 9% and the 43%.

The 9% are a truly bizarre bunch. These are the Americans who answer in the affirmative when they are asked whether they approve of the job the U.S. Congress is doing. When that figure is reported in the media, the point is always to indicate how low it is. But to me, the question is, “Why so high?” Who in their right mind would approve of the way Congress is doing its job?

You might think that’s a rhetorical question, and perhaps it was when I first framed it. Gradually, though, I’ve begun to realize that the 9% might not be nearly as stupid or crazy as they appear. Just assume hypothetically that you were a true American conservative – a person who believes that if you live in the “greatest country in the world,” it’s more likely than not that if you try to make substantial reforms, you’ll only make things worse. Personally, that’s not my attitude, but I wouldn’t call it crazy. And if it were my attitude, I’d like this Congress just fine.

Right now, the Congress is perfectly situated to make as little mischief as possible. No, they won’t accomplish anything either, but like they say in the NFL, “more games are lost than they are won,” and this Congress won’t fumble, throw interceptions or commit 10 or 15 yard penalties. They’ll just raise money, go home to visit their constituents, and commit the occasional act of public lewdness. (That’s the equivalent of a 5 yard penalty; no big deal.)

Consider that the House is controlled by the Republicans, who are themselves divided between the far right and the hard right (they’re the ones who think that the merely “far righters” are wimpy compromisers). As for the Senate, it is controlled by Democrats, at least in theory. In practice, though, it takes 60 Senators to pass a bill, there are nowhere near 60 Democratic Senators, and even when there were 60, a few were DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) who would demand to water down any truly progressive piece of legislation. The result is even more gridlock than you’ll see on the DC Beltway during rush hour.

In short, if your favorite principle of public policy is “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” then maybe the U.S. Congress, as pathetic as it appears on the surface, is better than all the alternatives.

So that’s the 9%. Now, let’s turn to a much more plentiful, and supposedly sane, group, the 43%. These are the people who answer in the affirmative when they are asked if they approve of the job done by President Barack Obama.

Who are these 43%? They include virtually no Republicans. As for Independents, less than 1/3 of that category now finds itself in the 43%. Pitiful numbers, to be sure. But indirectly, what those numbers also indicate is that the clear majority of Democrats DO find themselves in the 43%. They like the job President Obama is doing. Imagine that.

How can the 43% watch a President essentially disappear like a magician’s prop, and yet still sing his praises? Is it just because they like the man’s style? Perhaps that has a lot to do with it. Unless my eyes and ears are deceiving me, I still see him as almost the personification of class. He is extremely affable. He has both low-brow and high-brow interests. He is equally adept at talking and listening. He comes across as open minded and open hearted. And you rarely see him sweat, let alone show any pique. What a cool guy, right?

That combination of stylistic virtues certainly goes a long way to explain why we’re talking about 43% and not 4.3%. And then let’s not forget the principle that the enemy of our enemy is my friend. So the more that Fox News anchors, Talk Radio blowhards, and their bought-and-sold politicians rip into Obama, the more the Democrats embrace him. The 43% sees Obama primarily as a victim. According to their mindset, when a pollster comes up to you and asks what you think of his job performance, why blame the victim?

And that leads me to perhaps the most important reason why the Democrats still continue to back Obama. Given how dysfunctional Congress has become, Democrats no longer expect their Presidents to actually accomplish things. As long as we have this Congress, the argument goes, the President is powerless to enact reforms, and his job is simply to ensure that things don’t get worse. It’s almost like watching a chess game that has been stalemated, and then praising your favorite player for not making a move that would lose the game. Absurd, right? But this is the story of today’s Democratic Party.

So, according to the conventional Democratic narrative, our nation is lucky to have a nice, intelligent, thoughtful, and flat-out cool President, who has the misfortune of presiding over a government that is essentially being shut down by a do-nothing Republican-dominated Congress that is propped up by a group of loathsome right-wing troglodytes. And we have a choice of blaming the perpetrator or the victim. Why blame both?

That’s the narrative that emerges from MSNBC. It is the narrative that you hear from Democratic leaders. And that’s the reason why, even though this President’s approval rating is less at this juncture of his first term then any other President in decades, he is still quite popular within his Party.

Forgive me for throwing a little wet blanket on top of this lovely fire, but I was just wondering if the 43% ever stopped to think about one set of simple facts. Do the Republicans control the Department of Treasury? The Department of Agriculture? Commerce? Labor? State? Transportation? Defense? Homeland Security? HUD? Energy? Do they control the SEC? FTC? CFTC? CPSC? I could keep going on and on. But hopefully, you get my point. A Democratic President has an enormous scope of power over a wide range of cabinet-level Departments and other agencies, and a do-nothing Congress lacks the ability to stop him from enacting all sorts of progressive reforms. So if we want to evaluate the President’s performance, why do we need to resort to viewing him as a powerless victim? Why don’t we evaluate the job he is doing in the areas in which he has complete control? Why don’t we demand that he shake things up in those domains? Perhaps the answer is that MSNBC, the New York Times, and the other sources of news for the 43% don’t report much on those areas, at least not with a coherent narrative. They would rather concentrate on throwing out red meat about how awful the Republicans are, even when the Republicans are not the ones primarily in power.

Folks, here is the sad truth. The 9% and the 43% seem like natural adversaries. The former is likely composed of self-styled “conservatives” and the latter of self-styled “liberals.” But whether they recognize it or not, they’re both working for the same objectives. The 9% is happy with their Congress, even though they believe it has little ability to accomplish significant reforms. As for the 43%, they are happy with the President, even though they believe he has little ability to accomplish significant reforms. These two groups differ in that the former embraces gridlock, whereas the latter purports not to. But the effect of their preferences is the same: both groups seem willing to live with gridlock. Both groups seem willing to live with a government that is no more activist than, say, Calvin Coolidge would be if he were in charge.

Perhaps, then, instead of talking about the 9% and the 43%, we should be talking about the 52%. I would guess that there are virtually no common members of the first two groups, but when they are properly viewed as working together to maintain the status quo … look what we have here? A majority!

And you wonder why we who care deeply about economic redistribution keep talking about the 1% and the 99%. Don’t expect the government to help solve that problem. A majority sure won’t.

2011-11-27T07:11:00.000-08:00

THINKING GLOBALLY, ACTING LOCALLY

Happy Thanksgiving weekend to all the loyal readers of the Empathic Rationalist. I hope it has been as relaxing – or as exciting – as you had planned it to be. For me, thank God, it has been the former.

I also hope that none of you got trampled or pepper sprayed at Wal-Mart. As for me, not only did I not go to Wal-Mart, but I visited no retail establishment. Nor did I try to buy anything on-line. Despite all the new technological wizardry that is available in the marketplace, the older I get, the less I want to acquire things. At least from a consumer standpoint, as the world moves deeper and deeper into the 21st century, I seem hell-bent on returning to the 18th or 19th.

Speaking of returning to the 18th or 19th centuries, one thing I am certainly not thankful for is this year’s crop of Republican Presidential candidates. Many of them seem to have acquired some kind of time machine – and unfortunately, it can only take us in one direction, backwards. For example, the candidates seem to have little if any appreciation for the value of government. Thank God the nation’s roadways were built already, or I don’t know how we’d ever travel anywhere. And though I appreciate the emphasis on tax reform, it’s disturbing that none of the candidates seem to have any appreciation at all for the idea of progressive taxation. These candidates are more concerned about fairness to the rich than they are about fairness to the poor.

We probably all have our own votes as to when this campaign season hit its low point. Rick Perry’s “oops” moment? The sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain -- followed by his tone-deaf reference to Representative Pelosi as “Princess Nancy”? Personally, my vote would go to the reaction after Newt Gingrich pointed out during the last debate that we wouldn’t want to deport an illegal alien who has lived in the U.S. for 25 years, has children and grandchildren here, pays his or her taxes and goes to church. What sane person could argue with that comment? Well Michelle Bachmann did, but then again, she is everybody’s favorite Stepford wife. Perhaps a bit more surprising was the criticism by the “moderate” Mitt Romney. Then again, Mitt’s views have more flexibility than most gymnasts, and while he does come across as sane, his sanity is eclipsed only by his opportunism. But what was worst of all was listening to the talking heads on TV the day after the debate, who were piling on about how Gingrich made the same “mistake” that Rick Perry previously made in attempting to show compassion for illegal aliens. Frankly, it sounds like compassion has no more place in the Republican party. Soon, a Republican candidate won’t even be able to show compassion for a fetus.

As an antidote to the Dickensian drift of the Republican Party, I’d like to post a video of an event I helped organize and that was held precisely one week ago. The event had two purposes – to bring together Jewish and Muslim youth, and to help the homeless. It lasted three hours and was held at the Washington DC homeless shelter run by the Community for Creative Non-Violence (a/k/a Mitch Snyder’s place). A friend made a 40-minute video of the event, which includes snippets of talks by Jewish and Muslim clergy as well as homeless advocates, and portions of prayers sung by my daughter, Hannah. You can find the video at www.jids.org If you can get past its home-made production quality, I think you’ll find it interesting.

I sent a copy of the video to one of my Republican friends, and he asked me why we were bothering to go to a “flop house” and work with the “bums” who lived there. This is the reality in which we now live – even helping the homeless is considered as a waste of time, and the homeless themselves are thought of as trash. Sometimes, I feel that this country is like a magnificent, opulent boat that is heading straight toward an iceberg. What I don’t know is whether there is still enough time to change course and where we can find a captain with the guts to do it.

2011-11-19T07:02:00.001-08:00

TOO HOLY TO FAIL

“You can’t evict an idea whose time has come.” Cornell West

Finally, this past week, we’ve seen the remake everyone has been waiting for. What was first shown “a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away” has left the friendly confines of the theatre and emerged on the streets of cities and colleges throughout the nation. Call it “The Empire Strikes Back – the Sequel!” Only this time, Darth Vader is gone, as is Luke Skywalker. Instead, we have cops armed with pepper spray firing at protesters, young and old, disheveled, disorganized, disempowered … and disgusted at the fact that not a single person responsible for the recent meltdown of our economy has been prosecuted for his or her conduct.

America now has a new image – rows of people sitting down and looking toward the ground while the men in blue unload canisters of painful chemicals onto their heads. But perhaps an even more profound, if fuzzier, picture is that of the men “behind the curtain” – the wizards of City Hall, who direct their police chiefs to fire up the pepper spray and remove anyone who has been assembling on behalf of what has become an un-American idea: economic equity for its own sake. Many of these wizards, a/k/a mayors, were elected because they supposedly empathized with the values and the concerns of the common person. And yet, once they took power, these wizards realized that their own lives go most smoothly when the trains run on time, the protesters clear the streets, the bankers rake in money, and the lobbyists pull the strings. Call it law and order. It’s the mayor’s best friend. And it has been our Empire’s bromide for decades.

Two generations have come and gone since we last saw street protesters make any meaningful impact on our country. I was but a boy then. And when my parents took me down to the National Mall to join in the Civil Rights protests, that all made so much sense. Even today, what was accomplished with those protests makes most of us proud Since then, I’ve hit the streets on many occasions to rally on behalf of all sorts of causes – against wars, against poverty, against guns, for abortion rights, for gay rights … for sanity. But there has always been something missing. There’s always been a sense that the protest would have little if any staying power. We’d assemble for an afternoon, chant our slogans, march a bit, go home, go to work, make money, and go back to our self-obsessed lives. We could read about sit-ins and strikes that made a difference, but they were always events from our nation’s past. Now that our nation has become the most powerful Empire the world has ever seen, what need do we have for sustained boycotts and strikes and sit-ins and other forms of protest? Isn’t that so … one century ago? Haven’t we evolved to an understanding that a rising tide lifts all boats, and the best way to achieve such a tide is for as many of us as possible to put down our bullhorns and picket signs, get a law or business degree, and work within the system?

Yesterday, I got together with a number of friends, most of whom do indeed have law degrees, to celebrate the birthday of a man who would have turned 86 on Sunday had he not been assassinated during the last era of mass protest in American history. I’m referring to the great Robert F. Kennedy. As we reflected about his legacy, I couldn’t help think that here was a man who believed in the system but didn’t let that paralyze his passion for the value of mass protest. He watched his brother be elected President. He himself served as the Attorney General and as a United States Senator. Yet, for all the time he spent in American officialdom, his voice remained that of the activist. Consider the following words, spoken at Berkeley on October 22, 1966:

“...It is not enough to allow dissent. We must demand it. For there is much to dissent from. We dissent from the fact that millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich. We dissent from the conditions and hatred which deny a full life to our fellow citizens because of the color of their skin. We dissent from the monstrous absurdity of a world where nations stand poised to destroy one another, and men must kill their fellow men. We dissent from the sight of most of mankind living in poverty, stricken by disease, threatened by hunger and doomed to an early death after a life of unremitting labor. We dissent from cities which blunt our senses and turn the ordinary acts of daily life into a painful struggle. We dissent from the willful, heedless destruction of natural pleasure and beauty. We dissent from all those structures -- of technology and of society itself -- which strip from the individual the dignity and warmth of sharing in the common tasks of his community and his country.”

The key word in that entire passage is “must.” And those who remember Robert F. Kennedy realize that he meant that word with all his heart. It was not an option for him to forget the needs of “the people” and revert back to cultivating our own garden. To be satisfied in life, he had to join the fight. And so, despite being a member of the one percent, he devoted his life’s work to the betterment of the 99 percent.

As I stood at yesterday’s ceremony, I asked myself what RFK would think about the Occupy movement if he were alive today and at the height of his energies. Would he focus on the movement’s excesses and growing pains? To a degree, yes. A former Attorney General couldn’t help but care about any signs of lawlessness. But I suspect he would care even more about ensuring that this movement lasts and ultimately succeeds. For the biggest problem that is facing our nation’s cities right now isn’t that in one or two parks, 24/7 protests are resulting in sanitation issues. The deeper problem is that for decades, while our Kennedys lay under the ground, our college students tailgated, and our workers lost their collective bargaining rights, the denizens of Wall Street and K Street have been pepper-spraying our democracy. They are the ones who asked for billion-dollar bail-outs. They are the ones who have bought our politicians. In short, they are the ones who have gamed our financial and political systems and who have succeeded in putting the judges in place to ensure that all their games are perfectly legal.

And so … the most committed representatives of the 99 percent now come across as lawless, while the one percent are seen as law abiding. Talk about ironic.

Mayor Bloomberg might not realize this, but it will take more than pepper spray and cold air to shut down the Occupy movement. The present protesters might not know what they’re doing, yet there’s no denying the righteousness of their cause. Wall Street and K Street have had their chance to show this country that they won’t abuse their power. And the results can be seen throughout the nation on unemployment lines, in homeless shelters, and through corporate welfare checks. It’s time for a new Luke Skywalker to emerge and tell the Bloombergs, the Boehners, and yes, the Obamas of this country that enough is enough.

Soon enough gifted men and women will appear to lead the Occupy movement. It could be in New York, or Washington, or Berkeley … or maybe at UC Davis. Who knows where they will coalesce. But it will happen somewhere. And then, look out one percent! Protests made a difference in the 60s, and they’ll be heard from again a half century later.

Mark my words – the decade is young.

2011-11-12T07:59:00.000-08:00

HEROES DON’T GROW ON TREES

In so many ways, it has been a blessing to have a wife and two daughters. But in one respect, it has been a curse. By getting close to those ladies, and learning all about the ladies who are close to them, I’ve heard stories I would never have heard from men. These stories involve abuse – sexual abuse, infidelities, violence, you name it. But what’s really creepy about the stories aren’t the abusive behavior. It’s the way good people – hell, “model” people – tend to look the other way in the face of abuse. Call it human nature at its worst.

Take the greatest example of “abuse” – the Holocaust. We all have a choice as to what aspect of that event is most disturbing. Is it the existence of a small group of madmen who were hell bent on genocide? Or is it the fact that once these madmen came to power in one of the great countries of the world and revealed their dark sides, the citizenry (with few exceptions) stepped back and let the insanity reign. That’s another way of saying that the Holocaust presents to us both Hitler and Heidegger. One will go down in history as one of our most infamous mass murderers and the other as one of our greatest philosophers. Both were Nazis, but Hitler led the Party and Heidegger merely joined up. And why not? He may have disagreed with some of Hitler’s beliefs, yet it surely seemed like a good, safe career move for Heidegger to align himself with the Party in power.

The sad truth is that for every Hitler – for every perpetrator of abuse – there are legions of Heideggers who learn of the abuse but haven’t the guts or the inclination to confront it. And because there are far more enablers than there are heroes who are willing to stick their necks out, we depend upon the victims of the abuse to put a stop to it. Needless to say, that’s easier said than done. Victims of abuse may report the event to the police, and yet the police may be powerless to act without additional evidence. And they may also notify the abusers’ family, friends and co-workers about what happened. But when they do so, the reaction is pretty much predictable. We as a species, despite being “made in the image of God,” tend to take care of our own. When we hear that our fuehrer, our family members, our friends, our priests, or our football coaches are involved in truly abusive behavior … we generally shrug off the information we don’t like, and get back to our own business.

With that as an introduction, you can imagine how I have been reacting to the scandal that has been rocking Central Pennsylvania this past week. A graduate assistant who works for the Penn State football team witnessed an ex-football coach having anal sex with a ten year old boy. He reported the incident to his superior (football legend, Joe Paterno), who reported it to his superior … and to make a long story short, nobody reported the incident to the police. As a result, the number of victims merely grew over time. Now that these events have come to light, the public (outside of the hamlet of State College Pennsylvania) have had pretty much the same response. They are shocked, SHOCKED, that the leaders of the Penn State football team would have failed to report such depraved and criminal conduct. Everywhere from Portland to Peoria to Phoenix, we’re hearing the same comments: “If I were that graduate assistant, I would have stopped that rape right then and there. And if I were Joe Paterno, I would have told the police right away. I don’t care how close I was to that rapist – I would have reported it.”

Sure you would, hero. Sure you would.

Allegations of abuse, however credible, rarely come with what most of us call “proof.” You’ve got the victim’s word against that of the perpetrator. And who has the burden of persuasion? You’ve guessed it – the victim. Also, the victim soon learns that it doesn’t pay to make a big stink. Anita Hill made a big stink about Clarence Thomas, and she was portrayed by the conservatives as some sort of lying witch. Now, we are seeing the same dynamic played out in the case of Herman Cain. When a lady named Sharon Bialek became known as the fourth woman who was claiming to be sexually harassed by Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh spewed the following venom over the airwaves: “her name is Buy-A-Lick, as in [slurp, slurp] Buy-A-Lick.” You know and I know that Rush Limbaugh hasn’t a clue whether Sharon Bialek was telling 100% of the truth, 50% of the truth or no truth at all. But because she had the temerity to attack a conservative Republican who Limbaugh likes, that, apparently, was enough to give him the right to portray her as a whore. And he is completely getting away with those comments.

What Limbaugh is doing, sadly enough, is done every day in far more mundane situations. As soon as a victim speaks out, she or he is fair game for scrutiny. Is s/he trustworthy? Above reproach? Unless you’re a paragon of virtue, you better just take your medicine and shut up. Because if you’ve got a whistle to blow, the friends and family of the man you’re accusing are going to be digging for all the dirt they can find – and I mean dirt on you, not your abuser. Is there any wonder why it is so difficult for the ordinary victim of abuse in a non-celebrity context to get up the courage to speak out? What’s in it for them? And unless they have some sort of documentary proof of hard-core criminal conduct, what can they hope to gain from telling their story?

I have seen this scenario play out too many times before. The one and only time I’ve seen the abuser get in real trouble is when the idiot (a) messed with kids and (b) kept photographs. Neither is advisable. Better to just abuse adult women, and not to leave too much of a mark. Do that, and you can be sure that not only will your homies have your back, but the authorities won’t even give a second thought to the accusations.

In a sense, Joe Paterno is a victim here, strange as that sounds. This is a man whose trusted assistant reported witnessing a child get raped, and all Paterno did is notify his boss (the athletic director) about the event, and wash his own hands of the situation. Is that heroic conduct? Of course not. But nor is it any worse than what I would generally expect from my fellow man. Paterno heard an unpleasant allegation against someone with whom he had closely worked for decades, and he heard it from a young man who had no evidence other than his own uncorroborated testimony. In such situations, what percentage of people would do the bare minimum? 50? 75? 90%? I don’t know what the number is, but I’m sure it’s a big one.

Believe me, I have no personal sympathy for Joe Paterno, even though he is losing his job and much of his reputation for his role in that incident. Consider that Paterno has spent the last several decades being treated essentially like a god – and not only in Central Pennsylvania but in the world of sports generally. His name has become synonymous with integrity, character, honor. He’s on the Mount Rushmore of college coaches. And not only has he been deified, but I can guarantee you that as long as he lives, he’ll be spending his time largely surrounded by people who will treat him as a truly great man.

Now we all know that Joe Paterno is not such a man. He’s not a hero at all. He’s a guy who, at a critical juncture in his life, put personal interests over stopping rape in his lists of priorities. But my assumption, given what I’ve seen and heard in this world, is that Paterno behaved just as most others would have behaved in the same situation. You’ve heard the term “age appropriate” used for kids who behave in normal ways for people their age? Well, Paterno behaved in a way that was “species appropriate.”

Limbaugh? I guess you can say that his “Buy-A-Lick” crap did cross the line into unusually aggressive blame-the-victim conduct. But then again, it was hardly shocking either. Abuse situations are much like football games. When an abuser comes out and makes an accusation, all interested parties choose what team they are on. And if the abuser is a prominent member of the community and the victim isn’t, good luck with that accusation, chump.

I’m not happy about all this. In fact, I think the epidemic of abusive conduct in our society is intolerable. But we have to go through the “acceptance” stage of the process before we can work on a solution. And that begins with each of us looking in the mirror and asking what kind of enabling conduct we have been willing to accept when it comes to abuse. Let’s not be quite so willing to accept it in the future, OK?

2011-11-05T08:08:00.001-07:00

OCCUPYING A VOID

Let me begin my making a statement that is long overdue in this portion of cyberspace: I wholeheartedly support the Occupy movement. That is not to say I applaud everything each demonstrator has said or done in connection with this movement. What I do applaud is the central goal of calling attention to the fundamental economic inequality in our society, and announcing that such inequality is flat out unacceptable.

When he campaigned for President, Barack Obama led us all to believe that he intended to address the inequality issue. He took a significant step in the right direction insofar as he worked for universal health care. But in other critical respects, our President flat out blew it. And none of his omissions is more critical than his unwillingness to increase the marginal tax rate on the most affluent members of our society. (Of course, now he is pretending to care about that issue again, but he also knows that the votes are no longer there to enact this change; when he seemingly had the votes, he lacked the spine.)

The Occupy movement does reflect a certain type of class warfare. But it’s not a war of the “99%” against the “1%.” The war is, in fact, being initiated by the uber-rich patrons of the Republican party, and the foot-soldiers are the rank-and-file of that increasingly reactionary party, many of whom are neither affluent nor well-educated, but who have been taught by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to despise government, taxes, economic redistribution and anything remotely resembling the New Deal. The Occupy movement is merely a reaction to the war that Limbaugh, Hannity, and such behind-the-scenes puppeteers as Grover Norquist have been waging for years. Theirs is a battle against the sane idea that government can play constructive non-military roles in a capitalist society.

Well, I’ve had enough of the extremist ideology that is strangling the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. And I’m not alone. Channeling the immortal words of Howard Beale in the movie Network, many Americans are finally saying “I am mad as hell and am not going to take this anymore!” The real question is what took us so long?

This past Tuesday, David Brooks wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that had an interesting perspective on the Occupy protests. He set up a dichotomy involving two types of inequalities: (a) the one between the 99% and the 1%, and (b) the one within the 99% -- specifically, between those who have college degrees and those who don’t. Brooks’ point was that the former may be the one garnering all the media attention, but the latter inequality is the one that is most devastating to our society.

Is he correct? Well, yes and no. What Brooks is really asking us to focus on is not so much the war that the 1% is now waging against the so-called “middle class,” but the war that both the rich AND the middle class have been waging for decades against the poor. He’s absolutely right that this is being completely ignored by the politicians and the media, and that this is a national tragedy. In fact, it has gotten to the point where whenever inequality is raised in the media, the victim is almost always identified as the “middle class” rather than the “poor,” since the audience is presumed to be so much better able to relate to the former than the latter. In other words, the middle class has now come to represent a more sympathetic group of victims than the poor. This is, indeed, a sad development.

But it begs the question of what to do to solve the problem. What I want to hear from Mr. Brooks and any other limousine-moderates who share his perspective is how they plan on calling attention to the plight of the poor if not by supporting the Occupy movement. From where I’m sitting, this has got to be a two-step process. First, the Howard Beales among us must rage against the rapacity of the Gordon Gekkos. (Hell, if we turn away from Hollywood and back toward history, we can find an even better example of the real villains here. Our nation’s 1% may best be compared to Marie Antoinette, whose immortal response to the underclass -- “let them eat cake” – is a perfect summary of the Herman Cain and Rick Perry tax plans.) Only by pointing out that even that great engine of capitalism – greed -- can be taken too far can we focus the attention of the American public on the issue of economic inequality and convince the public that too much inequality must not be tolerated. Full stop.

Then, and only then, will we be able to take on what Brooks views as the more pernicious type of inequality than the hoarding of wealth by the 1% -- namely, such problems as the “inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment” that so defeat the aspirations of our nation’s underclass. Brooks went on to lament the “nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.” And he announced his “ultimate goal” as the need to “expand opportunity.” I share his view that those problems and that goal should be front and center in our minds. And that is why, in my first novel, I called for a national war on poverty, which would need to be fought by all able-bodied people in both the public and private sectors and which would address both cultural and economic concerns.

Yet after I wrote that book, do you know what happened? I opened my eyes and ears to anyone who placed fighting poverty at the top of their agenda, but heard hardly a whisper. The silence was especially noteworthy when it comes to the world of politics – big time, national politics. In that domain, the only spokesman was good ol’ John Edwards. You know him well. He’s the slick attorney with the flowing hair. The one who loved to talk about the “two Americas.” The guy who hated poverty so much that he built a 30,000 square foot house for himself, and then took it upon himself to destroy his own marriage – no doubt, in order to demonstrate the tragedy of out-of-wedlock births. That, my fellow poverty haters, is our patron saint. That is our voice in the wilderness. The rest of the politicians – indeed, the rest of the chattering class generally – said nary a word about the plight of the poor.

It’s a basic law of nature that you’ve got to walk before you can run. And that principle applies just as much to the political marketplace of ideas. Prior to the commencement of the Occupy movement, the poor simply had no real voices in Washington, other than a few relatively powerless members of the House of Representatives. And yes, even now, the anti-poverty voices are muted. But at least now the issue of economic inequality has entered the national consciousness, and the need to do something about it is gaining traction. The only way this could have happened is for a group of young disaffected Americans to identify a group of villains and shine a bright light on their faces. Fortunately, with limited exceptions, events have not gotten violent, and I pray with all my heart that the protests remain peaceful. An America without the respect for law and order would cease to be America. We must keep things safe, legal, and orderly. But we must not stop the protests.

Is there any doubt that our system currently caters more to the 1% than the 99%? Is there any doubt that we are evolving into the type of capitalism excoriated by Dickens and Marx, each in their own unique ways? Those like me who actually believe in capitalism but see it as a means, not an end in itself, recognize the need to right this ship. And aside from the Occupiers, there are no other hands on deck.

What is the old Biblical expression? And the children shall lead? In this case, I think it’s not so much the children, but the unemployed young adults. Occupy away!

2011-10-29T15:25:00.001-07:00

CAN WE BE TOO CYNICAL THESE DAYS?

It has been a few weeks since I sat in the synagogue on Yom Kippur, reading a list of items for which “we” must atone (Jews atone in the first person plural, not the first person singular). When I got to the word “cynicism,” I did a double take. “That sure applies to me, “ I said to myself. I can’t believe how cynical I have become as of late when it comes to government and politics.

As I closed my eyes and atoned for that cynicism, I was jolted by the memory of an incident from the previous week. A friend had commented about my recent increase in cynicism, but oddly enough, he was paying me a compliment. According to this friend, my uptick in cynicism toward politics and government was merely a reflection that I was finally opening my eyes to reality.

Is that really true? Is cynicism just a higher stage of wisdom? Or, if you prefer the question asked this way, is it possible, given the present state of the American political marketplace, to be overly cynical – or is our political mess worse than we could possibly imagine? This much you can’t deny – cynicism has become as American as apple pie. The New York Times reported that, according to a nationwide telephone poll of 1,600 adults that was conducted from October 19th-24th, “89 percent of Americans say they distrust government to do the right thing, ... 74 percent say the country is on the wrong track and 84 percent disapprove of Congress.” My only question is why those numbers weren’t 100, 100 and 100, respectively.

Seriously, I have to laugh when I hear Democratic cheerleaders get on TV and rave about how “we progressives” just adore the tough talk that has lately emerged from Obama’s lips. I’m reminded of the old joke about the time when the Lone Ranger and Tonto were surrounded by a group of angry Indians and the Lone Ranger asks his buddy, “What do we do now?” Tonto’s response is the same as my response to the Administration’s cheerleaders: “What do you mean ‘WE’”?

When I look at the President that I and millions of other progressives worked so hard to elect, I see a consummate campaigner but hardly a committed progressive ... let alone an effective leader. His promises in 2008 were full of red meat for liberals. Yet as President, he showed little willingness to take on the ever growing inequalities of wealth when he presided for a full year over a Congress with 60 Democrats in the Senate and a large majority in the House, another year with 59 Democrats in the Senate and a large majority in the House, and 2/3 of a year with a split Congress. So now that the Republicans have essentially said that they will fight him on any meaningful legislative effort involving core economic issues, Obama has entered campaign mode, and we can expect him to remain there until early November of 2012.

Why should I give a damn whether his political calculus is to campaign as a moderate or a progressive? Didn’t these past three years show that what he says on the campaign trail and what he fights for as President may have little to do with each other?

So now that I have basically said that whatever statements the President has to make about economics are mere words that need not be taken seriously, I do have to acknowledge that at least his “mere words” seem to make a lot more sense than those of his adversaries. Call me a masochist, but I watch the Republican debates religiously – I even TiVo them when I’m not home. And I find them as ridiculous as a Three Stooges festival. It almost seems pointless to mock the debates, for the participants do such a good job of that themselves.

It’s probably fitting that the current poll leader among the Republican candidates, Herman Cain, is a guy who wants to introduce a 9 percent federal sales tax at a time when the nation needs to encourage consumer spending. Not to be outdone, Rick Perry came out with his own tax plan that would lower taxes for the rich, maintain the taxes for the middle class, and send many others scrambling through tax form after tax form to find out which of those categories they fit into. Generally speaking, the Republican tax proposals have two things in common – they would add to the deficit, and they would redistribute money in favor of those who need it the least. Keep in mind that this is a time when deficits and income inequalities have famously shot through the roof. So why would we want them to increase even more?

It’s as if some Einstein was asked to propose a plan to address an epidemic of obesity and came up with the idea of lowering the price of beer and fries. I can see why the idea might catch on, don’t get me wrong. But its creator belongs more on Comedy Central than on CNN, that’s all I’m saying.

Leave it to the loveable lunkheads like Cain, Perry, Paul and Bachman to make Mitt Romney look good. Hell, they’re even making Newt look good. But most importantly, they’re making Obama look good. Despite all the cynicism reflected in the above poll, and despite the current state of our economy, the new numbers indicate that as many people approve of the job Obama is doing as disapprove. And that says more about his opponents than it says about him.

Perhaps the relatively positive view of Obama is, paradoxically, the most profound statement of our current level of cynicism. Our view of government has become so negative that as long as you don’t leave your ex-wife when she has cancer (Newt), strap your dog to the hood of your car during a family road trip (Mitt), say you are pro-choice one day and pro-life the next (Cain), conduct yourself during debates like you’re drunk and then threaten to skip the debates altogether (Perry), or support dismantling the EPA (Bachman) or everything beyond a truly minimalist government (Paul) ... I guess the American public will be happy enough with your performance.

That probably explains why year after year, decade after decade, the vast majority of incumbents who run for Congressional seats come out victorious. That also explains why as badly as he did as President, George W. Bush came out victorious when he ran for re-election. To a cynic, hope starts to give rise to fear, and the next thing you know, you find yourself voting based on the idea that “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”

Of course, Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of hope, not fear. But with each feckless step that he took as President, that “hopey, changey” stuff gave rise to an even greater layer of national cynicism. It might end up cementing his victory next November, but what do you bet that when he does get re-elected, he’ll be selected as the lesser of two evils. And he’ll preside over a powerless Government.

When it comes to cynicism, we in America have come a long, long way since the last inauguration. Then again, at this point, the only direction we can go is up. If there is a silver lining here, I guess it’s that. Oh yeah – that, and the fact that we political junkies have in store for us a whole year of really, really good comedy.

2011-10-19T19:53:00.000-07:00

GONE SCHMOOZING

This is to let you know that I will be attending my 30 year college reunion this weekend at Stanford and will not be able to write my weekly blogpost. The Empathic Rationalist will return with new material on or about October 29th or 30th.

Talk to you then.

2011-10-16T06:10:00.001-07:00

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

It was barely two weeks ago when I heard my daughter, Hannah, mention the name of Gilad Shalit. As she was leading the Reform High Holiday services at the University of Maryland, Hannah took a moment away from the traditional prayers to remind us all about the horrible ordeal suffered by Shalit, an Israeli soldier, at the hands of his Hamas captors. Hannah implored us to pray for Shalit’s release, and I doubt there was a soul around who didn’t join her. For five years, Shalit has been forced to live in captivity. He was seized when he was just a teenager, and during the last several years, Hamas has refused to permit the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit Shalit to evaluate his living conditions. It is difficult to know whether or not Shalit’s situation would measure up to the Bush Administration’s view of “torture,” but there has certainly been no objective reason to believe he has been treated humanely. This is, after all, Hamas we’re talking about. The words “humane” and “Hamas” have in common the same first letter, but other than that, I don’t see any common ground whatsoever.

Suffice it to say that my view of Hamas is widely shared in Israel, and it is largely for that reason that the case of Gilad Shalit has garnered such publicity there since the time of his kidnapping. Shalit has become a national symbol – a symbol for the innocence of the Israeli people, who the Left sees as militarists and occupiers but who see themselves as a peace loving society surrounded by unfriendly, and sometimes savage, neighbors and morally entitled to behave in self-defense. Gilad Shalit is truly the picture of innocence: a baby-faced 19-year old boy when he was kidnapped, Gilad did not score high on the Israeli army physical fitness tests, but he nevertheless volunteered to serve in a combat unit. Therein lies one of the ultimate tragedies of war – that it claims some of our most noble, giving souls. The Israeli people are well aware of that fact, and they have been determined to ensure that this war would not claim the soul, or the body, of Gilad Shalit.

Shalit has had to wait nearly two thousand days before he could be freed. Fortunately for him, he will only have to wait two days more. This coming Tuesday, Hamas will return Shalit to his loving family in Israel, and in return, Israel will free not one, not one hundred, not one thousand, but 1,027 Palestinian political prisoners. The swap will be eerily reminiscent of an earlier deal – one procured by Shimon Perez in 1985 in which 1,150 Palestinian prisoners were freed in exchange for three Israeli soldiers captured during the Lebanon war. The 1985 swap resulted in the first Intifada and an incredible amount of bloodshed. One wonders what exactly will be the result of this deal – other than incredible joy for the Shalit household and a surge in Hamas’ popularity among the Palestinians.

Let’s be clear that we can all rejoice that Shalit will be free. As birds-in-the-hand go, this is a big one. But I still have many questions for the Israeli Government. The following come immediately to mind: If these 1,027 political prisoners have truly belonged in Israeli prisons, aren’t you saying that they are legitimate threats to the lives of the Israeli people (as well as visitors like my daughter Hannah, who hopes to attend rabbinical school in Israel)? Doesn’t it mean that as soon as they are freed, they collectively can be expected to slaughter dozens or even hundreds of Israelis – bringing the same kind of grief on their families as has been endured by the Shalit family these past five years? By contrast, if these released prisoners don’t pose a threat to the lives of innocent Israelis, why the hell were they imprisoned in the first place? Were they rounded up based on the shakiest of evidence? Is that why Israel is so willing to let them go – because they never should have been imprisoned to begin with? And aren’t you sending the worst possible message to Hamas -- if you’re able to capture one of our citizens, you’ll be amply rewarded?

This is a deal that puts “Empathic Rationalism” to the test. From the standpoint of empathy, it’s a big winner. But rationally, this deal just doesn’t make sense. From Israel’s standpoint, Tuesday’s swap is the kind of event we’d associate with a Jimmy Carter, not a Benjamin Netanyahu, which makes this even more puzzling. I realize that the “Free Gilad” cause is a compelling one, but so is keeping Israel secure from terrorism. If history is any guide, Tuesday’s swap will open the door to freedom for many criminals and death to many innocents. To me, it’s a major head shaker.

This prisoner swap reminds me of one of those classic philosophical dilemmas that ethics students learn about in college. You are given scenarios like the following: Ten men on a boat have swallowed a poison, and they learn that they will die unless they are given an antidote. There’s enough of the antidote around to save nine of the men. But as for the tenth, for him to survive, he would need to consume all of the antidote that is available. So here’s the dilemma – is it appropriate to provide the antidote so as to save the nine lives and allow the tenth to die, or should the ten men draw lots so that the tenth man is given the same chance that each of the others has to live?

When I first heard that dilemma, it was raised by a philosophy professor who had published an article proposing that the men on the boat should draw lots. That, he said, is the only “fair” outcome – all these people must have an equal chance to live. Period. Personally, though, I thought the professor was crazy. At the risk of seemingly overly utilitarian, I couldn’t imagine how one life could possibly be equated in importance to nine. And I would like to imagine that if I were on that boat, I would have gladly given up my life if it meant saving the other nine.

That brings me back to Gilad Shalit. Right now, the deal is being widely hailed. “The end of a national nightmare,” “the return of a national hero,” “a time to rejoice” … Yes, it is all that and more. But we seem to be forgetting that maybe, just maybe, these 1,027 Palestinian prisoners were in captivity for a reason. Just maybe, the Israeli prisons have been filled with Palestinians who have demonstrated a passion for killing Israelis who are every bit as innocent as Gilad Shalit. And maybe, when these political prisoners are freed, they will wreak vengeance on the country that they have surely learned to hate even more as a result of their own captivity. If that happens on a large enough scale, I cannot imagine the Shalit family will believe that the release of Gilad was worth it.

Despite what my philosophy professor said, I still think that “numbers count.” That’s why the Shalit deal doesn’t add up.

2011-10-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

A RARE TRIBUTE TO DEATH FROM A SPINOZIST

The Days of Awe, as the period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur is known among Jews, are centered around the concepts of repentance and renewal. Sometimes, when they give talks during this period, rabbis concentrate on the former of these themes, and other times they discuss the latter. Yesterday evening, at the concluding service of Yom Kippur, I heard a rabbi devote his entire talk to the idea of renewal. And he concentrated on what could be taken to be nature’s foremost means of generating renewal – death.

You don’t hear too many tributes to the Grim Reaper at synagogue. You hear even fewer in the Spiro household. My dad, the family philosopher, may not have been steeped in Spinoza, but he internalized the Spinozist line that “A free man thinks of nothing less than of death and his wisdom is a meditation on life.” Last evening, though, we were told by the rabbi that without death, we can’t enjoy life as we know it – where the new is truly different than the old, and the power of time requires us to act now or perhaps forever lose the opportunity.

Anyone who has seen the movie Groundhog Day knows what life could be like if we could live a single day forever. For all of the central character’s accomplishments – saving lives, developing talents, you name it – the moviemaker had us all convinced that we would trade such a storybook life for our own, as long as we were able to spend our limited time on this planet with a loving fellow-traveler. That is not to say that mortality is objectively preferable to immortality, but only that each of us has made our peace with it. Our ideal is simply to be the best “mere mortal” we can be given the constraints. Anything more would seem … well, disrespectful to the civilization we’ve developed, one that involves the challenges of living well, dying gracefully, and remembering those to whom we owe a debt of gratitude – mortal and immortal.

Generally, at a High Holiday service, our thoughts turn to thanking the one immortal of whom we are aware. The word “Jew” means “thankful.” It comes from the decision of our matriarch, Leah, to name her son, Judah, saying, “This time I will give thanks to Adonai” (Genesis 29:35). But yesterday evening, the rabbi wanted to take a moment to praise the essence of mortality, and he did so largely by quoting the words of a fellow mortal. This is a man we’ve all heard a lot about lately because he died, with tremendous notoriety, earlier during these same Days of Awe. I am sure you will recognize him by name when you read the following words, which come from a commencement address he gave at my alma mater (Stanford) in 2005.

“When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: ‘If you live each day as if it was your last, some day you'll most certainly be right.’ It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been ‘no’ for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

“Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything – all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

“About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for ‘prepare to die’. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.

“I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I'm fine now.

“This was the closest I've been to facing death, and I hope it's the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful, but purely intellectual, concept:

“No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but some day not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

“Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma – which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And, most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

As a Luddite, you’d think I would curse the ground Steve Jobs walked on. It is largely due to his products that I often feel as alienated from this society as I do. Believe me, I couldn’t tell you the difference between an i-pod, an i-pad and an i-phone, and I’m not apologizing for it either. But, ironically, for the same reason that I am a Luddite – valuing what is known as “humanity” over what is known as “technology” – I cannot help but appreciate what drove Steve Jobs to be the person he was. Sure, he loved technology. And yet by all accounts, he was also a warm, caring, unassuming person. What’s more, when all was said and done, the epitaph of this college-dropout-turned-billionaire could aptly include that immortal Frank Sinatra lyric, “I did it my way.” I love that quality in a person. In fact, it is precisely that same quality that most endeared me to another celebrity who passed away during these Days of Awe.

I will allow those of you technophiles who are “Jew”-ish to thank Steve Jobs for all that he has given you personally. For me, I will reserve my more heartfelt thanks to a fellow Jew who died, of all days, on Yom Kippur (in other words, yesterday).
Al Davis grew up in Brooklyn and never did outgrow his Brooklyn accent. His football team was called the Raiders, but pronounced “Raiduhs” by any true fan of the team – even though they’ve never been based outside of California. It is only respectful to pronounce that name the way Al did because Al Davis WAS the Raiders.

There is no team in American sports more associated with a single human being than the Raiders were associated with Al Davis. He once coached the team, came to co-own and then own the team for decades, and micromanaged the team in virtually every respect that involved the product on the field. You could say that his obsession with this team was positively Ahabian. Indeed, many would say that he was willing to break virtually every rule and moral principle imaginable in order to help that team win. It was a great formula when he was young and ahead of the curve, and a horrible formula when he was old and the game had passed him by. But again, win or lose, at least nobody can deny Al Davis that same epitaph referenced above – he did it his way to the brutal end. And his way can be summed up in a single immortal line: “Just win, baby!”

Nobody in their right mind has been rooting for Steve Jobs to meet his maker. But I know a number of Raiders fans who have been rooting for Al Davis’ demise for years. The same team that he built to greatness in the 60s, 70s and early 80s has long since been run into the ground, thanks to his meddling. I suspect that there is a whole generation of football fans out there who associate Al Davis with incompetence, if not insanity. More recently, he has been nicknamed the Crypt Keeper, because … let’s just say his face hasn’t aged well. In short, Al Davis has become a punch line – and as for the joke, there are many to choose from.

But that was the old, living Al Davis. The new, dead Al Davis deserves better and will surely get what he deserves. For there is something else about death we should praise – her ennobling quality. Stated simply, nothing dignifies like death.

If you don’t believe me, just turn on ESPN or the NFL network over the next few days. What do you bet that these networks will assemble a group of Davis’ friends and admirers to explain precisely what made the man great? Here’s a man who moved his franchise not once but twice, but what do you bet he’ll be toasted by his friends for his “loyalty”? Here’s a man who made one crazy personnel move after another and whose team hasn’t had a winning season since 2002, but what do you bet we’ll hear that as a football mind, his was second to none? The fact is that mortals can be complex figures, and the same person who exhibits disloyalty in one respect can exhibit extreme loyalty in another, just like the same person who exhibits brilliance at one time in his life can manifest idiocy in another. When you die, unless you’re a truly evil figure, you get to have the good times and the good qualities remembered much more than the bad. It’s the least the living can do for you.

I grew up loving Al Davis because (a) he looked so much like the folks in my dad’s family, who also came from Brooklyn, (b) he never sucked up to the establishment or pretended to be anything other than a football guy, and (c) he allowed his players to beat to their own irreverent drummers as long as they fought hard to win football games. Long before Sarah Palin called herself a “maverick,” Al Davis was the real deal. He looked at the fat cats who ran his industry and gave them all the middle finger. And just like the rappers in LA thought that was pretty friggen cool, so did I – and I grew up in the mean streets of Bethesda, Maryland. To this day, I still think that if you grew up in the 60s and 70s and didn’t think the old Raiders were cooler than the other side of the pillow, there’s something seriously wrong with you. And that “cool” trickled down from the top. The tone was set by Al Davis.

So there you have it. Two men died this past week. One is universally beloved. The other is thought of as a bit of a freak. Yet perhaps their most dominant characteristic is the same. They both dared to be themselves, and they encouraged that same quality in others.

Jobs and Davis leave behind them roughly seven billion people, few of whom were nearly as successful in making their own marks. But we all can learn from their example. The High Holidays are over, but if we played our cards right, the lessons of these holidays can remain for a full year. We repent and seek renewal. We repent for such things as the willingness to waste our lives by living someone else’s. We seek renewal by recognizing what it is we truly want to achieve in life, and then steeling ourselves to ensure that these goals come to fruition. Jobs did it. Davis did it. And you can do it too. Just let the prospect of death give you that kick in the pants that you need. And then, just LIVE, baby!

2011-10-01T08:22:00.001-07:00

IS THE PURPLE TRAIN GETTING READY FOR ANOTHER TRIP?

It last happened in 1960, the year of my birth. Despite winning five NBA Championships in 11 years, the Minneapolis Lakers were ready to move west. With the team’s new superstar, Elgin Baylor, in tow, owner Bob Short decided to take his team from one of our nation’s coldest cities to one of our warmest, Los Angeles. The franchise decided to keep its name – the Lakers – despite the fact that the only body of water for which LA is known is the Pacific Ocean. And more importantly, the franchise figured out how to keep its winning ways. Unbelievably, when the Lakers won the NBA title in 2010, it was the franchise’s 16th title and 31st appearance in the championship series in a little over 60 years. The latter stat is truly astounding. It means that over the course of more than six decades, this one franchise has been one of the top two basketball teams in the world 50% of the time. I don’t believe that any other major league franchise in any sport can make that claim.

So yes, the Lakers have done their share of winning and more – both in Minnesota and Los Angeles. And they have become larger than their sport. When you think cheerleaders you think of two franchises – the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders and the Laker Girls. Personally, I can’t name a single Cowboy Cheerleader, but I remember Paula Abdul back when she cheered for the Lakers. I bet Jack Nicholson does too; he’s had courtside Laker seats for literally decades. And Jack is hardly alone. A Laker game isn’t just a basketball game, it’s an opportunity to get out your binoculars and ogle celebrities. You’ll find almost as many of them there as at the Kodak Theatre on Academy Awards night.

Hollywood likes its Dodgers, but Hollywood LOVES its Lakers. And why shouldn’t it? Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O’Neil, Kobe Bryant … these aren’t just Hall of Famers, they’re superstars. James Worthy is a Hall of Famer, but next to those other Laker greats, he’s a bum – which is the word the good people of Brooklyn used for their beloved Dodgers. Nobody in his right mind calls the Lakers bums.

My friends in La La Land, when they say their nightly bruchas, should thank God for life, liberty and the franchise from Minneapolis. A native of the Land of Lakes, Prince had the right idea but the wrong spelling: it’s not Purple Rain, its Purple Reign. It started in Minneapolis and has continued in LA. And we all know that when Kobe Bryant retires, somehow, the Lakers will beg, borrow or steal another superstar to take his place. The Lakers don’t rebuild, they reload. Ain’t no force in the universe powerful enough to stop them for long – not even the force of karma.

The people of LA know about karma. It’s a well-used concept in the movies. One minute the hero is riding high, but a couple of scenes later, his life is falling apart. And it works in reverse too, for Hollywood is full of Cinderella stories. Just ask Julia Roberts: one day she’s turning tricks on the streets of LA, and a week later, she is having sex with Richard’s “Gere” and about to marry into billions. As Yakov Smirnoff would say, “What a country!”

Unfortunately for my friends in LA, the karma I’m talking about now doesn’t have much to do with Cinderella. It’s more the “Behind the Music” kind of karma. Do you recall Behind the Music? It’s a VH-1 series that would profile different rock n’ roll groups. Inevitably, the trajectory would be the same: band meets, band plays for almost no fans and makes almost no money, band hits the big time, band members enjoy superstardom, band members enjoy drugs, band members enjoy drugs a tad too much, band members turn their lives into a living hell … or a short story, depending upon the band member. Seen it once, seen it a million times.

So how is that kind of karma going to bite the good people of LA? Enter into the equation another purple clad team from Minnesota. Ladies and Gentlemen of Los Angeles, I want to introduce you to my Minnesota Vikings.

On the surface, the Vikings are one of the flagship NFL franchises. They’ve been in the league as long as the Lakers have been in LA, and they have graced the Super Bowl not once, but four times. They have their own Hall of Famers, men like Fran Tarkenton, Alan Page, Carl Eller, Paul Krause, Randall McDaniel, Ron Yary, John Randle. Hall of Famers yes, superstars no. You see, the Vikings have never won the championship. Not once. And during the last 34 years, when the Lakers have made 16 appearances in the championship series of its sport, the Vikings have been to the Super Bowl precisely zero times. And believe me, it’s not for lack of coming close – it’s because every time they do come close, some seemingly supernatural force stops them from winning during the final play-in game before the Superbowl. In the ‘87 season, it was a running back who dropped a ball in the end zone; in ‘98, it was the kicker who didn’t miss a kick all year but missed the kick that would have sealed the deal; in ‘09, it was the boo-boo of having 12 men in the huddle, a penalty that took the team out of the range of a field goal that would have won the game. Are you mathletes sensing a pattern here? Every 11 years, the franchise flirts with its fans by snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory and keeping the team out of the Super Bowl. And every Vikings fan knows that if and when the team finally does make the Super Bowl, they’ll do what they did the four times they got there in the late ‘60s and early-mid ‘70s: lose.

That, folks, is a snake-bitten franchise. And don’t look now, but it could be moving to Hollywood at the end of this season.

The signs of the move are simply too irresistible to ignore. The Vikings are from Minnesota, the Lakers came from Minnesota. The Vikings wear purple, the Lakers wear purple. The Vikings have a stadium with a lease that’s about to expire and a tax base that isn’t willing to bail out another billionaire owner, and Los Angeles has millions upon millions of people but not a single professional football team (other than the University of Southern California, but supposedly they don’t count). In the past few years, the good people of Minnesota bought themselves a stadium for the baseball team (the Twins) and the flagship college football team (the Gophers). And how did that work out? Well … the Twins just lost 99 games this year. Can you imagine? I know the baseball season is long, but it’s not THAT long. Ninety-nine games is a horrid number. And as for the University of Minnesota Gophers, not only are they 1-3, but they have lost this year to such perennial powers as New Mexico State and North Dakota State.

North Dakota State? Are you kidding me? Imagine your state having spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars that could have gone for teacher salaries or health care but instead went to a stadium in which you can watch your college football team lose to North Dakota State. I suspect that taking a nice leisurely drive to the Mississippi River and dumping the money in the drink would have been a better use of time. At least the scenery would be nice.

And now, Minnesotans have another decision – whether to dump hundreds of millions more on yet another new stadium for yet another struggling team. This time we’re talking about the Never Won the Big One Vikings. And since 11 years have not elapsed since they last flirted with a Super Bowl appearance, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the franchise has lost its first three games of the season. Indeed, the fact that they were winning by 10-20 points at halftime of each of these games might be somewhat surprising – Lord knows that no other team in NFL history has started the season in that manner – but for the fact that this is the Vikings we’re talking about. Their history is as cursed as the Lakers’ is charmed. They don’t just lose when it counts. They lose in freaky ways.

And now, the smart money is on their moving to LA.

I don’t know about you, but I’m expecting to see a movie in around 2025 chronicling the story of the Lakers and Vikings. It will be called something like “A Tale of Two Teams,” and it will have all the ups and downs you can possibly ask for in an Oscar-nominated flick. The problem is that the “best of times” will always be referring to the Lakers and the “worst of times” will always be referring to the Vikings. But for all their differences, they will always be linked together by a common city, a common fan base, and a common color.

Besides, ask any big time director: happy endings are great, but there’s nothing like the drama of a top flight tragedy. With the Vikes coming to town, the possibility for great scripts are endless.

2011-09-25T04:45:00.001-07:00

HEY MR. PANDERING POLITICIAN – DON’T FORGET ME!

This is the weekend of my 23rd wedding anniversary, and I’m appalled. I didn’t get a single anniversary present from a Presidential candidate. Not even from Obama, and he’s got a whole mansion full of people who could have sent me a gift.

This may not seem odd to you, if you’re a gentile, but I’m a Jew. This is supposed to be our year. A year where our votes are finally up for grabs between the two parties. A year where the Republicans can come into the Brooklyn/Queens Congressional district with the heaviest concentration of Jews in America and kick some Democratic butt. A year where Jews all over the world are worried about the Mother Ship – the Arab Street seems to be getting more militant, and the strongmen who have kept them down are becoming impotent. A year where politicians from both parties are feeling pressured to announce themselves as the truest friend of Israel – more stalwart than Thou in their support.

So. Where’s my friggen anniversary present? Or at least a card? Can’t a Son of David get some soivice in this establishment?

Undeniably, both parties have been pandering even more than usual to the Jewish vote, but from where I’m sitting, they’re doing it so poorly that it makes you wonder whether they’re being advised by a bunch of gentiles and Jewish impersonators. Take Rick Perry, for example. He called Obama an appeaser for the way Obama lectures Israel and gives the Palestinians free rein. So far, so good. But then Perry suggests that the U.S. might want to consider cutting funding for the Palestinians as punishment for their decision to seek statehood recognition from the U.N. rather than through peace talks with Israel. Is he serious? Cutting funding?

I realize that Mr. Perry has about as much foreign policy experience as the mountain men from Deliverance, but why in the name of Zion would we want to destroy the Palestinian economy? Do we think that if the people of Gaza and the West Bank were appreciably poorer, they would be less militant and more friendly to their so-called “occupiers”? Do we think that poverty would help them decry violence and embrace the Jewish historical claim to a portion of Palestine?

According to a recent poll, one third of Palestinians still support violent resistance toward Israel. Does Perry truly think that if America ushered in an era of greater poverty in Palestine, that portion would go down?

As for Obama, I understand that his speech at the U.N. was supposed to be his boffo attempt to make things right with the Jewish people. Clearly, he recognized that as President, he hadn’t attained the perfect pandering pitch that he had as a candidate in ’08 – when he went into an AIPAC meeting and toasted the idea of an undivided Jerusalem. I get his motivation to remind us that he appreciates why there is a country called Israel. But does that justify why he didn’t mention the Settlements once in his speech? Not once?

After all, for the past three years, it seems that Obama’s entire Israel/Palestine policy was centered around rolling back the Settlements. And now, radio silence. That just seems schizophrenic. President Obama (as opposed to “Candidate” Obama) was right that Israel does need to roll back the Settlements, and he needs to continue drumming in that point. The problem was not in enunciating that policy. It was in refusing to ask ANYTHING from the Palestinians other than the cessation of violence, thereby putting Israel on the defensive that the Palestinians were doing their part for peace so why wasn’t Israel?

And why can’t Obama ask anything of the Palestinians? Even in his United Nations address, he still wouldn’t bring himself to utter the words: “Palestinians need to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.” Why can’t he say that? And, more importantly, why don’t we hear that message from ANY prominent Palestinians?

Seriously, I do appreciate that Israel is becoming a hot topic again on the American political stage. I just wish that our pandering politicians would figure out what Israel needs and what Israel doesn’t need.

First and foremost, we don’t need an impoverished Palestine. We do need a Palestine with an increasingly affluent and well-educated population that is gradually developing the infrastructure of a state that could co-exist with Israel in peace and prosperity. If American funds are needed for that kind of progress, that’s money well spent.

We also don’t need a White House that is afraid to stand up to the right wing of Israel – the ones who pay lip service to supporting a “two-state” solution but are truly hell bent on expanding the size of the Settlements to the point where no Palestinian state could possibly be viable. But we do need a White House that starts making concrete demands to the Palestinian leadership, rather than treating them like a bunch of spoiled children.

This should be our message to the Palestinians: “Burn your anti-Semitic textbooks. And recognize Israel not merely as a ‘state, that has a right to exist,’ but as the ‘Jewish State.’ Then you’ll have the standing to whine about those God-forsaken settlements.”

2011-09-18T09:24:00.001-07:00

THE WORD FOR THE DAY, BOYS AND GIRLS

I feel like I’m on Sesame Street, because today, there only seems to be one word worth talking about. So let’s just say that this blog post is brought to you by the word “polarization.”

American society has been polarized to a large degree for some time. But there’s polarization, and then there’s POLARIZATION. Lately, we seem to have taken our respective forms of extremism to the next level.

I realize this is hardly a scoop, but it wasn’t until these past few weeks that I’ve seen just how bleak the situation has become. First, I left my community of primarily (though not exclusively) liberal Democrats in the Washington DC area to head out to the Midwest and took the opportunity on the drive home to listen to right-wing talk radio for hour after hour after hour. You’d think that the callers into these radio stations, not to mention the hosts, were from a different planet than the coastal liberals with whom I tend to associate. And if that wasn’t enough, I spoke to a group of pro-Israel women one day and then the next day participated in a meeting of a Middle East peace group. Again, if there is common ground between those two groups of people, I’m sure not finding any.

This type of polarization entails many things, none of them healthy: (1) we are tending to open our minds only to a single narrative and ignore the others, (2) dialogue across the ideological divide has become a rarity, because it is perceived as a waste of time, (3) rather than being intrigued by or interested in “the other,” we are antagonized and alienated from them, and (4) if someone does come along with a moderate viewpoint that tries to synthesize the best ideas on both sides of the spectrum, they are commonly viewed with disdain as a “phony” or an “enabler” by those who reside at the poles.

How’s this for a concrete manifestation of our polarized state -- we’re now more than a year before our next election, and the consensus is that we’re so deeply into election mode that we can’t hope to enact any meaningful legislation. (After all, such legislation would be something the Administration can tout, and the opposition party wouldn’t want that to happen.) I suppose that would be no big deal if the country was clearly heading in the right direction. But this is not exactly a time when we need Coolidge-like leadership from Washington. We have profound problems, and these problems can’t be solved by the private sector alone … yet they’ll have to be, because for all intents and purposes, our government is about to be engaged in a 14-month stalemate.

To the Republican/Democrat stalemate, I add the mess that is the Middle East peace process. Could that be any more moribund? The Palestinians’ UN ploy is an act of desperation. They know that recognition by the General Assembly of a state that they don’t fully control is merely symbolic and will serve largely to piss off Israel. But they weren’t getting anything by working with Israel – other than more and more of those God-forsaken settlements, which Israelis imperiously refer to as “facts on the ground.” So what’s their choice, right?

That, at least, is the perspective of my non-Zionistic friends in the peace movement. What they don’t realize is that from the perspective of my fellow Zionists, it completely misses the point: all the Palestinians have to do is recognize Israel as a Jewish State and stop teaching their children to hate that state, and they might indeed find a partner for peace. So why not agree to that? Israeli partisans keep asking that question and never seem to get an answer they can understand.

So yes, it might feel that things are so bad that they can’t get any worse. But keep in mind that the election season hasn’t truly heated up, and that’s when things are really going to get sad. Imagine the way Republicans are about to be portrayed by the Democrats: virulently anti-science, virulently anti-poor, unconcerned about the middle class … and let’s just add, for good measure, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, Enlightenment-phobic …. and pro-death. (You heard those Tea Partiers cheer for the death of people who are ill and lack health insurance.)

As for the Democrats, they’re about to be portrayed on those cute little talk radio stations I’ve been listening to as: virulently anti-economic theory, virulently anti-freedom, unconcerned about the abuses of bureaucracy … and let’s just add, for good measure, socialist, Godless, dishonest, un-American … and pro-death (or at least anti-fetus, which seems to some to be the most important form of human life).

The whole thing has become ridiculous, which is probably why the best choice for President is not Rick Perry or Barack Obama but rather Jon Stewart. He looks to be the most talented of the only group of people who can be invigorated by the status quo – the political comedians. He is positioned to give White House speeches that don’t sound either like warmed-over Jimmy Carter or red meat for John Birchers. Rather than beginning his term with soaring rhetoric, only to see that rhetoric devolve into dismissing as sanctimonious the very people who helped him get elected, Stewart can spend his entire Presidency telling, as he likes to put it, “fart jokes.” (Of course, as any fan of South Park can tell you, true fart jokes aren’t “told,” they are demonstrated.)

I would love it if after a long drive listening to Rush, Sean and Laura, and then after a few hours watching Ed, Keith or Rachel on TV, I could ready myself for a Presidential press conference late in the evening when the kids are asleep. Then, our Commander-in-Chief can regale us with bits about gender, sex, race, and yes, everyone’s favorite room in the house (the WC). Seriously, folks, does the political discourse today warrant anything else? If we’re not going to listen to or respect one other, if we’re not going to work together, shouldn’t we at least get as many laughs as possible at each other’s expense?

I still remember when Arnold the Terminator was first on the ballot for Governor of California and one of his opp0nents was Gary Coleman. A friend of mine – a highly intelligent, politically-savvy, but also fed-up professional woman – voted for Coleman, and it made me feel jealous, at least for a second. I so wanted to be able to vote for someone that funny for such an important position.

Well folks, if things keep deteriorating, we may all be dusting off our pens and writing in comedians in 2012. Tired of the two-party system? Too polarizing? Maybe we do need a third party. Let’s call it the Buffoon Party. It might not win too many elections, but at least its partisans can have a good time when they enter the ballot box instead of having to hold their noses like the rest of us.

2011-09-11T08:53:00.001-07:00

TEN YEARS AFTER

“A free man thinks of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is a meditation on life, not on death.”

“Peace is not the absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition of benevolence, confidence, justice.”

The above quotations both come from Spinoza. Because they each ring so true, they don’t seem at all contradictory. Yet on days like today, as I will explain shortly, a close read cannot help to reveal just how inconsistent they are.

9/11 has meant a lot of things to a lot of people. For many, it has provided the beginning of a lifelong hate-affair -- and not just with an organization (Al Qaeda) but with a religion of more than a billion people (Islam). For most of us, at least here in America, it has served as the second coming of Pearl Harbor – a call to arms. But perhaps the greatest role of 9/11 has been to supply what has become for those of us born after World War II the single most tragic event of our lifetimes. Sure, there were other events that consumed more lives, but they didn’t pack the same emotional punch as 9/11. Earthquakes and tsunamis make you weep about the present, but 9/11 makes you wonder if there is to be a future.

“We the people” used to be a phrase associated with a nation, a body politic. But now, thanks to 9/11, it refers to a species. And it hardly sounds irrational to ask whether that species will soon go the way of the dinosaurs and the dodo birds. If a few troglodytes could destroy two of our most majestic buildings, imagine what those same men could have done if they controlled the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan today or Iran tomorrow.

Osama Bin Laden didn’t quite survive a full ten years after the creation of his evil “masterpiece.” But the dream that inspired him is thriving. He wanted to destroy the United States as an empire, much as he helped destroy the Soviet Union. He wanted America to come rushing into central Asia and spend its blood and treasure on a fool’s errand – conquest and colonization of a land impregnable to modernization. And just look at the results. Unending wars abroad and unending greed domestically have left us with a stagnating economy that even huge deficit spending can’t seem to fix. What’s worse, Bin Laden’s successors may not watch the “United” States dissolve like the Soviet “Union,” yet there is no denying that America is splitting apart at the seams. The inequalities of wealth are getting increasingly stark. Political discourse is getting increasingly polarized and uncivil. And perhaps the only thing that unifies us is disdain for our leaders – Republicans or Democrats, they’re almost all viewed with cynicism and contempt. Yeah, I’d say that Bin Laden’s success as a catalyst of empire-destruction is hard to deny.

To the depressive, then, 9/11 is indeed a rich territory to mine. I could go on and on to describe how our species has been lessened as a result of that event in both obvious and subtle respects … but why bother? We all know a tragedy when we see one. And even though Hollywood will do its best to dramatize the heroism of 9/11, much like it has strived to soak all of the heroism possible out of the Holocaust (see, e.g., Schindler’s List), the devastating consequences of these events are exponentially more profound than their uplifting qualities.

But just because 9/11 is tragic, doesn’t mean we should ignore it. Quite the contrary -- it is precisely the tragedies of life that supply the greatest learning opportunities. Speaking for myself, 9/11 has spurred me to (a) become a peace activist, (b) write a book (Moses the Heretic) that is largely about peace, (c) become a student of Islam, and (d) co-found and coordinate the Jewish-Islamic Dialogue Society of Washington. There is absolutely no reason to believe that I would have done any of those things had Bin Laden’s butchers not hijacked those airplanes. And now, peace work has become among my life’s greatest passions.

So yes, 9/11 should move us to think and more importantly, to act. And like any far-reaching and momentous event, it can legitimately move people to act in widely different ways. I applaud those who, as a result of 9/11, are working to better detect and root out terrorism here and abroad. We should all be especially grateful to those who have joined the military as a result of 9/11 and who are risking their lives so that the rest of us may enjoy ours. But for me, as paradoxical as it may seem to some, 9/11 has served primarily as a spur to working for peace and dialogue, not as a call to arms. Instinctively, I must have recognized so much of the “hate-affair” that I mentioned earlier is really a result of ignorance – ignorance in the Muslim world about the West, and ignorance in the West about Islam. I assumed that the best way to minimize the number and impact of future 9/11s is to combat that ignorance with … if I may say it … empathic, rationalistic dialogue.

Spinoza was, of course, 100% correct, when he said that peace, at its roots, is not the absence of war but rather a certain pro-active disposition characterized by such faculties as benevolence, confidence and justice. As long as the majority of people believe that they are working for peace simply by refraining from making war, they will allow inter-group relationships to be dominated by the minorities among us who sow the seeds of discord. Only a pro-active effort to wage peace can combat and defeat the inevitable efforts to wage war.

Those words sound obvious, and yet it is shocking how few peacemakers exist among us – even the so-called “peace movement” is largely populated by passionate partisans whose view of peace would involve concessions by one side to a conflict and not the other. Why are true peacemakers so rare? It is a sad question to ask, but at least we have a pretty good idea of the answers. Consider, to begin, that it seems like such a Herculean task to bring an end to a widespread conflict. Just about any other cause imaginable offers more tangible and likely successes. Secondly, it is precisely because making peace is so difficult that it is so unbearable, when you consider that the word “peace” conjures up images of harmony, relaxation, and quiet enjoyment. The juxtaposition between peace as a euphoric ideal and working-for-peace as among the most frustrating activities imaginable is devastating when it comes to recruitment.

And yet, I still cannot bring myself to abandon this movement. For what is as holy as working for peace? And what is as rewarding as making genuine strides in the movement for peace? Today of all days, I cannot begin to offer an alternative.

As for the other Spinoza quotation at the beginning of this blog post – the admonition to think about death least of all things – I’m normally a huge fan of that statement. Surely, Spinoza correctly perceived how religions people who are enamored with speculation about the after-life so commonly seem to forget the importance of making a difference in the here and now. And just as surely, he was also reflecting on those individuals who are so fearful about their status after death that they lose their ability to embrace and enjoy their time on earth. Generally, I support anything and everything that can be said to get people to focus on the tasks before us and to view what comes next as simply part of the mystery that transcends human comprehension.

But today, I feel differently.

Today, those of us who are truly devoted to peace are compelled to think about death. We simply cannot avoid thinking about it even if we wanted to. How can we ignore the deaths of the thousands who went to work at the Twin Towers or the Pentagon, or who decided to take a flight across the country, only to expire at the hands of devout, yet depraved God-worshipers? And how can we ignore thinking about the hundreds of thousands who died in the wars that resulted from 9/11 – wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other conflicts in the Arab world that can legitimately be traced to the events of ten years ago? It is the job of the peacemaker to think about what a great obligation we have to honor the names and the lives of these individuals – not simply by weeping at their demise, but by striving to ensure that they did not die in vain.

I have already told you how my life and my conduct has changed as a result of 9/11. What about you? How has 9/11 affected you? What can you do to honor the dead? The same question can be asked of us when we think about other similar tragedies – American slavery, the Civil War, the Holocaust … or for that matter, the Black Plague. The memory of all of these events can serve as an inspiration. But there is no muse quite like a momentous world tragedy that occurs in one’s own lifetime. If that won’t get your blood flowing, perhaps you need a transfusion.

In short, we know of two kinds of motivating experiences in life – happy ones and learning ones. Let’s all take steps to ensure that 9/11 remains within the pantheon when it comes to the latter.

2011-09-02T16:37:00.000-07:00

RITE OF PASSAGE

The Empathic Rationalist will fortunately not have a substantive post this weekend. I say “fortunately” because of the reason – it will be my privilege to drive my younger daughter to college in Minnesota. It’s the first time one of my girls has moved outside of the DC area, and I will miss her terribly, but I’m thrilled for her to get the chance to study at one of America’s great liberal arts colleges (Carleton) and watch her favorite sports teams (Vikings and Twins).

If on Wednesday morning, you happen to be on the roadways of the Upper Midwest and see a car with Maryland license plates that say “SPINOZA,” you might get the pleasure of watching a grown man cry. It’s hard to let that little bird fly away from the nest – particularly when you know that your nest will now be “empty.” But in a few weeks, my wife and I will be celebrating 23 wonderful years together, and while it will be the first year that we won’t have a daughter living at home, at least we can be thankful that we have each other. May you all be as fortunate as I have been in finding a partner for life.

2011-08-27T07:04:00.001-07:00

PENDULAR POLITICS

This is a crazy week here in the American capital. First, we have a significant earthquake. That alone counts as a change in the laws of nature as we knew them. And now, we have a hurricane that is supposed to bring dangerous winds to a radius of something like 5 quintillion miles of the east coast. My daughter was booked to perform at a winery today in north-central Virginia from 2:00 to 6:00. So far the show hasn’t been cancelled. So … if I end up going, and if I happen to be blown into the Potomac River on the way back home, it’s been nice knowing you all.

Yeah, I know. If I were the Grim Reaper, I’d consider that last sentence pretty cocky. “Who is this punk Spiro to tempt fate like that? Does he not think I’m capable of blowing his mini-van off the road with gusts of 50+ miles per hour? Just because it has ‘SPINOZA’ license plates, why should that make me think twice about playing havoc with that vehicle. Anybody who would drive on a highway during a hurricane deserves whatever’s coming to him.”

All true. But what the Grim Reaper may not be recognizing is that this week in Washington is also about celebrating cockiness. It’s the one characteristic that best describes our newest flavor of the month – the man who is increasingly being spoken about as the next President of the United States. The man who, in college, got 2 As, 10 Bs, 12 Cs, 6 Ds and an F – and who laughed that off, entered the field of politics, changed political parties, ran for election after election and never tasted defeat, and now finds himself overwhelmingly ahead of the entire Republican field almost immediately after throwing his hat in the ring.

What was in that hat, anyway? Nuclear weapons?

Michelle Bachman? See ya’. Give my regards to the good people of Stepford. Mitt Romney? On the ropes, and seemingly incapable of defending himself. When you figure out what color to turn before the next campaign, let us know. Barack Obama? No sooner has the Great White Hope entered the race than our current leader finds his approval rating down to 38%. That would be cause for concern if he were running against Rick Santorum – or for that matter, Rick James. (I can just see Rick James entering the stage at the Republican National Convention to the words of “She is such a kinky girl. The kind you don’t take home to mother.”)

Unfortunately for our President, he won’t have the fortune of running against Rick Santorum or Rick James. But increasingly, it is beginning to look like he will have the misfortune of running against another Rick. Some of you might be rolling the ol’ eyes right now, or at least wondering what I’ve been smoking. Rick Perry is an extreme conservative, you’re probably thinking, who has taken on Social Security and believes that climate change is a hoax. Why wouldn’t Obama jump at the chance to go to the mat with this guy – and, in particular, to compete for the independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans who tend to hold the balance of power in any Presidential election? Clearly, their views are much, much closer to Obama’s than Perry’s.

Then again, Americans might not be electing a President whose views on public policy issues are most like theirs. If that was what they cared about, they wouldn’t bounce from Bill Clinton, to George Bush/Dick Cheney, and then to Barack Obama.

Personally, I’m beginning to see a pattern. We look at whoever is manning the store at the moment, decide if he’s taking that store in the right or wrong direction, and if we don’t like what we see, desperately search for the opposite. We saw Bush and Cheney as a couple of cowboys whose constituents were all millionaires and the fools they were able to bamboozle. And so we elected a professor – open-minded, compassionate, progressive … in short, the un-Cheney.

And now, with the unemployment rate hovering north of 8% despite record deficits, and with a President who is viewed alternatively as the “Capitulator-in-Chief” or as one who “leads from behind,” America may be looking for big, brass cohunes. Ideally, we could elect someone like the Baltimore Raven’s Ray Lewis, a hard-hitting middle linebacker who has been convicted of obstructing justice in connection with a murder. Now that’s the kind of leader who wouldn’t take any guff from the bozos on Capitol Hill, right? But Lewis isn’t running. Nor is any actor who plays action heroes in the movies. So we might have to settle for the next best thing: a big strong Texan who is willing to spit in the face of conventional wisdom, vilify our top government officials, uproot the federal bureaucracy like a bunch of weeds, and challenge America to act first and ask questions later.

To much of America – and perhaps most of coastal America -- Rick Perry sounds like a goofball. But I still remember the way the chattering class spoke about “Ronald Rea-guns” circa 1979, and yet he was elected a year later as the un-Carter. Quite obviously, Perry is now running as the un-Obama, and his strategy has been solid gold. I don’t doubt for a second that after four or eight years of a Perry presidency, we could be back at the well, falling in love with a clone of Adlai Stevenson. Instead of an Aggie with a 2.2 GPA, we’d be electing a Swarthmorean was a 3.95 in Art History (and whose only Bs were in macroeconomics).

But 2016 or 2020 is not my concern right now. I’m focused on 2012. I’m thinking about how Barack Obama, he of the 38% approval rating and the Congress that seems hell-bent to keep it that low, can get back the big Mo and win this next election. For starters, he best not underestimate Rick Perry. But most importantly, he must think about precisely WHY Rick Perry has all of a sudden become so popular.

If I had a chance to talk to our President, and I had the stones to “tell it like it is,” here’s what I’d say:

“Take a look at the mirror, Mr. President. America isn’t liking what you’re looking at. And America is telling you exactly what it wants to see. Be a bit more like Perry. Take some bold steps – some audacious steps, to use a word that you used to be able to say with a straight face – and stop fearing the price of failure. When Perry puts his foot in his mouth, he acts like he doesn’t care, and quickly the media forgets what he said in the first place. He’s got the swagger you want. And he’s got the testicles you need. What he doesn’t have are your brains. Their your edge – but they’re worth nothing without the whole package.

“You’re still in the driver’s seat, Mr. President. So after the vacation is over, let’s see what you got. As for the rest of us, we can pretty much tell what we’ll get in 2012: either Obama or the un-Obama. And his name is Rick Perry.”

2011-08-21T19:13:00.001-07:00

TWENTY EIGHT HOURS

That is the time that I’ve put into my government job since close of business on Friday evening -- and the weekend isn't even over yet. Am I bragging? Hardly. I think it’s an irreligious number, literally and figuratively. But I feel compelled to disclose it for two reasons. First, for all you Empathic Rationalist readers, it explains why you haven’t seen a more substantial post than this one this weekend. And second, for all you right-wing Empathic Rationalist readers, it points out how ridiculous your theory can be that government workers are all a bunch of welfare queens who expect excellent pay for minimal work.

This past Friday night, I attended a meeting with a bunch of my fellow “welfare queens” – I mean government lawyers -- that didn’t end until after midnight. None of us collected overtime for our efforts, and you could surely find private sector attorneys who never made partner at their firms but who earn twice or more of what we earn. But on we worked.

I am the first one to say that if there are federal programs that aren’t accomplishing much, get rid of them. And if there are federal employees who don’t do their jobs at all or do them inappropriately, let’s figure out a way to streamline the process to can them too. I agree with my Republican friends in that regard. But what I hear lately from some of the GOP politicians is an out-and-out war on the civil service – a thorough disrespect for what we do, our commitment to the public, and our claim to respectable compensation. And that attitude is not only disgraceful, but dangerous. For when we lose all respect for those who draft and enforce our regulations, set our health and environmental standards, and otherwise attempt to keep this national boat on a sane keel, that’s precisely when we lose our sanity. “Anarchy in the UK” was a good album, but let’s not bring that idea to the US just yet.

2011-08-13T09:47:00.001-07:00

HUMANS AND OTHER ANIMALS

"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Genesis 1:26

These days, it seems like everyone has something bad to say about religion. It is said to be the ground of ignorance – the opiate of the masses. It is alleged to be the source of fanaticism and extremism. It is blamed for much of the divisiveness that has engulfed our societies. And it is charged with breeding a mentality that focuses upon the non-existent heavens and becomes apathetic about the most profound problems of our world.

Personally, I find many of those criticisms to be overblown. Sure, we can point out various shortcomings with the religious mentality, but we also could do the same for all other walks of life – the business world, the realm of government, even the domain of academia. Something tells me that if we didn’t have religion, humanity would not magically be transformed into a race of Einsteins and Edisons. Take away religion, and what is more likely to rise in its place: a passionate love for mathematics and metaphysics, or a greater willingness to drink, smoke, lie and cheat? Forgive me for being cynical, but I doubt it’s the former.

Generally speaking, then, I view myself as a fan of religion, rather than one of its critics. But this is not to say I buy into all of it hook, line and sinker. And among my greatest complaints is the way religion tends to elevate human beings into the realm of the divine (creating God in our image, despite our claims to having been made in the image of God) and devalue the worth of the so-called “lower” animals.

These last few weeks, the “lower” animals have been on my mind more than usual. On August 3rd, my daughter Rebecca returned home from a month in Malaysia, where she worked with lots of orangutans and a few chimpanzees. When she played the videos and slide show of her experience for the rest of the family, it was clear how much she adored each of these animals and how individually she viewed their personalities. I couldn’t help but notice the contrast between the way she talked about the apes and the way that people tend to describe these “beasts” – as stupid, ugly, and dangerous.

No, I’m not blaming all this species-chauvinism on religion. What is sad, though, is how much religion has compounded the problem, at least in the western world. We in the west have no “sacred cows.” In fact, people here commonly eat cows, pigs, and other mammals, not to mention chicken, duck and fish. Moreover, our religious bodies continue to support the killing of animals for food, even though vegetarianism is clearly preferable for the environment and may even be better for our own health as individuals.

In Judaism, we used to sacrifice animals to God at the Holy Temple. That practice stopped, but the tradition states that it ceased only because the Temple was destroyed. Presumably, if the Jews are ever able to rebuild the Temple, we would be privileged with the honor of once again placing animals on the altar and burning them to death – as a message of thanks to the omni-benevolent Lord.

I find it ironic that atheists these days commonly attempt to appropriate the term “humanism” for their philosophy. Because honestly, what can be more humanistic than traditional western religion? It has created a God who is human-like. It has directed the attention of this God on human beings and the planet Earth, which clearly seems to be the center of the religious universe. (“Heaven” is, of course, outside of this universe.) And it teaches that human beings have dominion over the Earth and all its other creatures.

Spinoza’s philosophy was often sharply opposed to the teachings of traditional, organized religion. But he was never more traditional than when he wrote, in the Ethics (Part IV, Appendix, XXVI): “Besides men, we know of no particular thing in nature in whose mind we may rejoice, and whom we can associate with ourselves in friendship or any sort of fellowship; therefore, whatsoever there be in nature besides man, a regard for our advantage does not call on us to preserve, but to preserve or destroy according to its various capabilities, and to adopt to our use as best we may.”

As Rebecca Spiro can attest, Spinoza was wrong. My daughter would have seen evidence of that fact not only during her trip to Malaysia, but shortly after she returned.

Last weekend, everything seemed normal around the Spiro house. We were celebrating a birthday – my mother’s 90th to be precise. We were all happy and healthy – my mom, my kids, my dogs, everyone. As the week wore on, however, Carly, the younger of our two bichon frises, began to show signs of being sick. On Wednesday, she had no appetite, and we’re talking about a dog with a voracious appetite. On Thursday morning, it was clear that something was very wrong with Carly -- her appetite had not returned, and she was clearly in pain, though we had no idea where the pain was coming from. My wife took her to the vet, the vet did some tests, and it became clear that Carly had a tumor that was affecting her spleen, among other symptoms. The prognosis was poor, though the vet said that she might have a chance if he were allowed to remove the tumor. We gave Carly that chance. By 4:00 p.m. that afternoon, Carly was gone.

Later that evening, we had a service in the backyard. My older daughter Hannah, the aspiring rabbi, read some passages from the Torah while fighting off tears. Hannah pointed out that she could not read any of the traditional Hebrew prayers that you would read if a human had died – God forbid that we would ever treat a “mere animal” with that much respect, it just wouldn’t be “kosher” (that is reserved for killing animals, not honoring them). But while Hannah followed the Jewish tradition in what she would not read, she followed the family tradition in crying when she did read. My mother said a few words, as did I, as did my wife. We talked about Carly’s personality – her gentleness, her affection, her warmth, her hyperactivity. Some would call her neurotic, but we adored her as much for her nervous energy as for her perpetual licking, cuddling and smiling.

Then, when everyone else had finished saying their words, it had come time for Rebecca to speak. She hadn’t said anything for some time. (Perhaps an hour or two later, Hannah pointed out that Rebecca seemed more depressed about Carly’s passing than the rest of the family combined, which is saying a lot, since we had all been bawling. Hannah made that statement when Rebecca was out of the house – not coincidentally, she was taking care of a neighbor’s cat across the street.)

I looked at Rebecca, waiting for her to say something, anything, to pay respect to our beloved pet. Finally, she spoke, quietly but clearly. A short sentence – and then she would be finished. But it perfectly described what we all had been feeling, if perhaps not as viscerally as Rebecca.

“She was one of my best friends.”

Carly Simon Spiro: July 12, 2000 -- August 11, 2011. RIP.

2011-08-06T10:43:00.000-07:00

“WHY OBAMA?” REVISITED

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.”

Ecclesiastes 3

On August 17, 2008, the blog Largehearted Boy published a piece I wrote as part of a series entitled “Why Obama.” I am reproducing it here in its entirety to point out precisely why I thought that the time was ripe for an Obama Presidency. Clearly, I was correct that the time was ripe for an Obama candidacy … but the issue I was attempting to address didn’t involve his electability, but his effectiveness if elected. It was on that point that I seem to have been, to put it mildly, less than prescient.

Here’s the 2008 piece:

“On July 27, 2004, the same day I turned 44, I sat in my mother’s living room mesmerized by the television set. It was showing the Democratic National Convention, and the nominee, John Kerry, had selected a young state senator from Illinois to give the keynote address. On that night, the speaker, Barack Obama, was introduced to the American public. Obama’s address, entitled “The Audacity of Hope,” positioned him as a mainstream progressive who, with good looks, a gifted flair for rhetoric, and a biracial background, would appear to represent the future of American politics. Still in his early 40s, he seemed years, perhaps even decades, from reaching the pinnacle of his power, but there was no question that the sky was the limit. This man, stated simply, was a natural.

“Obama made many fans that night, but few could possibly have been more impressed than I was. That address, you see, came at a pivotal time in my life. I was in the editing stages of my first novel, The Creed Room, which is both a story and an exposition of my personal philosophy. Like all first time novelists, I was insecure about my prospects for publication, or for that matter, the quality of my work. That’s when I saw Obama speak. He seemed to personify just the type of statesman I had been calling for in that book. And that fact accomplished two things. First, it told me, once I saw the incredible reaction to the man, that my book was on to something. Second, it made me feel that The Creed Room wasn’t quite as original as I had thought. There was at least one man out there, I realized, who hardly needed to read the book. He instinctively understood everything I was saying and, unlike me, was in a position to make my vision a reality.

“Consider the qualities Obama exemplifies. Merely by looking at the guy you can’t help but think of such ideas as “melting pot” and “unity.” When you hear him speak, it is also apparent that this man is thoroughly grounded in spirituality. We may not like his pastors, but we have trouble denying his passion. Barack is also a former president of the Harvard Law Review, so he’s obviously intelligent. In fact, he exudes a mental capacity even more than intelligence: thoughtfulness. This guy is professorial without being didactic. He obviously loves to think things through, but he isn’t simply interested in his own thoughts; he wants to learn from others as well. And it is perhaps those qualities that give him such good judgment, including the judgment to buck the trend among ambitious politicians and reach the correct view on the critical issue of the last several years -- whether to support the Iraq War from its inception.

“I know from the practice of law that some litigators trade above all else on their reputation for integrity, whereas others trade on different things – like their willingness to fight like hell for their client and never back down. Barack is in the former camp. For him, his reputation for ethical excellence is everything. As I watched Obama’s keynote address, I said to myself that this is a man who will think long and hard before he would get himself mixed up in a Watergate or a Monicagate.

“We all know what a great orator Obama is, and how much he has been able to move people in America and abroad, including many who had grown apathetic about politicians. And yet what excites me the most about Obama isn’t merely his ability to inspire, but his ability to inspire something very specific: the hope that, just maybe, we can bridge the fundamental chasms that divide us so profoundly as human beings.

“When I get into political discussions with Obama’s detractors, I sometimes hear the criticism that he is an “empty suit” or “lacks substance.” Presumably, people are referring to the fact that he hasn’t enunciated what two or three issues are most important to him and how precisely he hopes to tackle them, or what other issues are nearly as important to him and how precisely he hopes to tackle them as well.

“Don’t you see why he hasn’t? Don’t you see why it would be unfortunate if we forced him to? Obama has been honest with us about who he is and why he’s running. He has written books about his checkered personal life. He has spoken about his cocaine use. He has even said, in reference to another drug, “Yes I inhaled. That was the point.” He has a record of votes that shows he’s a liberal and has mentioned various areas in which he’d like to implement reforms. He has also laid out a specific ‘plan’ to address our inadequate health care system.

“But the truth is that if you buy my vision for an Obama Presidency, you must know that he needs to remain flexible. Once he wins the election – assuming the nation wakes up before it’s too late, which is often a lousy assumption – he needs to take the temperature of the nation to determine which fundamental changes are ripe for the picking if only we had a modern-day Demosthenes to lead us in making them. Then, he can work to make these changes … one at a time … all the while remembering that it takes a large coalition of conservatives as well as liberals to wage wars, whether they involve killing people on the battlefield, stemming global warming, or alleviating the scourge of poverty.

“I don’t want to lie to myself. Even assuming Obama can get elected, I don’t know if he can sufficiently unify this nation to form the type of critical mass needed to implement necessary changes. But this much I do know: without him, there’s not a lot of gas in our collective tank. And for those of us who call ourselves progressives, or who dare to call ourselves liberals, isn’t it worth taking a chance on someone who can at least use the word “hope” and pass the laugh test?”

There you have it – a coherent argument that turned out to be just plain wrong. The problem with it is not that it trumped up positive Obama traits that didn’t exist. Well, OK. Possibly Barack isn’t as spiritual as he came across in 2004. But for the most part, he has demonstrated many of the positive traits I discussed: he’s intelligent, thoughtful, open-minded, honest, flexible, articulate, ethical. And I could have added others: charismatic, classy, empathetic …

There are no shortage of compliments that could aptly be bestowed on our President. But the problem is that it does not help being an Achilles once you have been shot in the heel. And now that we are more than halfway through the Obama Presidency – or at least his first term – we can see that this Presidency has a fatal weakness, which has become more like a cancer than a simple arrow to the foot. Achilles died quickly. But this Presidency lingers, through battle after battle, and in each case, the victors are the ones who voted AGAINST Obama, not the ones who voted for him. Barack’s weakness is not his heel, but his stomach: specifically, his stomach for an honest-to-God fight against his adversaries.

Perhaps the key part of the above essay is the following: “I know from the practice of law that some litigators trade above all else on their reputation for integrity, whereas others trade on different things – like their willingness to fight like hell for their client and never back down. Barack is in the former camp. For him, his reputation for ethical excellence is everything.” But isn’t the problem that over and over and over again, Barack’s Republican adversaries have demonstrated that they are Mixed Martial Arts fighters – willing to throw elbows and choke holds, if necessary, to bring down the Obama Presidency and the progressive agenda. Barack knows it, everyone knows it. Clearly, the only responsible way of responding is to “fight like hell … and never back down.” Right? But for some reason, Barack has been unwilling. When in December 2010 he had a chance to demand that if the Republicans wanted their God-forsaken tax cuts for the rich, they’d have to take away their God-forsaken threat to destroy the Government’s credit worthiness, did he make that demand? Of course not. Barack isn’t one to make demands on his adversaries; he prefers instead the style of making concessions, and trusting that they will make concessions in return. (That is, after all, the Christian thing to do.)

Perhaps the wisdom behind Barack’s leadership strategy is lost on me because I’m a Jew, not a Christian. I was taught that “turning the other cheek” is the model of absurdity, not holiness. I was taught that just as there is a time for peace, there is also a time for war. My 2008 argument for Obama was premised on the idea that he was ideally suited to lead us in undertaking massive projects that only a unified nation could accomplish: like tackling global warming or the increasingly lopsided distribution of wealth. Quickly, however, it became clear that the Republican powers-that-be were unwilling to play in that sandbox. But Barack was fortunately in charge of a political party that controlled both houses of Congress and had the 60 Senators needed to defeat a filibuster, so sure enough, during his first two years, the Dems were able to enact landmark health-care legislation. The real problems came once they lost that supermajority in the Senate and any majority in the House. At that point, Barack was forced to look the Republicans in the eyes while standing on level ground. And repeatedly, he has been the one to blink. It’s not exactly what I had in mind back in 2008.

To all of you progressives who have difficulty admitting that you were wrong, please at least refrain from blaming what has transpired solely on the Republicans. Most political oppositions, given the blessing of knowing that they can get the party-in-power to capitulate at every juncture, would indeed play hardball. Why shouldn’t they? You can’t really accuse them of playing dangerous games of chicken – for that game involves taking risks, and there never seems to be any risk in entering into negotiations with today’s Democratic party. We all know from the outset that they’re prepared to cave. The only mystery is in whether they will give the GOP 60% of what they want, 70%, 80%, or more. As long as the Republicans give in on 5% of their demands, the President is prepared to tout the deal as a “compromise” – and, in at least one case, blame his progressive critics for being “sanctimonious” and “purists.”

Seriously, how can anyone blame the Republicans for playing this game? If there is blame to be placed, it should be placed on people like me who thrust Barack into the spotlight before he had demonstrated the ability to go toe-to-toe against street fighters. Blame should be placed on the blogosphere, the vapid Hollywood celebrities, and the other softhearted, utopian elements who were so blinded by Barack’s brilliance that they didn’t bother to inspect his heel … or his guts.
We have already enabled Barack enough. Let’s please stop, shall we? Barack is big on asking us to call our elected officials and implore them to do the right thing. Well, fine -- let’s just do that, shall we? It’s time to call our elected officials in Washington – assuming they are Democrat – and ask them to stop spinning that the Administration is on the right track and blaming all the universe’s problems on the Republicans. Ask them to stop pretending that the Democratic party is not accountable for anything – even though they have controlled the White House and the Senate for most of the last three years.

Right now, the central problem with our Government is that neither Barack Obama nor his supporters in Congress have demonstrated the willingness to fight for the causes that got them elected in the first place. They have collectively failed to show that they stand strongly for anything – other than their own precious re-elections.

So if and when you call your Congressperson or Senator, why don’t you demand that they act like Democrats and not DINOs – Democrats in Name Only – who don’t deserve to be re-elected. And why not remind them that the election of 2012 doesn’t seem to matter as much as past elections, for no matter who is nominally in charge in Washington, the Republicans will rule. That point might actually get their attention.

The times they are a changin’, and progressives need to change with them. If that means supporting the candidacy of bare-knuckled schmucks like Lyndon Baines Johnson over prophetic figures like candidate Barack Obama, so be it. You don’t always fight fire with love and Christian ethics. Sometimes, as Ecclesiastes would remind you, you fight fire with fire. And as the Presidency of Barack Obama has amply demonstrated, this has become one of those times.

2011-07-31T08:18:00.001-07:00

IS AMERICA BECOMING A BANANA REPUBLIC?

Throughout the years of my youth, I took pride in the fact that America was a nation with a thriving middle class. There were pockets of extreme wealth here, to be sure, but that could be said of just about any country. The difference is that in the so-called “third world,” the affluent represented a tiny minority, whereas the vast majority of the people were quite poor. I saw this for myself when I vacationed a couple of times in Jamaica or traveled to Mexico. It was so nice to return to America and not see such an unequal distribution of wealth.

Well … I am sure our wealth distribution is still more equitable than that of Mexico or Jamaica, but we seem to have turned the corner in a downward spiral. And if anyone had doubts about this point, they should have been dispelled earlier this past week, when the Pew Research Center released its report of the median wealth of American households in 2009.

The numbers are stark. From 2005 to 2009, the median household net worth dropped from $135K to $113K for white families, $167K to $78K for Asian-American families, $18K to $6,325 for Hispanic families, and $12K to $5,677 for African-American households.

The lead headline for these numbers was that the wealth disparity between white households and African American or Hispanic households grew tremendously to where white Americans now have, on average, 20 times the assets of blacks and 18 times the assets of Hispanics. But to me, the shocking numbers are the dollar figures themselves. If you are African-American or Hispanic family and your assets exceed liabilities by $6,400, you are now better off than most other Americans from your ethnic group. By contrast, partners from big law firms commonly bill more than that amount in a single day.

In total, as of 2009, there were about 4.7 million households in America with a net worth of at least a million dollars, representing roughly 4.1 percent of all the nation’s households. With the stock market rebound, that number has surely grown significantly in the past two years, and economists are expecting it to grow dramatically in the next decade. There is no question that while times are tough for the average African-American or Hispanic American, the wealthiest among us are doing just fine.

I think a lot about these figures these days when listening to the talking heads on TV angst about the debt ceiling negotiations. They want to turn those negotiations into a proverbial page turner. But who are they kidding? The people who run our government today are clearly beholden to the 4+ percent of the nation who are worth a million dollars (and who generate the lion’s share of political contributions), and the last thing they’re going to do is watch their stock portfolios go up in smoke. We’ll get a debt-ceiling deal, and it will be hailed as a great accomplishment by some of the yentas on Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But when all is said and done, the deal will be just one more sign that this nation is becoming a banana republic – albeit on a larger scale than our neighbors to the south.

Clearly, if anyone should be sacrificing in these negotiations, it would be the Americans who are best able to withstand the sacrifice. President Obama was first proposing to increase taxes on those Americans who earn at least $250,000 per year, but later, it was clear that he would have been happy to limit the tax increase to Americans who earn a cool million. No matter – the GOP guardians-of-great-wealth were unwilling to permit even the more restrictive tax increase. So if you earn at least $1 million a year – and if your family’s net worth is measured not in the seven figures but rather in the eight, nine or ten – have no fear. You and your assets will be just fine.

The “compromise” that will be hailed on Tuesday will be felt by a very different group of Americans – the ones who depend on programs like Medicare and Social Security. These include Americans on the south side of the 50th percentile in terms of family net worth. Democrats will tell you that they oppose this approach – that they would much prefer raising taxes on the rich to cutting benefits for the poor or middle class – but had no choice in the matter. The Republicans, they will say, drove a hard bargain. They were willing to drive our collective car off the cliff, Thelma and Louise-style, and the only sane option was to reach a “compromise” in which taxes would be left alone and the budget would be balanced on the backs of those who can afford it the least. This was the same reasoning they employed when, in early 2009, we saved our banks by spewing bazillions of dollars onto Wall Street with virtually no strings attached. It was either that, the Democrats will tell you, or suffer financial Armageddon.

Personally, I’m growing a little tired of all the rationalizations and euphemisms. We “have no choice” but to “reach a compromise.” I find it hard to believe that we have no choice, and I find it impossible to call any of this a “compromise.” In 2008, I joined most of my fellow Americans in voting for what appeared to be a progressive President and a progressive Congress. And what do we have? One party rule – and it’s not the progressive one.

To be sure, the Democrats are being given an extremely difficult hand of cards. But are they doing the most with those cards? Can they not at least try to drum into the heads of the American public the most relevant facts – including the numbers that tell the real tale here?

For me, the two most relevant numbers are $6,325 and $5,677. They are difficult to remember. But once you focus on them and realize what they represent, they’re very difficult to ignore altogether.

By the way, next time you call your local Congressperson, why don’t you ask for the price of a good house servant. They’ll probably tell you to wait a few years, for surely the price will go down. But I think you’re likely to get a pretty good deal right now. And if you live in Bethesda, Beverly Hills or Scarsdale, I don’t doubt for a second that you can afford it.

2011-07-10T01:40:00.000-07:00

A FORK IN THE ROAD

The negotiations over the debt ceiling are truly shaping up as one of the great dramas of our time. If only they weren’t so important, this would be pretty entertaining stuff.

As a progressive, it is easy for me to fear what might happen – massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and minimal tax increases for wealthy individuals and corporations. After all, President Obama doesn’t have the best track record in negotiating huge deals; he tends to unilaterally give up a ton at the start and then search for a meaningful compromise, which is not exactly a technique taught in Negotiations classes.

Still, every now and then, I wonder if the debt ceiling talks might actually provide a much needed opportunity for Washington to address some of its long term problems. Amassing huge quantities of debt offends me as a son of two children of the Great Depression. It’s time to live within our means, wouldn’t you say? Our tax code is a nightmare in terms of not only its complexity but its ridiculous and offensive giveaways to special interests. Can’t we at least get that code reformed? And if in order to stop our passion for deficit spending, we need to generate more revenue than what can be accomplished merely by closing loopholes, isn’t it time to roll back those Bush tax cuts, at least insofar as they benefit the wealthy?

What did you say? The Republicans will never go for it? Well they might, if the Democrats are willing to put spending cuts on the table, and I think they will and they should – not necessarily Medicaid, but Medicare and even Social Security. As sad as it would be to take part of the nest egg away from of our nation’s aged and infirm, as long as our wealthy are being asked to take on their fair share of the burden, middle class Americans should be willing to pitch in as well. We owe it to our children and grandchildren, who for years have been subsidizing our fiscal irresponsibility.

So are we headed in the direction of increasing the marginal tax rate for wealthy individuals, closing the tax loopholes, and making Medicare, Social Security, and for that matter, the military, a bit leaner and meaner? Many would oppose this course on the grounds that we’re already suffering economically, so it seems an inopportune time to think about budget cuts and tax increases. But if not now, when? If we whiff on this opportunity to confront the National Debt, despite the fact that the problem is now at the center of our focus, do we really think another opportunity will come around any time soon? Trust me, when it comes to making short term concessions to advance long term goals, this nation has developed a pretty sorry track record lately. If there is an emerging consensus on the need for serious debt reduction, we might want to take this shot while we can.

In short, despite what all the Chicken Littles are saying, the unfolding drama that is now unfolding in Washington might actually produce welcome, as well as nightmarish, results. Truth be told, I suppose I’m still a bit pessimistic, but maybe President Obama will surprise us. Or better still, maybe Speaker Boehner will surprise us. It will be pretty exciting to find out.

ON A FINAL NOTE: I will be on the road for nearly all of the remainder of July, so it is unlikely there will be any more Empathic Rationalist posts until the month’s end. I hope you all are having a great summer and look forward to posting again in the hot and humid month of August.

Take care.

2011-07-04T16:45:00.000-07:00

A JULY 4TH ESSAY

Today, I was honored to give the keynote address at a 4th of July breakfast sponsored by the Greater Baltimore Muslim Council. What follows is what I said (give or take a few words). I bet you can identify the statement about which someone from the audience later said that she, as a Muslim American, could never have gotten away with saying what I said as a Jewish American. Sadly, I have to agree that she's right.

Here's the talk:

As the Coordinator of the Jewish-Islamic Dialogue Society of Washington, I am often called upon to sing the praises of certain homelands. Inevitably, these places are associated with a particular ethnic group. I might be asked to explain, for example, why, as a Jew, I can be such a committed Palestinian nationalist. Or why, as a lover of justice, I can be such a devoted Zionist. Most people embrace one of these states -- they become lovers of Palestinian sovereignty or of the Jewish State -- but I am proud to embrace both. And I enjoy explaining what it means to have a vision of “two states for two peoples,” both of whom constitute first cousins in the same family, the family of Abraham.

Today, though, I have been asked to proclaim my love for a very different country -- not a homeland for a single ethnic group, but rather a melting pot state. In such a state, peoples from all over the world come together and celebrate their common humanity. To be sure, this melting pot has ethnic neighborhoods, ethnic religious congregations, and even recognizes some ethnic holidays. But what it doesn’t have is the sense that one ethnic group holds a more central place in its cultural fabric than any other. Rather, the nation to which I allude wishes to create a common tapestry in which all of the world’s cultures participate. The nation’s motto is e pluribus unum – “out of many, one.” And that requires honoring each and every ethnic culture that contributes to the fabric. But perhaps even more importantly, it challenges people to figure out how to create the most beautiful fabric possible out of such a diverse set of threads.

That is the quintessential challenge posed by the United States of America. And it has many formulations. What principles can we adopt to help us all live in peace and with justice? What happens when our notions of freedom and equity conflict? And have we learned lessons from our own melting pot nation that can be used to inform debates between warring groups outside of these borders? To these types of questions, which have been around from the time of this nation’s founding, others have been added resulting from the nation’s unique wealth and power: are we responsible for serving as the world’s mediator? Or as its policeman? I go back and forth when I think about those latter issues, but it is a measure of America’s greatness that they can be asked with a straight face.

My grandparents came to these shores at the same time that most American Jewish families came – at or around the end of the 19th century. My parents and I have enjoyed traveling around the world, but all of our lives, we have called America home. The family first settled in New York City. And then, in the 1940s, my parents moved to Washington, D.C. The family has been based in the D.C. area ever since. And as residents of the nation’s capital, we have been privileged to encounter so many majestic American landmarks. Allow me to discuss just a few.

Let’s start with the Smithsonian Institution. Unquestionably, these museums house some of the greatest collections of artwork in the world. But do we charge people to enter into those hallowed halls? Not a penny. Whether you are from Albany or Amsterdam, we don’t want your money, we just want you to walk in and admire some of the greatest paintings and sculptures your species has to offer. And you will quickly forget what you’re country you’re in. Because this being a melting pot, the Smithsonian Institution has been designed to celebrate masterpieces from all over the planet without even the slightest touch of parochialism. Yes, the Smithsonian makes me proud to be an American, but it does so by teaching that to be an American is, first and foremost, to be a citizen of the world.

The next set of landmarks I’d like to reference is a series of related memorials. They focus on an incredible time in our history – a time in which the United States of America was finally transformed into the United States of America. We know this time period as the “Civil War,” but it wasn’t simply a time of bloodshed. It was a time when Americans decided that they must risk their lives to fight for the ultimate principles on which this nation was based. We would decide once and for all whether slavery would be permitted here. And we would decide whether we owe our allegiance primarily to the individual state from which we hail, or to the nation that attempted to unify these diverse states. The memorials of this era include battlefields, of which the DC area has so many – places called Gettysburg, Antietam, Bull Run, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, Fredericksburg. Every such battlefield memorial is hallowed ground, for it was there that countless numbers of men gave their lives for truly elevated purposes.

For me, what ties these battlefields together are two very special memorials. They are located only a couple of miles from each other, and are among the most prominent landmarks in Washington, D.C. One, which is housed at the Arlington National Cemetery, is the home of Robert E. Lee. It is difficult to imagine a more noble American soul than Lee, regardless of where you stand on the issue of blue versus grey. Lee graduated second in his class at the United States Military Academy, but then, true to his allegiance to the State of Virginia, he was forced to command the Confederate Army against the United States Military. Remember – prior to the Civil War, a person’s country to which he or she held allegiance was the state from which he came. In Lee’s case, he was a Virginian first and foremost, and only secondarily, an American. So in choosing to fight for the South, Lee made the only choice a patriot could have made. That mentality changed after the Civil War.

The other memorial to which I referred is, of course, the Lincoln Memorial. It is there where you can read Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves in all the southern states. But no less moving, are the words he used in consecrating the battlefield at Gettysburg.

In just a small number of words, Lincoln summarized so beautifully what it means to be a martyr and what it means to be an American. I give you the last paragraph of that immortal speech:

“[I]n a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

That is how the Gettysburg Address ended. It began on a very similar note – by reminding the audience exactly what it was that unified us as Americans. This nation, Lincoln said, was “conceived in liberty,” and was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” In that last phrase, he was harkening back to another set of immortal words – those in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is but another short, and yet so sweet, statement that defines who we are as Americans. It was unveiled precisely 235 years ago on this very day by Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson is my favorite figure in U.S. history. I always carry with me two dollar bills to remember him and what he has to teach us. I frequently wear ties that celebrate him and his legacy. And when someone asks me to identify my favorite place in the United States, I have but one answer: Monticello, the place that Jefferson called home.

Monticello is a good 2 ½ hour drive from Washington, but it is always worth the trip. I’ve been there countless times. And whenever I go, it reminds me of the greatness of both the man and the nation that he was so instrumental in forging.

Now, make no mistake – Jefferson is no a saint. He is no Moses, he is no Jesus, he is no Muhammad. His flaws go beyond Moses’ shortcoming revealed in Chapter 20 of Numbers or Muhammad’s shortcoming revealed in Surah 80. But because Jefferson never proclaimed himself to be a saint, he is in fact a figure to whom we all can relate. A human, all-too-human figure, who nevertheless devoted himself to so many wholesome pursuits. You see all this in Monticello. You see how this one man was such a devotee of art, music, philosophy, science, anthropology, agriculture, religion, nature, language, architecture, literature … and of course, statecraft. And the more you study Jefferson, the more you see his footprints all over this nation as it has evolved over time.

We owe so much of our commitment to religious liberty to Jefferson. We owe so much of our commitment to public schooling to him. And we owe to Jefferson so much of our respect for equity and liberty. How, someone might ask, can one be passionate about both, if at some level, they conflict with one another? And the simple answer, is that to be a student of Jefferson is to realize that we have no choice. “We hold these truths as self evident,” he wrote. “That all men are created equal. And that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Equity and liberty are American values. They are Jeffersonian values. And so is commitment to the faculty of reason. For Jefferson was an Enlightenment philosopher. And the nation that he and his colleagues forged is very much a product of the Enlightenment. We must not forget that either. And when we, as Americans, go out among the world at large and fight for such principles as justice and peace, it is worth remembering a couple of key points.

The melting pot concept works for us, but that doesn’t mean it will meet the needs of everyone else. The fact that there is an America, for example, doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a China, an Italy, or an Israel. But when we do encounter ethnic or religious groups that wish to remain outside the scope of a melting pot state, and that are fighting over the same land, there is much that we can draw from as Americans to help them solve their problems. Specifically, we can draw from the same Enlightenment principles, the same commitment to reason, that so moved Jefferson and that has inspired Americans ever since. You’ll find those principles imbuing the words of Lincoln at Gettysburg, and of the actions taken by the founders of the Smithsonian. We must never forget those Enlightenment principles. They are our birthright as Americans. And as someone whose Judaism is more important to me than even my patriotism as an American, I can safely say that the principles of the Enlightenment are in harmony with the principles of Moses. If you think you’ve found a conflict, my advice is to think again.

So, if Jefferson, Lincoln and Lee were alive today, what would they ask of us as children of Abraham? They, who fought so hard to enable us to live in peace and prosperity, would they wish for us today to take this largess and just enjoy ourselves? Or would they beseech us to strive to live like they did – and better yet, to live as our Prophets did – and dedicate ourselves to the noblest of causes?

As one who believes that you don’t give up your ethnicity simply because you’re an American citizen, as one who believes that you cannot enjoy peace until your family is at peace, I come here today to tell you that there is no cause more noble for a Jew or a Muslim than to see that our peoples can live in peace in Israel and Palestine. Some think that can happen in one melting pot state, but we who have studied American history know the unique and often tragic circumstances that gave rise to a melting pot state on these shores. And the situation in Israel and Palestine is very different.

To me, the place that is holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians will not know peace until Muslims come to love Israel as a Jewish state and Jews come to love Palestinian Nationalism. Right now, though, that is a vision few of us are willing to work for. But I ask you to think about think about it in the name of a God who commands us to create peace, in the name of our father Abraham who would have wished Isaac and Ishmael to live in peace, in the names of those great Americans who have taught us about war and peace, and in the name of family.

Jews and Muslims are not enemies. We are the closest of cousins. If there is anything I’ve learned as the coordinator of a Jewish-Islamic dialogue society, it is that.

2011-06-26T06:58:00.000-07:00

A POLITICIAN WITH A CHARMED LIFE

It’s Barack Obama’s world and you’re just living in it.

Spare me all the crap about what a tough hand he was dealt when he walked into the White House – the multiple wars, the horrid economy, the obstructionist Republicans. Sure, Barack was dealt a tough hand, if the game is to become one of those transformative Presidents worthy of Rushmore. But let’s say we lower our standards a bit. Let’s say Barack doesn’t need to be the next Lincoln or Roosevelt. Think of him simply as an ambitious politician with a strong desire to be loved. Now let’s look at his hand. Here’s a guy who, in January ‘09, was inaugurated in a fashion that may have made the Messiah jealous. He was then put in a strong position to be hailed as the Jackie Robinson of American statesmen, receive star treatment from Hollywood and the mainstream media alike, generate some solid legislative accomplishments, easily win re-election, and finally, when his second term is over, live out his life with the moniker of “Mr. President.” Put all that together, and I’d say he’s sitting on, if not a pair of aces, at least a pair of kings. Not too shabby.

When Barack came into office, he was indeed severely limited in his ability to generate “the change we’ve been looking for.” But those same limitations, when combined with his natural political skills, made him almost impossible to beat in 2012. To be sure, if the unemployment rate is high enough, he could lose. But it would have to be sky high, because most voters appear poised to blame Bush and the Congress for the horrid economy, rather than Barack. Even those voters who don’t think Barack is doing a particularly good job on economics seem to approve of his Presidency. Talk about Teflon.

It reminds me of the old story about the two friends who camped out in the woods. Upon spotting a bear, one immediately starts running, prompting the other to say “What are you doing, you can’t outrun that bear.” “I don’t have to,” his friend responded, “I just have to outrun YOU.”

Well that is pretty much all Barack has to do in this climate. He doesn’t have to fix the economy. He just has to look like a better economic steward than Bachmann. Or Romney. That wouldn’t exactly require a remake of Don Quixote, now would it?

In the next several months, I expect the Republican Party to reap what they have sowed ever since President Reagan shoved them in the rightward direction. Back in the day, a guy like John Huntsman may have been the type of Republican who could have caught fire in his own party and appeal to Democrats and Independents as well. But now, in 2011, he’s pretty much toast. You know the problem – he’s not Cro-Magnon enough for Rush, Beck, and the other talking heads who have the ears of the party faithful. I’m not even sure that Romney can win, or to put it another way, I’m not sure that he can win AS Romney. He might have to run as Faust like he did in 2008. And if that happens, somehow I don’t see Barack Obama losing to a chameleon who just sold his soul to Grover Norquist and the Tea Party.

Just look at recent history and all the times that a sitting President has run for re-election. Those bids were successful in 1972, 1984, 1996 and 2004 (and as horrid a President as Bush was, that says volumes). The only upsets were in 2000 and 2012, and in both of those occasions, the President had lost the support of many in his own party. If the GOP wants to win, it had better hope that the Dems lose their love for Barack. Sorry, Dittoheads, but I don’t see that happening.

This last week is a perfect illustration of why, from a Democratic standpoint, Barack truly is an untouchable. His performance was the stuff that mutinies are made of – one kiss-off to the liberal wing of the party after another. But will there be a mutiny? Don’t make me laugh.

Hell, I can just point to my own behavior as an example of the typical liberal voter. On Wednesday night, just before I sat down to watch his Afghanistan speech, I was miffed at the President for his foreign policy. Let’s leave aside my obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and how ineffectual (and at times incompetent) he has been in that area. I was annoyed that he couldn’t make the case for his latest war in Libya, or at least treat the American people with enough respect to allow our representatives to decide whether we should continue our involvement in bombing that country. And I was annoyed that he was about to announce a pullout from Afghanistan at a snail’s pace – leaving twice as many American troops in that country as when he took office, and ensuring that this increasingly-pointless war would at least rival Vietnam in its duration.

So yes, I was pissed at the guy. And yet what did I do just before the telecast started? Needing to change shirts after work, I went into my bedroom closet and pulled out my “Dream Realized” T-Shirt with Barack’s portrait on the front. Pissed? Yeah. Ready to vote against him and in favor of Mitt or Michelle? Not on your life.

Nor am I alone, apparently. After the speech, which should have made any honest-to-God liberal sick, the reviews on the left were almost universally negative … but tepidly so. Absent was any effort to connect Barack’s incoherent policy in Afghanistan with his silent policy in Libya; taken together, they represent the kind of furtive Presidency that should have impressed even a Cheney. And absent was the willingness to demand a compelling explanation of why we’re embarking on a second decade of propping up a corrupt regime engaged in what seems to be a perpetual civil war, one that now has very little to do with Al Qaeda. No, the muted criticism seemed to be confined largely to the idea that the “pull-out isn’t fast enough.”

Not fast enough? Is that the most we liberals can say?

Assume that Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani had been elected President in 2008. And then assume that they would do exactly what Barack has done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya these past 2 ½ years. Is there any question how outraged the American left would have been by this point? Is there any question that people would be protesting on the streets, MSNBC would be hurling acid-laden vitriol, and Romney/Giuliani would be viewed as war-mongers and secrecy-freaks?

President Obama essentially told us that America will stay the course in Afghanistan, but what he didn’t really tell us is why. He seemed to think that as long as he added some anti-war rhetoric and announced that instead of tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan by the end of his first term we will only be doubling that number, everyone on the left would be appeased. And do you know what? He’s right. Because everyone on the left knows that his name is Barack, and not Mitt or Michelle.

Fast forward to a bit later in the week and head a couple of hundred miles up I-95, and you’ll see the same dynamic at play. In Manhattan, 600 hundred or so gay activists paid a reported $1,250 per head to hear Barack bob and weave on the issue of gay rights. Yes, he believes in them (whatever that means), but no, he won’t commit to the cause with respect to the one hot-button issue that everyone is talking about – gay marriage.

It was the same position he has been taking for years. And each time, we hear the obligatory whines from the gay community about how Barack needs to suck it up and say what every progressive believes in his or her heart: that gay people have a right to be married. But will these activists really stay home in November 2012? Or let me ask that question this way: after what happened with Gore, Bush and Nader, do they really believe there’s an alternative to Barack?

I doubt it. Most likely, these gay activists left that fundraiser pissed off at Barack. Then they went home, put on their “Dream Realized” T-shirts, and went to bed.

There’s an old saw that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Here in America, our President -- Barack “Jackie Robinson” Obama -- is sitting on a pair of them.

2011-06-19T05:13:00.001-07:00

THE WEEK IN SPORTS

The words “sports” and “momentous” rarely go together. In fact, to say that this has been a “momentous week in sports” seems oxymoronic. The whole idea of spectator sports is to escape from the real world and re-enter a childlike state where you can concern yourself with how people run, jump or throw around balls, rather than wage wars, confront illnesses, or rearrange the tax system. Momentous? Impossible.

Yet every now and then, we sports fans live through a week that is so transformative that we simply must pause and take notice. This has definitely been one of those rare weeks.

Let’s start with the hardwood. The sports week began last Sunday night with the Dallas Mavericks winning their first-ever championship. It was also the first time that a player from outside of the Americas received accolades as being one of the game’s all time greats. And for good reason. Dirk Nowitzky, who hails from Germany, took over these playoffs with a display of outside shooting, passing, and inside toughness that was eerily reminiscent of Larry Bird in his prime.

But let’s face it – when you think about what has transpired in basketball this past Sunday, your first thoughts do not extend to the Mavericks or Nowitzky. The real story centers around the team they beat, and especially its star player: the athlete formerly known as “King James.” Talk about a fall from grace.

Less than a decade ago, the entire basketball world was ablaze with excitement at the prospect of witnessing a player whose talent was unmatched in the game’s history. Some compared him to Michael Jordan, except that LeBron James was so much bigger than Jordan. Taller and more massive, to be precise. And the story wasn’t just that James was THAT good, but that as luck would have it, he was able to be drafted right out of high school by his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers. That’s right, the “Mistake by the Lake” was granted the privilege of hosting the man-child to which Sports Illustrated referred as “the Chosen One.” Even if you’re not from the Midwest you had to appreciate this story, reminiscent as it was of how a sleepy hamlet in northeast Wisconsin came to be called “Titletown” because of a team that would dominate the National Football League for years.

We knew that it would take the Cavs a little while to reach the level of Vince Lombardi’s Packers, but we also felt that the Cavs’ dominance was just a matter of time. LeBron James was the Rookie of the Year in 2003-4, and by 2007, he propelled the Cavs to the NBA Finals. In 2008-09 and 2009-10, LeBron won the MVP award and the Cavs had the league’s best regular season record. But a championship continued to elude the Cavs, and last summer, LeBron announced on a 60-minute ESPN telecast that he was “taking his talents” to Miami where he would play with two other superstars and win not one, “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven” championships. LeBron, who has sported a “Chosen 1” tattoo on his back for years, came to be the most despised man in northeast Ohio.

This past Sunday, the LeBron brand officially crashed and burned. For the second straight year, when his team needed him the most, James was missing in action. And this time, America absolutely loved it! It wasn’t just Ohioans who wallowed in LeBron hatred; fans all over the country figured that they’d stumbled onto the best comedy since Animal House. The jokes abounded: “Did you hear that someone asked LeBron for change for a dollar? He only gave up 75 cents. ‘Sorry, I don’t have a fourth quarter,’ LeBron said” (That’s a reference to the fact that in the six NBA Finals games, he averaged a whopping three points in each of the fourth quarters – hardly Messiah material.) Or perhaps you prefer this one: “LeBron was right when he said ‘not two, not three, not four …” championships. He ain’t gonna win any!”

Clearly that’s wrong. He’ll get his championship. In fact, he still seems destined to win multiple championships when all is said and done. But I doubt he’ll ever get the affection of the public. LeBron, you see, committed two sins that an athlete cannot commit if he wants to be loved. To begin, he appeared to suggest that athletes can win championships without even having to work at it – all they have to do is get together with a couple of superstar friends during an off-season party, decide to play together, and … voila, it’s celebration time! Sorry, but we fans want our athletes to have to work for their titles. We want to think that a major league championship is like an odyssey; you can’t simply inherit one the way, say, George W. Bush inherited the Presidency. LeBron didn’t seem to appreciate that.

The other thing LeBron did is celebrate his own greatness before it was demonstrated. That’s a major no-no. Fans can choose to celebrate an athlete who has never won the “Big One,” but when an athlete publicly touts himself as the “Chosen 1” or “the King” … he’d better have some rings.

Right now, LeBron is about as accomplished as Dan Fouts, but he struts around as if he’s Joe Montana. He’s got the pedigree of George Gervin, but he talks as if he’s Michael Jordan. And he’s not alone – when he joined the Miami Heat together with Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade, Wade proclaimed that trio arguably the greatest trio in the history of basketball. But the last time I checked, the 60s Celtics and 80s Lakers both had trios of all-time greats who each had won many championships. By contrast, the trio of Wade, Bosh and James have won a total of 1, 0, and 0 titles, respectively. Greatest trio ever? Make me gag.

This past Sunday, the sports gods had their say: “LeBron: shut your mouth. Wait until you win a championship before you start tooting your own horn. In fact, why don’t you wait until you win, not one, ‘not two, not three …’ Why don’t you just let your ball skills do the talking. It worked for America’s new darling, Dirk the German. And trust us, no sooner will you get humble than you’ll win titles. Otherwise, it’s just way too much fun for EVERYONE to watch you lose, and we do want the fans to have some fun.”

So that was Sunday’s news.

I’m going to largely skip over the news from the middle of this past sports week. But let’s at least briefly acknowledge what happened.

In talking about LeBron and Dirk, I was making the sports gods look inspired by their pursuit of justice. They see a big mouth with a whale of talent go up against a less talented, but more humble opponent, and they choose to let the first guy fall on his face and propel the second one to stardom. Love those gods!

Or do I? Because only three days after the Mavs beat the Heat, the sports gods were saying “justice, schmustice” when they allowed the Boston Bruins to defeat the Vancouver Canucks and claim this year’s Stanley Cup. This was just the latest in Bean Town’s long list of championships – it seems like between the Celtics, Red Sox, Patriots and Bruins, that city has won about 100 titles in my lifetime. Vancouver? The Canucks are their one major league team in any of the big four North American team sports, and suffice it to say that despite playing in a few different championship series, Vancouver has won as many Stanley Cups as LeBron James.

Cruel, gods. Cruel. Did you really have to give the Canucks a two games to none lead before you made them fall apart yet again? That’s just wrong. Vancouver has given the world its most beautiful urban park. It deserves better.

So yes, the sports week started on a high note and, at least for me, took a dip in the middle. But it sure ended with a bang. And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, there’s still time to find out: turn on your TV round about 6:00 p.m. Eastern time today, and prepare yourselves to watch greatness. You see, this week the sports world has been introduced to its latest version of “the Natural.”

One of my friends once said, in reference to Michael Jordan, “When I saw Magic Johnson play, I swore I’d never see a better basketball player. Obviously, I was wrong.” Well, folks, when I was watching the U.S. Open yesterday on TV, I found myself saying the same thing about a different sport. When I watched Tiger Woods play, I swore I’d never see a better golfer. It sure looks like I was wrong.

To be fair, I’m not predicting that Rory McIlroy, the 22 year-old from Northern Ireland who has now led after six of the last seven rounds of major championship golf, will be better in his prime than Tiger was. Nobody in golf’s history has been better in his prime than Tiger was. But what I am saying is that McIlroy seems more of a natural than Tiger – his strokes are equally brilliant, and FAR more effortless. And that means that McIlroy’s prime promises to last a lot longer than Tiger’s.

Tiger has already endured multiple knee operations. And this only stands to reason given the wicked torque in his swing. Tiger crushed the golf ball, but he was also crushing his own body in the process. If we do see him make a comeback, I predict he will become the golf equivalent of the junk-ball pitcher in baseball, who doesn’t have the fastball to strike out hitters but has learned crafty ways to turn curve balls into slow grounders. Those pitchers can be highly effective, but they’re not exactly Mount Rushmore material.

McIlroy is different. I don’t see anything violent in his swing. It all looks so gentle, so easy. And yet he’s just blowing away not only the field but the golf course. Nobody in history has reached 14 shots under par in a U.S. open, until now. Nobody had even reached 13. And the crazy thing is, he was practically doing the same thing at this year’s Masters until he choked on the last day.

Well, we’ve now come to the last day of the U.S. Open, and McIlroy still has time to choke once again. It happened to LeBron, it could happen to him, right? I don’t think so. This weekend has the feel of a coronation. And McIlroy has the feel of being the real deal. I expect he’ll do what Tiger used to do when he had a huge lead: go about his business with a workmanlike round, hitting fairways and greens on a regular basis, and making the occasional mid-range put. We’ve seen the prototype. We know how it can work. Only this time, we won’t watch a guy cussing and spitting and violently striking the ball, as if he’d rather be in the ring cleaning Mike Tyson’s clock.

No, this time, we’ll be watching a guy who looks like the golfing gods had him in mind when they created the sport. All true fans love it when that happens, and it doesn’t happen often. You won’t find a sports fan who doesn’t love Babe Ruth or Wayne Gretzky any more than you’ll find an art history buff who doesn’t love Rembrandt or Michelangelo. What’s not to love?

2011-06-11T08:51:00.001-07:00

THE OBLIGATORY WEINER POST

While the Anthony Weiner scandal raises a number of public policy issues, perhaps the most important one is whether politicians who are caught engaging in tawdry behavior should resign from office. On this issue, I tend to stand with the Republicans. While there are some famous exceptions to this principle (see, e.g., Senator Vitter), Republicans generally tend to favor asking their politicians to go away if they are caught red-handed. But the Democrats are different – their attitude is more like “boys will be boys, and politicians are no different than anyone else.”

Well, they’re right in a sense: like any other employee, politicians have to live up the standards of their job. You can’t be a rabbi, get in front of your congregation, and proclaim Jesus as God. That would work in a church, but not a synagogue. Similarly, if you’re a politician who wants to retain your credibility, you can’t allow your sex life to be a subject of public ridicule. To their credit, the Republicans seem to understand that. It’s one reason they are able to win so many elections despite a platform that only makes sense for the well-heeled.

According to the conventional Democratic wisdom, political sex scandals are much ado about nothing, and they have no bearing on how a politician carries out the nation’s business. Turn on MSNBC in the evening, and you will hear one Democratic pundit after another trivialize the significance of Weiner’s conduct, just as they trivialized the misconduct of Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. To the knee-jerk progressive, people’s sex lives are their own business, not the nation’s, and as long as we don’t assault anyone or have sex with minors, we’re basically permitted not only to engage in deviant behavior but even to lie about it. In other words, the argument goes, since it violates politicians’ privacy to ask them if they have engaged in sexual deviancy, the only sane answer is to deny the allegation (whether it’s true or not) and get back to more important issues like the economy or foreign policy.

This is one instance where the old saw is correct that the Republicans are hard-headed realists and the Democrats utopian dreamers. From a utopian standpoint, the Democratic position is unassailable. Preferably, we’d live in a culture where everyone would ignore everyone else’s sex life. That way, if we have a promiscuous but inspired statesman like JFK, the public could get all the benefits of his leadership without knowing about his salacious private life, and we could count on the members of our media to recognize that certain topics are simply off-limits.

But now back to planet Earth. The days of the media turning a blind eye to the peccadilloes of public figures are long gone. Plus, as Weinergate demonstrates, even if the mainstream media were to play ball (which it won’t), the Internet will ensure that all the news that people care about will be widely disseminated. Believe me, as long as people care about sex (which is pretty much until our species ceases to exist), they will care about the sex lives of their political leaders. If you don’t agree, just turn on the TV and look at the crap that people watch. Sex sells and tawdry sex sells even more. Perverts enjoy it for the obvious reason, and everyone else enjoys it because it makes them feel better about themselves knowing that there are people out there even more pathetic than they are. Right now, there are few people who don’t think that Anthony Weiner is more pathetic than they are. I call that the loss of credibility.

To be sure, there is much that can be said in Weiner’s defense. First, he engaged in no blatant act of hypocrisy when it comes to sex. He is not like those right wing schmucks who publicly talk about “family values” but privately engage in extra-marital sex. Nor is he like Elliot Spitzer, who enforced the same types of anti-prostitution laws that he himself violated. So score one for Weiner on the hypocrisy front. Second, Weiner’s apologists are correct that it is a whole lot less egregious to lie publicly about one’s sex life than about the other topics on which politicians are asked to comment. As discussed above, we all recognize that in the ideal world, our sex lives would be private, and if someone asks a question that is none of their business, are they really entitled to an honest answer? Perhaps so, but it is not a frivolous issue to raise.

So no, the issue here is not about Weiner’s hypocrisy, nor is it about the lies he told to cover up his tawdry behavior. Moreover, the issue is also not about whether he technically broke some ethics law by using government facilities to engage in an inappropriate text or tweet; I’m sure that any such violations of that nature would be nothing in comparison to what Charlie Rangel did, and all Rangel got was a slap on the wrist.

In short, the issue here isn’t “the cover up.” Nor is it “the crime.” The issue is Weiner’s credibility, judgment and character. In other words, can he do his job effectively once he proves himself to be a complete horse’s ass? Because seriously, what kind of public figure responds to strangers who admire him by sending them pictures in order to show off the size of his package? It’s one thing to be the quintessential pervert. It’s one thing to be the quintessential narcissist. But when you respond to your fans by proving yourself to be the quintessential perverted narcissist … it will be pretty difficult to be taken seriously when you talk about the national debt or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I’d just as soon have a rabbi who has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

If any of you are Weiner apologists, keep in mind that we are not talking about your average Congressman. He’s not just another back-slapping, and ultimately do-nothing, politician. And this is why progressives like me – and the women to whom he would show off his pectorals or his package – had been so impressed with him as a politician. He seemed to have balls. But it is one thing to show your balls, and it is another to SHOW your balls. And this is especially true when part of your M.O. as a politician has been to grab the limelight every chance you get.

When Weiner made himself one of, if not the single, most prominent progressive spokespeople in Congress, he gave up the right to anonymity. He gave up the right to engage in perverted acts in the public domain. In short, he gave up the right to say “sorry for what I did, but I’m not resigning” if and when he gets caught doing what he gave up the right to do. You see, the problem is that when Weiner did get caught, he acted like a man who was really just sorry that he got caught. Otherwise, why refer to the pictures he sent as a “joke?”

Perhaps what Weiner meant is that his pictures have turned him into a joke. Specifically, they have turned him into a real-life version of Steve Stiffler. If you haven’t seen the American Pie movies, Stifler is one hell of a funny character. He’s the high school boy who acts and speaks like he’s God’s gift to the vagina. It’s impossible to respect the guy, but he does make you laugh precisely because of what a total asshole he is. He is the guy the movie writers chose to get peed on precisely because nobody could possibly have any empathy for this guy. Who can empathize with someone who sends pictures of his package to girls half of his age in order to show off its size?

Sorry. That was Weiner, not Stiffler. But you get the idea.

In any job worth doing, once you lose your credibility, you’ve lost your ability to be effective. So, my fellow progressives, you can talk all you want about how Weiner has not behaved with the moral turpitude of countless other statesmen who have kept their jobs. But I suspect that those guys aren’t being compared to Steve Stiffler. And if someone peed on them in the well of Congress, we would react with horror, and not hilarity.

Sorry, Anthony. I think your 15 minutes are about up. See you in the movies.

2011-06-04T09:15:00.000-07:00

THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY …

In recent months, when people around me have questioned whether Barack would be re-elected, I mostly just laughed. If Barack were running against Reagan in his prime, then sure, the President’s re-election would be in peril. But the last time I checked, the suitors for the Republican nomination were Sneezy, Sleepy, Dopey, Happy, Bashful, Grumpy and Doc. And I just didn’t see any of those Lilliputians having a chance to unseat one of the most talented politicians of our lifetime.

It still seems to be a good bet that we'll see a successful re-election campaign come November 2012. Now, though, for the first time, I’m beginning to see a glimmer of hope for the GOP. Ironically, I’m seeing hope for one of the dwarfs at a time when the mainstream media has been pointing out just how badly he is doing in jump-starting his campaign. Then again, his problems supposedly involve appealing to the Republican base, and this election is not likely to be won or lost based on appeals to the Republican base. Rather, it should be determined by the views of independents, most of whom are concerned about economics first and foremost. It is in that domain where this dwarf might be able to gain some traction as someone with a record of responsible stewardship and expertise. The question is, will the GOP electorate support him, one of the other six dwarfs, or will they nominate an eighth one (say, by combining Sneezy and Sleepy into Sleazy, aka Newt Gingrich)?

The dwarf I have in mind calls himself Mitt Romney, but to me, he goes by the name of Doc. He comes across as smarter than his peers, which is a good thing, but he also seems more chameleon than human, which is not such a selling point. Indeed, it has been widely reported for some time that Doc is roundly disliked by the other dwarfs, and this was borne out in the past few days. While he was in New Hampshire announcing that he would run for President, two of the other dwarfs – Happy (Sarah Palin) and Grumpy (Rudy Giuliani) – were busy addressing the media about exactly why Doc is in no position to represent the Republicans at their next convention. You get the impression that even Dopey (Michelle Bachmann) or Sleepy (Ron Paul) would be more popular candidates among the dwarfs than would Doc. Hell, even Sleepy’s father (John McCain) might be given another shot at the big prize – anything, to keep the spotlight away from the one dwarf who actually could appeal to Americans who are concerned about their job situation and their health care insurance, and are looking for someone who has experience in bringing about a responsible health care package and in running successful businesses that employ people.

It says a lot about Doc that he was elected Governor of Massachusetts. But the odd thing is that to most of the dwarfs, Massachusetts isn’t even part of the United States. If that’s the general view within the GOP, I would agree that Doc’s candidacy is in trouble. The issue is whether the Republicans will realize that their only path to the White House is to elect someone who actually believes that America has 50 states and who appeals to Americans in all 50 of them. Doc may be just the chameleon for the job.

Check out what Doc said yesterday during an appearance in New England. "I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that. It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

That comes from a man who once said he supports the substance of Roe v. Wade and who signed into law the same type of health care bill that the Republicans are now lambasting as "Obamacare." So one day, Doc comes across like Gloria Steinem, the next day, he comes across like Barack Obama, and yesterday, he started talking like “Algore.” What’s next: will Doc advocate an economic policy based on the principle “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”?

Clearly, Doc is not the favorite dwarf among the Tea Partiers. And just as clearly, to the extent Doc has been receiving any traction among his party’s elders, their continued support is about to be put to the test. He is running the risk of moving away from GOP front runner status and heading towards the position not of John McCain in 2008 but John McCain in 2000 – the plain-spoken, independent-minded challenger who is willing to take on the establishment on behalf of truth, justice and the American way. Frankly, that approach worked for Reagan in 1980. But ever since then, the Republicans have demanded much more orthodoxy from their would-be nominees. Speaking out against global warming is not exactly the kind of orthodoxy I’m talking about.

Still, if the Republicans are smart, they might want to reflect a bit on just how electable the other dwarfs are. Do they really think that Happy can win the White House making statements like the following gem, which she said in North Carolina: "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.”

Or do the Republicans think that Bashful (Tim Pawlenty) can win the White House simply by staying under the radar screen? Correct me if I’m wrong, but Americans elect candidates with name recognition. Just because Bashful hasn’t offended anyone doesn’t mean that he is even recognizable at a Vikings game, let alone outside of the great state of Minnesota.

No, my friends. The GOP has a fateful choice. Do they want Barack Obama to waltz his way into the White House in 2012? Or do they want to put up a guy who might actually beat him? And do they want the latter badly enough that they are willing to nominate a chameleon who is permitted to run away from the Rush Limbaugh party line and appeal to American centrists – to people who believe that there is a legitimate non-military role for the Government, that corporations have to be regulated, that tax codes have to be equitable as well as efficient, and that urbanites who love the WNBA are every bit as American as small town NASCAR aficionados? Because if they want the White House badly enough to put away their devotion to right-wing orthodoxy, if they let Doc change his color back towards where it was during his Massachusetts days, and if the economy does continue to remain in the doldrums as many are predicting … then, as they say in sports, “we might have ourselves a contest after all.”

Personally, I’m betting that whoever wins the nomination will be forced to toe the line … and Barack Obama will be re-elected by the same kind of margin that Clinton had against Dole. But that's just a prediction. As the Miami Heat learned on Thursday evening, it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

2011-05-30T05:16:00.000-07:00

DON’T CRY FOR HAMAS JUST YET

Only last month, I had to listen to members of Red Sox Nation whine over the fact that their beloved team could only muster two wins in their first dozen games – good for last place in the division. Well, look now, sports fans: times have changed and the whining has stopped. Now, those same Red Sox find themselves in first place, a game ahead of the hated Yankees.

Strangely enough, members of Hamas Nation are going through the same kind of renaissance. Precisely four weeks ago, they were mourning the death of “holy warrior” Osama bin Laden. But now, that tragedy seems like a distant memory. Subsequent events have focused attention away from Osama, away from their own predictable reaction to his death, and squarely on their hated enemy: the “Jewish State.” Believe me, it’s precisely the kind of attention Hamas has to relish: all criticism of Israel, all the time.

That at least is what I have been hearing from American op-ed writers and TV talking heads. My Middle East Peace group has joined in the chorus. And the message is invariably the same: Netanyahu came to America and demonstrated once and for all that he really couldn’t give a damn about peace but only cares about consolidating his power in Israel. Indeed, the fact that Bibi’s poll numbers are way up back in the Holy Land after his trip to Washington further plays into the anti-Israel narrative. At this point, it’s not only Netanyahu who is bearing the brunt of the peace community’s criticism but, by implication, the Israeli people too. I’m hearing more and more calls for the Palestinians to assume the mantle of the African-American or East Indian civil rights movement and treat Israel the way Martin Luther King Jr. treated Bull Connor or Mahatma Gandhi treated the English imperialists.

Somewhere, deep in a dungeon in Gaza City, Hamas apparatchiks are lighting up their cigars.

Well, alright. Let me set the record straight. I realize that there is a huge difference between the Hamas and the peace community. The one advocates terrorism; the other, non-violent resistance. Nobody can sanely compare King or Gandhi, on the one hand, with Ismail Haniyah, on the other – that would be like comparing Dorothy with Mrs. Gulch. But note what is going on: with the focus of the international community exclusively on Netanyahu and the so-called “Arab Spring,” Israel has taken on the mantle of tyrant and the Palestinians as oppressed victims. Or at least, so goes the narrative that is gaining prominence in Europe and is surely quite dominant in the Arab world, including the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas has got to be thrilled. After all, de-legitimizing Israel was always one of their highest goals, and with each passing day, they are seeing it come to fruition.

How is Israel losing its legitimacy? It hasn’t been the result of Hamas’ efforts. The one-two punch is being delivered by Israel herself and her so-called “greatest ally.” I’m referring to the recent conduct of Netanyahu and Obama.

Barack went first. He repeated the same mistake that he made in Cairo during the first year of his presidency. In both cases, Barack gave speeches that took on but a single issue of controversy: whether Israel needs to stop settling the land that will have to be returned to the Palestinians as part of any viable two-state solution. In Cairo, Barack called for a settlement freeze. Recently, in Washington, he called for a return to the ’67 borders with land swaps. It’s precisely the same vision. And all of us in the peace community agree that Barack is correct on that issue – if there is to be peace between these peoples, the Israelis must make concessions on the very point that Barack has been emphasizing.

But here’s the rub: he seems absolutely unwilling to ask anything controversial from the Palestinians. They can go on referring to the foundation of Israel as the “catastrophe,” they can go on teaching their children that Israel has no claim to ANY state in the region, and they can go on referring to the concept of the “Jewish State” as a racist, offensive moniker … and Barack will offer them the thinnest of rebukes. In Barack’s world, the Palestinians need not make any effort to give Israel comfort that they will live with a Jewish State beside a Palestinian one. Indeed, Barack doesn’t seem to appreciate why such an effort is needed. All he is able to focus on is Israel’s failure to give back Palestinian land. So the result is that when he gives his speeches, one side is put on the defensive and the other side is emboldened.

Ideally, the American President would ask concessions from both sides and the two peoples would say something like “I won’t concede unless they do.” Then, they would enter into negotiations – and voila, the negotiations lead to the mutual concessions necessary to usher in peace. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. But since Barack demands nothing from the Palestinians, they don’t even have to enter into negotiations to improve their own standing internationally. And as for Bibi, the easy way out is precisely to roar back with defiance. He did that two years ago after Cairo, and he did it again this past fortnight -- first at the White House, then at Congress. His point was the most pedestrian one that a Middle East leader could make: that his own people will not be pushed around. Yes, he suggested, Israel supports two states for two peoples (at least in theory). But never did Bibi give an inch on settlements or on Israel’s willingness to negotiate with a Government that includes Hamas. And the result is yet another missed opportunity at a time when the conditions seem so ripe for peace.

It wasn’t long ago when Bibi would whine that Israel couldn’t reasonably be asked to make peace with the Palestinians because they were so divided, and a treaty with one Palestinian faction couldn’t guarantee peace with the others. Now, Bibi says he can’t make peace with the Palestinians because they are unified and have included in their coalition the hated Hamas, a terrorist organization. It’s a message that says to those Palestinians who truly want peace that “you are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.” And it makes Bibi look like a guy who really doesn’t want a two-state solution after all. By contrast, the Palestinians need only sit back and watch Israel make fools of itself. Even those Palestinians who don’t support a two state solution aren’t required to show their cards – Israel is more than happy to fold its own hand first.

The greatest shame of all this is that we are living in what should be an unusually opportune time to rekindle peace talks. The sands of change have engulfed the Middle East, and the Arab Street is poised to bring to Palestine what has happened in Tunisia and Egypt. Israel, which has had the upper hand militarily, is losing some of its key allies in the region, and it can already see the potential for less security if it maintains the status quo. Moreover, the Israeli leadership cannot help but notice the lessons from their friend Mubarak: he who waits to make a bold progressive move might soon find that he has lost his chance. In addition, Israel can hardly expect a better Palestinian leader than Abbas, who at the moment is still in power. So why not give it a try?
It’s a real head shaker. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that someone cast a spell on this region. Both sides say they want to end this interminable war, and both sides would appear better off if they did so. Yet somehow, it endures. And as it endures, observers have to wonder whether the critical mass of those who lead these two peoples truly want peace after all.

We’ve all grown accustomed to seeing the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships blow their opportunities for peace. What’s especially frustrating, however, is that we in America had once thought that we had elected a President who could bring these two peoples to the table, whereas he obviously has no clue how to make that happen. It’s the area in which I thought Barack was poised to be most successful, and ironically, it may be the area in which he has failed the most.

Maybe black magic is the only explanation for the failure of this peace process. It seemed apt in the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s … why shouldn’t it apply today?

2011-05-22T07:16:00.000-07:00

DEATH OF A HERO

Back in the mid-60s, when I was starting grade school, I loved two spectator sports: football and baseball. Football appealed to me most viscerally, but baseball was what best allowed me to connect with my dad. He was a Brooklyn boy, born in 1912, who would talk with glee about how he regularly snuck into Ebbet’s Field through a hole in the fence and watched the “Bums” for free. And when his Dodgers were eliminated from contention, my dad would root for that other team from his city that played in that other league. You might know them as the Yankees. He met many great athletes in his life, including Muhammad Ali and Wilt Chamberlain, but none awed him as much as Babe Ruth. Even though his favorite team was the Dodgers, my dad would never speak of a Dodger with half of the veneration that he showed for the Babe. The only athlete who was even close to the Babe in my father’s pantheon was the boxer, Jack Dempsey. And look at what Dempsey had to do to demonstrate his machismo: get punched in the face. Ruth’s sport was more genteel. He didn’t have to hit anyone, and he didn’t have to take their punishment either. All he needed to do was take out his aggression on some baseballs, and voila – his name would become synonymous with superhuman strength and power (e.g., “Ruthian”).

When I think of the home run, I think of monikers like “Bomb,” “Missile,” “Moon Shot,” and my favorite, the “Homeric Hoist.” Make no mistake, to boys of my father’s generation, Babe Ruth was a Homeric character. He was larger than life. Yet what was especially cool about him wasn’t that he excelled at being a man in a man’s world, but that he excelled at being a boy in a man’s world. He played a kid’s game, wore a silly little uniform in doing so, and when it was time for him to stop playing, it was time to start partying. Still, millions of people looked up to him more than to any doctor, lawyer or politician. In fact, part of the Babe’s legend includes his response when challenged, in 1930, about having a higher salary than President Hoover. “Why not?” he responded. “I had a better year than he did.” No doubt, he did.

Anyway, I’ve started this blog post by talking about my father and his own hero for two reasons. First, because for me, when the subject comes up of heroes in my lifetime, there are two categories of people: my dad, and then … way down the list … everyone else. And second, because when I came home one night this week and turned on the TV to hear people talk about the old baseball legend who died, my daughter Rebecca immediately started asking me questions about my dad. She saw the old, old photos of this player, and remembered something about his name, and just assumed that he was one of my dad’s favorite players. No, I said to her, he wasn’t my dad’s favorite player. He was mine.

Harmon Killebrew died this past Tuesday. He had been diagnosed with esophageal cancer in December, and that is not a foe that is easily felled, even by a man commonly known as “Killer.” Those who have been reading about Killebrew this week have heard plenty about the irony of that name. Outside the lines of the playing field, Killebrew had none of the aggression that characterizes so many other great athletes, let alone home run specialists. From everything I can tell, his defining characteristics were the same as my dad’s: humility, modesty and kindness. It was one thing to pull off that trifecta as a Labor Department economist, but unlike Julius Spiro, Killebrew pulled them off despite being the most intimidating player in the history of my beloved Minnesota Twins.

Killebrew, unlike some other famous sluggers, is not known for hard drinking, smoking or womanizing. Nor could he relate to that other pastime of power hitters: injecting oneself with performance enhancing drugs. When he was once asked what he did for fun, “Killer” answered, “doing the dishes, I guess.” Supposedly, he also liked to vacuum.

Killebrew was a neat freak. But that is not to say he was a Beau Brummell. The Killer didn’t have the necessary narcissism to take on that persona. He was just a country boy, from the small town of Payette, Idaho, who never cared to direct attention to himself. Among the legends of the game, he was notable for his lack of the quotable. He did all his talking with his bat.

So how good a ballplayer was Harmon Killebrew? Apparently, not good enough to make the Hall of Fame in any of his first three years of eligibility. Decades later, I still remember those snubs quite vividly. They absolutely enraged me. But the fact that it took Killebrew four tries to make the Hall says less about his talent as a player than it does about the fact that he played for a small market team and did so with a minimum of self-aggrandizement. Reggie Jackson, his polar opposite when it comes to hogging the microphone in support of his own excellence, was at least able to recognize such excellence in another. When asked about Killebrew, Jackson said, "If Harmon Killebrew isn't the league's best player, I've never seen one. He's one of the greatest of all time.”

Killebrew entered the Hall with some serious numbers. He was then fifth all time in home runs. But of the players who hit more, only one had a higher ratio of home runs/at bats: you guessed it, Babe Ruth. Killebrew retired in third place in baseball history in that statistic, next to Ruth and Ralph Kiner (and Killebrew was ahead of Kiner for most of his career). That means that there were only two players in the history of the game that were more likely to hit a home run when they came to the plate than Harmon Killebrew. And given that fact, it’s no wonder that if he wasn’t hitting a home run, there was a really good chance that he was taking a walk to first base. You see, people didn’t want to pitch to him. They would just as soon walk him and take their chances with someone else.

So how good a ballplayer was Harmon Killebrew? I think the better question is, so how good a role model was Harmon Killebrew – and I don’t just mean for kids like me who watched him belt line drives out of the ball park in record time or crush towering fly balls that seemed to never land. I’m talking about his service as a role model for the current crop of Twins, the ones he helped mentor. Given that Killebrew has been a fixture in the Twins clubhouse and a true friend to their players, it is no wonder that this team has become known for playing fundamental, error-free baseball without the flash or the steroids that have come to characterize modern baseball. Yes, the Twins stink this year, but this “small market franchise” has won its division six of the last nine years – and the players will say that Killebrew has had a hand in that accomplishment.

Killebrew was not only loved by his fellow ballplayers but also by the guys who called balls and strikes. Check out this quotation from a book written by Major League Baseball umpire Ron Luciano, “The Killer was one of the most feared sluggers in baseball history, but he was also one of the nicest people ever to play the game. He was one of the few players who would go out of his way to compliment umpires on a good job, even if their calls went against him. I'd call a tough strike on him and he would turn around and say approvingly, "Good call." And he was the same way in the field. And he never did this to get help on close plays, as some players do. The man hit 573 major league home runs and no umpire ever swung a bat for him.”

I have my own little Harmon Killebrew story to tell. It happened back in the spring of 1987. I went to Spring Training to watch my Twins back when they played in Orlando, Florida. Little did I know that later that year, the team would go on to win its first World Series title. At the airport, as I was about to leave to fly back home to Washington, I saw a man who looked just like Harmon Killebrew. As luck would have it, I happened to have a baseball with me. So I walked up to him, baseball in hand, and said “Are you Harmon Killebrew?” He responded, “What’s left of him.” Perhaps instinctively, I realized that when you’re around a guy like my dad or my favorite ball player, the last thing such a man wants you to do is make a big deal about them. So I decided to ask a question about another childhood hero: “Can I ask whether you think Tony Oliva will ever make the Hall of Fame.” “No,” he replied. “He didn’t play enough years before he got injured.” (Note the lack of a guileful response. Like you’d expect from an Idaho country boy, Killebrew was straight-forward when he spoke.)

That was pretty much our entire conversation – that, and my asking him to autograph my baseball. Of course, he smiled and signed it. And I couldn’t help but think back to a few years earlier when I was at another airport and was watching a football game a few feet away from another Minnesota sports legend, the Hall of Famer who coached the Vikings, Bud Grant. At one point, a little kid walked up to Grant and asked for his autograph. And wouldn’t you know it, Grant declined. I can’t imagine Killebrew ever declining any request for any favor that he could easily grant.

Returning to the present, I have spent part of this weekend reading reports from Killebrew’s funeral. And the more I think about his passing, the sadder I feel. The tragedy here isn’t just how his family, friends and fans are being deprived of such a great guy, or that he personally cannot enjoy another couple of decades on this earth. No, the tragedy is that celebrities like Harmon Killebrew have gone the way of the dinosaur and the dodo bird. Today, if you’re a “superstar” with a naturally humble and modest demeanor, you might not want to get on TV and talk about your own excellence, but you’re still not going to shy away from a shot at advertising shampoo or underwear. Somehow, though, I can’t see Killebrew doing an underwear commercial. I doubt it would be consistent with his “antiquated” principles. (And yes, if there are any bigots who are reading this blog post, Killebrew is a convert to Mormonism. If you have any issue with that, that’s your problem, not his.)

So, before I sign off, allow me to leave you with Harmon Killebrew’s own words. They were repeated at his funeral by his son-in-law, Craig Bair:

''Harmon's philosophy was so simple and very clear and he wanted to make it clear to us,'' Bair said. ''It goes like this. 'Always give more than you take. Always maintain an even calmness that you might calm others. Truly know that you are loved beyond measure and go out and share that love. Find a place of peace with your partner. Experience daily the love of your family. Enjoy your friends. Know your neighbors and especially go out of your way to do the same to the people new in your life.'''

Harmon Killebrew was 74.

2011-05-14T10:46:00.001-07:00

LOYALTY REVISITED

It has been nearly four years since I devoted a blog post primarily to the concept of loyalty. The last time, I wrote about what happens when loyalty is taken too far and begins to swallow up our ability to think and act rationally. We’ve all known people, particularly in high school, who give up their individuality and sometimes a bit of their futures because they are loyal to a misguided group of friends. We also know of people, particularly politicians, who seem to give up the quality of their judgment because they are loyal to an ideology. It is one thing to be principled; that’s all good. But to be deeply ideological without some measure of pragmatism is to become an enemy of common sense, and that is virtually never a good thing.

This time around, I’m in no mood to take on the concept of loyalty. In fact, I’m beginning to think it could tragically become a dying virtue, at least in the most secular subcultures of America and Europe. The more of us who give up our old religious ties, move away from our families, and take root in new cities simply because they offer better career opportunities, the more our values will be centered purely on our own idiosyncratic joys and comforts. Is there a place in that mentality for loyalty? I wonder. It sounds so five minutes ago – or so five centuries ago, to be more specific.

I have loyalty in mind this week for three reasons. First, because I’ve had conversations with young adult friends who are bemoaning the loss of this virtue among their peers and who themselves reflect some of the same manifestations of a post-loyal mentality. If you don’t feel “commanded” by God or at least some transcendent source of morality to stand by your spouse, your faith, or your country, and if your peers similarly reflect a morally relativist ethic, where is the source of loyalty supposed to come from? You can’t count on others, so why should you put yourself out for them? Why not just go from project to project, job to job, friend to friend – and stay loyal only to those old buddies who ask little of you other than the willingness to have a hell of a good time whenever you get together? Personally, I find this approach to life to be mired in meaninglessness. But it also seems to be the wave of the future, at least in cities like my own.

The second and third reason why loyalty is on my mind this week comes from the world of celebrities. One of these celebrities is the basketball player formerly known as “King James.” You don’t hear that moniker used anymore for LeBron James. It went out the window last summer after he announced that he was leaving northeast Ohio for South Beach to win himself some championships with the help of two other superstars. LeBron is all over the sports pages this week because his team recently defeated the Boston Celtics and is now probably the slight favorite to win the Championship. If that happens, his Miami Heat will be the least popular champion in recent memory.

LeBron grew up in Akron, only a bike ride away from Cleveland, the city that drafted him into the NBA several years back. He took the Cavaliers to the NBA finals and to the best regular season record in the NBA, but he couldn’t take them to the NBA Title, and he clearly was reflecting on whether he had the supporting cast up there to reach the Promised Land. Last summer, LeBron became a free agent, and in an effort to bring him to their own cities, a number of teams paid tribute to him like he truly was the King. Loyalty would suggest that he listen to their offers, tell the owner of his hometown Cavs to bring in some other superstar athletes “or else …” and then presumably re-sign with a Cavaliers team that has been stuffed to the brim with talent. It is certainly hard to believe that the Cavs owner wouldn’t have done whatever was in his power to make that happen. In any event, being a modern fellow, LeBron eschewed the path of loyalty and left Ohio for a more temperate climate. He became, in short order, the most hated athlete in America today.

Frankly, I’m not sure that basketball fans would have denied him the right to bolt for Miami if he played his cards properly. It has become an accepted reality in sports that free agent athletes move on -- and do so for all sorts of reason. If LeBron had held a press conference, humbly apologized to his home town fans, and said simply that he has spent all his life in Northeast Ohio and wanted an opportunity in his mid-20s to live in a different place and play for a team that presents a whole new set of challenges, I don’t think anyone would have begrudged him that. Sure, he might get some boos from the Cleveland faithful when he went back home to play, but to everyone outside of Cleveland, he’d be treated like any other ballplayer in a free agent era. Only a slave doesn’t have a right to move to a different city and get a new start there.

LeBron’s problem was not his decision to go to Miami. It was the unbelievably insensitive and narcissistic way that he announced the decision … and then subsequently celebrated the announcement. It began with an hour long ESPN show, in which he essentially held himself out as more valuable than the Hope Diamond. In the solipsistic world of LeBron, it was as if all the universe was waiting to hear which planet the good Lord would endow with intelligent life … only in this case, LeBron played the role of the good Lord, and Miami played the role of our beloved Earth. He manifested no apparent concern for the city and fans of northeast Ohio. It’s as if a man left a fiancée without even leaving a goodbye letter. In fact, it came across more as a goodbye middle finger when LeBron showed up in Miami, stood on the stage with the two other superstars he would be joining, and strutted about like Gulliver in Lilliputia. Strike that – it wasn’t Miami that LeBron was treating like Lilliputia, but Cleveland. Truly, that was LeBron’s message to the folks back home: he enjoyed his time in Lilliputia, but he and his superstar buddies needed to get on with their lives. If ever you needed to see what disloyalty tasted like, this was it.

Fast forward to this past week, and you will have heard LeBron, for the first time, utter the words “I apologize” in reference to “the decision.” Clearly, he wasn’t apologizing for choosing the Heat but for the way he did it. To be sure, his apology lasted perhaps ten seconds, if not less, but you could feel that LeBron may now actually recognize what he had done. It’s one thing to be disloyal. It’s another to pee all over the concept of loyalty. Even in the modern world, that concept still means something.

Which brings me to yet another celebrity, the one and only Newt Gingrich.

Readers of this blog realize that I devote very little time to lambasting prominent Republicans. I leave that to the more moderate Republicans to clean up their own Party. My concern is primarily with fellow Democrats who don’t seem to live up to my own Party’s standards, at least as I would define them.

When it comes to Newt, however, I find it irresistible to point out the extent of his chutzpah. Here’s a serial philanderer who was attempting to remove a President from office for … philandering. He famously came to his first wife’s hospital room after she was recovering from surgery in an attempt to procure her consent to a divorce. Then, he reportedly left his second wife … for his third. And yet, he never stopped talking about his commitment to “Judeo-Christian” ethics. Newt is a man who has treated women like tomatoes in a grocery store and treated the Bible like a joke book. And now, despite all that, he is seeking the opportunity to serve as the world’s most powerful person. Is anyone crazy enough to take this guy seriously?

A day or two after Newt announced his candidacy for President, Peggy Noonan, the old Reagan speech writer, appeared on Morning Joe. Unlike Newt, Noonan apparently knows her Biblical commandments. And like a good disciple of the Gipper, Noonan honors what Reagan termed the 11th Commandment: “Thou Shalt Not Criticize Thy Fellow Republican.” So when Noonan was asked to comment on Newt’s candidacy, she waxed eloquent about how America just might be able to get past its obsession with politicians’ private lives and elect people who have the most to offer in their public capacities.

Excuse me? Does anyone think that Newt’s character is being attacked because of his private life? All I know is that if you look up “hypocrisy” in the dictionary, you’ll see Newt’s picture, and if you look up “salamander” in the dictionary, you see a newt’s picture … and gradually, these two pictures and these two words begin to blend together. At least they do for me. The insane thing is that Newt apparently doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand that he has been disloyal in two very different ways – first, to his multiple ex-wives, and more importantly, to his moral obligation to practice what he preaches … if he wants to represent the United States of America as its President.

Noonan is correct that we as a nation indeed may be able to handle a philandering President – particularly given how many of us are growing tolerant with philandering. What we can’t handle is an anti-philandering crusader who is also a philanderer. We expect those among us who are disloyal like us to be humble and quiet about their disloyalties. That’s why we dislike LeBron – he forgot that loyalty was even an issue any more.

Oh, it’s an issue. And the more that we as a society forget about it, the more we surely will realize that we are giving up something quite profound in our ongoing pursuit of absolute autonomy. Personally, I think of loyalty much like the other classical virtues that Aristotle discussed so powerfully in his Ethics. Like courage and temperance, we think of loyalty as a virtue because generally, we would like to see more of it than we do. But like the other virtues, it is possible to have too much of it. With too much courage, you get foolhardiness. With too much temperance, you get asceticism. With too much loyalty, you get stubbornness, closed-mindedness, and antiquated thought. But at least you don’t get moral relativism. Or absolute narcissism. Trust me – they are no bargain either.

2011-05-08T06:38:00.000-07:00

THE PASSING OF A MONSTER

I will always associate the death of Bin Laden with the very special day on which it occurred: Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Earlier that afternoon, I gave a talk at an interfaith gathering in which dozens of Jews, Christians and Muslims were assembled to remember the lessons that the Holocaust can teach all of humanity. I was honored to serve as the event’s keynote speaker and to share with the group (and with a Voice of America reporter) a story about my prized possession: a book I inherited from my grandmother and which I would gaze at in horror when visiting her apartment as a child. The book’s title is “The Brown Book of the Hitler Terror,” and what is most amazing about it is that it was published in New York in 1933, the same year the Nazis came to power.

The Brown Book of the Hitler Terror tells us much of what we need to know about why the Jewish people require a state of their own. It was fool’s gold for Jews to feel at home in a place like Weimar Germany, where by all accounts they were very successful and assimilated … until the election of 1932. Nor ought they feel permanently secure in the good old US of A, where they comprise all of 2% of the population. It was here in America where our relatively progressive President, Franklin Roosevelt, was asked to accept a boat of Jews that were fleeing the Nazis six years after my Brown Book was published in New York. So what did Roosevelt do? Sent the asylum seekers back to Europe, where most would ultimate die at the hands of the Nazis.

Clearly, if history tells us one thing it is that Jews cannot count on being protected when they comprise but a small minority of the population. Of course, that is not to say they’re secure when they’re in the majority either. But modern history offers only a few decades to prove that point, whereas it offers many centuries to prove the other.

In speaking to an interfaith audience, I discussed how one of the Holocaust’s chief lessons was that we all need to be Zionists, even those of us who are Arab. But I spoke too about the flip side of that lesson: that we all need to be Palestinian Nationalists as well. We must care about our cousins, the innocent residents of the West Bank who are inconvenienced for hours every day as they move in and out of check points simply to earn a living, or the innocent residents of Gaza, who have had to resort to black markets simply to get some of the foodstuffs that the rest of us take for granted. They understandably seek the same autonomy we Jews praise every year during Passover. Why is it that autonomy our birthright, and not theirs?

Just as we Jews praise the “Righteous Gentiles” among the Germans who helped our ancestors survive the Holocaust, I argued, so must we become “Righteous Jews” and take on the cause of Palestinian autonomy. “Two states for two peoples.” That is the key goal – that and fostering an understanding that these are not merely two peoples but two sets of first cousins. Until we realize that the Israelis and the Palestinians are close relatives, I contended, true peace will always elude us.

After a few of us spoke, the gathering broke into small groups. In my group, people started wondering aloud about whether the God-awful persecution we saw in Nazi Germany could ever happen here in the United States. We easily could have focused on the past and dwelled on the experiences of the Native Americans, African Americans and Japanese Americans. But instead, the group turned towards the immediate future, and started talking about our nation’s issues with Islamophobia. And that’s when it hit me: the Islamophobia in this country could have been a Hell of a lot more institutionalized, widespread, and devastating had it not been for the fact that a few days after 9/11, President George W. Bush came out in support of the Islamic faith. So I pointed that out -- and to my pleasant surprise, the other folks in the group agreed – that all of us who are friends of Islam have Bush to thank for his post 9/11 statements.

Some may take for granted that Bush would say the kind words he had to say about the religion of Islam shortly after 9/11. Truly, though, he didn’t have to say them. He could easily have played the demagogue and spoken about how the root cause of what blew up the Towers wasn’t Al Qaeda per se but the inherently violent and pre-modern nature of Islam itself. Immediately, Bush could have found an amen chorus on Fox News and on Talk Radio. Who knows? He might have found majority support for that position throughout most of the country. Yet he didn’t go there. Instead, he made such statements as the following, which comes from his address to Congress on 9/20/01: “The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.” He took the high road, and we all have to thank him for it.

I was thinking about that a bit when I woke up the morning after Holocaust Remembrance Day, turned on my computer, and read for the first time about the death of Bin Laden. My first reaction was joy -- not exuberance, but a more restrained sense of contentment. My next reaction, especially after listening to some of the details of how the raid was planned and went down, was to feel appreciation for our President and the heroic Navy Seals who carried out the mission. I wondered whether the Republicans who have been relentlessly criticizing Obama, just like most of us Democrats would skewer Bush over the years, would see it in their hearts to express appreciation for a job well done. Surely, I thought, no one could deny that Obama handled this situation extremely deftly; he could easily have shared our intelligence with our “Pakistani allies,” and, as a result, allowed someone in that Government to tip off Bin Laden in advance of the raid. Isn’t that the way a progressive President who decries unilateral military action would stereotypically be expected to function? Thank God President Obama didn’t take that path. Hopefully, over the next several weeks, more and more of our President’s critics will grudgingly express their appreciation not only for the fact that he was able successfully to oversee this raid, but also for the classy way in which he has carried out its aftermath. This has truly been the high point of his Presidency to date, and I don’t offer that as faint praise.

During the past week, I have watched closely the reaction to the raid both on the right and the left. I have seen the scenes of Americans celebrating in the streets as if their team had just won the Super Bowl. And I have heard friends and celebrities whose politics are well to the left not only criticize the “crass” public celebrations of a man’s death, but also chastize the Administration for failing to take Bin Laden alive and try him in an American federal district court.

Personally, though, I don’t see the point of all that criticism.

There’s another benefit, you see, in having Bin Laden die on Holocaust Remembrance Day. It should serve as a reminder that some people aren’t fully human. They’re also monsters. And by virtue of their occupation (killing lots and lots and lots and lots of innocent people for the sake of some twisted ego boost), they give up the right to life. Had someone taken Hitler out in the 20s or early 30s, s/he would have done the world an immense service. And if I could go back in time and do that deed, I wouldn’t second guess a single one of you for taking to the streets and celebrating. (Feel free to find a ton of relatives who miraculously were brought back to life and celebrate with them.)

To be sure, because Hitler was part human, and because he who takes a human life is like one who kills an entire world (a statement that can be found both in the Talmud and the Qu’ran), I don’t think I personally would be out in the streets partying even for the premature death of Hitler. For me, killing is killing – it is never a legitimate cause for out-and-out exuberance. But if you’re talking about the death of an honest-to-God monster, a murderer of thousands or millions of innocent lives, my stand against celebrating death is purely a matter of style. After all, we do not owe a monster like that any sympathy.

Let me put it another way. No, I wouldn’t want my daughters publicly celebrating the death of a Hitler or a Bin Laden. But then again, I wouldn’t want them eating animal flesh either (like a hamburger at McDonalds). And if you were to ask me which is the greater wrong, eating animal flesh or celebrating the death of a monster, I’d take eating the hamburger every time. You see, I have inordinately more sympathy for the death of any cow I see off the interstate than I have for Adolph Hitler or Osama Bin Laden. And if in taking that position, I part ways with the venerable rabbis of the past who teach that all people are somewhat sacred because we come from God, my response is that such a statement applies as well to the cows, chicken and fish that are slaughtered in kosher butcheries all over the world. And I have yet to hear about a cow, chicken or fish who not only was responsible for the killing of several thousand people but was also plotting for new and different ways to kill many thousands more.

Moreover, for all of you who are deeply sorry that we have been deprived of watching “Bin Laden in New York” as America’s sequel to “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” get over it. There is no way that monster could have received a fair trial in the United States. There is no way that any trial of that monster could have occurred without a cost to the public of millions of dollars (money that is surely better spent elsewhere). And there are numerous ways in which such a trial and the publicity it engendered could have resulted in an enormous amount of additional killing. Martyrdom can be quite a motivator, and the longer that trial, the more of a martyr he would have become to his followers.

To be sure, like most Americans, I believe deeply in a criminal’s right to a trial by jury. But Bin Laden is not just another criminal. To me, he is no different than an enemy soldier who is perpetually firing bullets at us. His entire existence is a singular act of war. No, he wasn’t strictly speaking firing bullets when he was captured, but he apparently was perpetually generating ideas as to how to kill as many innocent Americans as possible. He would have done that as long as he lived – in captivity or outside of it. And the idea that it is our sacred obligation to extend that wretched, dangerous life is truly political correctness run amuck.

(I continue to decry capital punishment. But like Emerson pointed out, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.)

So yes, I had to roll the ol’ eyes a bit at the reaction on the left to the way that Bin Laden was executed without a trial and to the way his death was greeted with public euphoria here in America. But what more than just annoyed me was the despicable statements that were released this week among certain representatives of the Palestinian people. First, Ismail Haniyeh, the Prime Minister of the Hamas Government that controls Gaza, was reported by Reuters to have said the following to reporters: “We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. … We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood."

Then, a statement was released that was widely attributed to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the so-called “military wing” of the Fatah, which represents the more moderate of the Palestinian parties. That statement was reported by the Atlantic magazine to have included the following: “The Islamic nation awoke to a catastrophe the reports of the Shahid - (Martyr-) death of the Sheikh, Jihad-fighter Osama bin Laden, in a treacherous manner, by the gangs of the heretics and those who stray. The path irrigated with the blood of its leaders is the path of victory, Allah willing. If Abu Abdallah [Bin Laden] was killed, then he merited the Shahada (Death for Allah) which he had sought, and inscribed with his blood the landmarks of Jihad, leaving behind an entire generation that follows the path of Sheikh Osama.”

The next day, another statement was issued by Al-Aqsa indicating that the group does not endorse that statement and, in fact, takes no public position about the death of Osama Bin Laden since it bears no relationship to Palestine. Tell me, though, what does it say about the lack of readiness for peace among the Palestinians that one of its most prominent groups is publicly praising Bin Laden as a holy warrior and another is afraid to take any public position as at all? I am a tireless advocate for peace between these two peoples, but even I have to take note of what this says about the Palestinians’ readiness for peace. Put another way, if they CAN make peace with Bin Laden perhaps they CANNOT make peace with Israel … at least not yet.

Someone needs to give the Hamas and Al-Aqsa Martryrs’ Brigades a few copies of the Brown Book of the Hitler Terror. There surely aren’t many copies of that book around, and I count myself fortunate to have one. It will always remind me to work for peace. And it will always remind me to mourn the victims of war and injustice. Osama Bin Laden is neither.

2011-05-01T06:22:00.001-07:00

RECONCILIATION

From a time commitment standpoint, my day job has been brutal this week – so brutal, in fact, that when it was announced that Hamas and Fatah were reconciling, I didn’t read about it in the newspapers or on the Internet, but instead learned about it the following day while eating dinner with some friends. The question was asked of me this way: “Are you upset about that Hamas-Fatah reconciliation deal?” After I looked back in disbelief, my friend clarified his assumption that, as a Zionist, I would presumably be very disturbed by the prospect of Hamas being incorporated into the Palestinian political process. Au contraire – as a Zionist, I actually see this development as a positive one.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Hamas. Only a self-hating Jew would go that far. But I do have a long memory. And one of the things I recall is how many times I’ve asked a fellow Zionist to join the peace movement only to be told that it is pointless to try to make peace with the Palestinians if they cannot even make peace with each other. Frankly, there was some logic behind such a position, however flimsy. After all, what good would it do to watch Israel and the Fatah enter into a peace agreement, only to watch the jilted Hamas destabilize the area by perpetrating one terrorist attack after another?

I have for years pined for peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors but have never for a moment thought that entering into such agreements is a sufficient condition for peace. True peace requires the adversaries to recognize not only the value of a short-term truce or a formal exchange of property, but the acceptance of the other’s legitimate long-term autonomy over disputed land. How, may I ask, can Israel ever achieve such peace as long as it completely pushes aside from the discussions a group like Hamas, which was elected to represent the interests of the Gazan people and no doubt enjoys more than a modicum of support in the West Bank (and perhaps even among Israeli-Arabs)?

So far, the policy of the Israeli Government is to de-legitimize Hamas in every way possible. From the Israeli standpoint, Hamas and its supporters are little different than dehumanized cancer cells – and surely, what is the point of attempting to talk, let alone to negotiate, with cancer cells? In support of this attitude, Israel can point to Hamas’ embrace of terrorism against Jews, unabashed desire to drive the Jews from control over even a fraction of the disputed region, and ruthless treatment of any Arab who is seen as being pro-Israel. And I will fully grant that if you’re a Zionist like me and you’re looking to find fault with Hamas, you don’t have to look very far. These people have behaved, purely and simply, as the enemies of the Jewish people.

But here’s the point: when my Jewish ancestors settled in Palestine and aimed to build ourselves a large enough state to accommodate many millions of Jewish residents, they had to know they would encounter opposition. And within that opposition, it was inevitable that some sub-groups would be more militant than others. Isn’t it a good thing that those two sets of sub-groups are now reconciling? And isn’t it a possible outcome of such reconciliation that the moderate sub-groups will grow in strength and bring the more militant elements closer to the fold? Why must we always assume the worst – in this case, that Hamas will somehow bully Fatah into embracing terrorism, rather than that Fatah will persuade Hamas that a two-state solution is in the best interests of the Palestinian people?

If my previous blog post sounded a bit Pollyannaish, let me reassure you that I am not Pollyannaish when it comes to Hamas. Still, as I’ve indicated, that organization speaks for a significant portion of the Palestinian people, particularly in Gaza, and if there is to be peace, that portion must somehow be placated. Israel certainly isn’t capable of doing it. My hope is that, over time, the Fatah and its supporters can accomplish that task. I don’t see it happening overnight, but if we are to have peace in the Holy Land, it needs to happen. Lord knows that Israel can’t justify simply pretending that Gaza doesn’t exist, and hoping that if they make peace with the Fatah and the West Bank, all their problems with the Palestinians will go away.

This war between the Jews and Palestinians has dragged on for many decades. If it is to end, it will be because a unified government of the Jews enters into an agreement with a unified government of the Palestinians – not because one warring side thought it could divide and conquer the other. So please, raise a glass that the Palestinians are reconciling. It may be fraught with problems in the short run, but in the long run, it is a critical part of the evolutionary process … the end of which will be two peaceful states for two peaceful peoples.

2011-04-24T18:16:00.000-07:00

REFLECTIONS AFTER AN INSPIRING HOLIDAY WEEK

Thinking back on this past week, what sticks most in my mind is the feeling of awe for the holiday of Passover. On Tuesday, we had a family seder in which each of us delivered an encomium (defined as a talk in praise of an idea or thing) on behalf of freedom. It is an idea that I encourage all of you who celebrate the holiday to go ahead and steal next year. Every member of my family prepared a piece for the occasion – for example, one of my daughters prepared and performed a mash-up of a Broadway piece and a Hebrew song; the other, a rap; my wife, a haiku; and me … well, you know, it was my typical prosaic philosophical stuff (combined with a not-so-prosaic reading from Goethe). I can’t remember the last time we had such a fun seder.

Then, last evening, I attended a seder that was every bit as enjoyable and inspiring. It was held at the Adams Center, one of the D.C. area’s most prominent mosques. That’s right – a seder at a mosque! It sounds like a crazy idea, and to be sure, the “wine” was mere grape juice. But otherwise, the feel was incredibly authentic. A few dozen Jews and Muslims toasted the cup of understanding, justice, peace and freedom. And when it finally ended, everyone in the room couldn’t help but think to themselves that the real star of the evening was the (fifth) cup of hope.

I guess that’s what we could offer Elijah. It’s not a cup we’re often permitted to enjoy ourselves – certainly our mass media makes no effort to allow us to enjoy it. If you listen to the radio, watch TV or read the newspapers, you’d have to be convinced that this world is slowly going to hell in a hand basket. So many of our problems require a concerted effort to solve, and are we as a species really ready to come together to solve them?

That sounds like a rhetorical question -- one deserving a resounding “Nyet!.” But after such an exhilarating and uplifting week, I can actually pose the question in earnest. I can actually wonder to myself if we might not in fact be up to the task.

At another mosque this afternoon, where I participated in another interfaith event, a famous statement was repeated by a D.C. court judge: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” It’s an expression associated with the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., a man who had he been alive today would have been celebrating yet another holiday this weekend, another holiday of hope. I tend to agree with that statement. With time, our world does tend to bend toward justice. And enlightenment. And peace. And prosperity. The problem is that the “arc” is oh so slow, slow enough that it is easy to lose patience and say that we are quickly running out of time and the sky will soon fall down after all.

Perhaps that is truly the media’s biggest mistake: they create a sense of extreme urgency and implicitly suggest that we are never quite up to the task at hand. But what if our world’s greatest problems aren’t as pressing as they appear? Could it be that our environment is more resilient than Al Gore suggests? Or that even some of our craziest provocateurs aren’t so crazy as to blow up this planet in a nuclear holocaust? Could it be that this world -- a world in which black and white people have been learning to live together, straight people have been learning to respect the rights of gay people, and autocrats have been learning to step aside from the pinnacle of power -- isn’t quite as far gone as we might think?

I wish Elijah were here in my living room and I could ask him directly: is there cause for hope? Have these incredible Passover seders really been a microcosm of all the loving, inspiring activity that is taking place throughout the world today? Can we ultimately save our planet and live in a realm where peace and justice reign supreme?

“Not exactly,” I suspect he’ll say. “Peace and justice will always be tempered by conflict. But if you’re asking if things will gradually get profoundly better and better over time … if you’re willing to ignore the bumps in the road, you just might be pleasantly surprised.”

Usually, I would call that Pollyannaish. But this week, I’m not so sure. Perhaps Pollyanna had a point after all.

2011-04-16T07:33:00.000-07:00

SOLVING THE NATIONAL DEBT CRISIS – LESSONS FROM A PEACEMAKER

In Moses the Heretic, my second novel, I attempted to tackle the topics of Middle East Peace and Jewish-Islamic relationships. The experience of writing that book gave me the opportunity to reflect long and hard about what is missing from the peace movement. And the answer, at least for me, was clear: we need to see Arabs/Muslims taking public positions in favor of Zionism and Jews/Israelis taking public positions in favor of Palestinian Nationalism.

In the book, I called for a “Singing the Other’s Praises” campaign. It would involve pairs of Jews and Arabs taking to the airwaves and explaining why these so-called “enemies” are really just two sets of cousins who are part of a common family, known collectively as the “House of Abraham.” I figured that there would be no more powerful way of drumming home the beauty of the Zionist narrative in the minds of the public than for them to hear it expressed from the lips of a Palestinian Arab. And there would be no more compelling way of drumming home the beauty of the Palestinian narrative than for the public to hear it expressed from the lips of an Israeli Jew. If only the world could witness the ability of these “combatants” to internalize the truth and justice claims of their cousins, I reasoned, the barriers that have been building for decades would surely begin to fall. And we would all realize that both sets of cousins deserve their own “peace of oith” … their own particular zone of autonomy … just like each set of cousins in a middle-class American family has a home of its own.

That, at least, was my vision for peace. And while it might sound utopian to some, you have got to concede this much: it’s not like any other approach has worked. We’ve had many decades of Jews fighting publicly for Israel and Arabs fighting publicly for the Palestinians and the result, for the most part, is enmity and fear.

These last couple of weeks, while I have continued to spend much of my spare time on Middle East Peace activities, my thoughts have increasingly turned to the domestic problem de jour here in America: the gargantuan national debt. We used to think of the debt in terms of millions … then billions … but now, we’re talking trillions. Many trillions. Taking on that behemoth is beginning to sound as challenging as solving the Middle East Peace conflict. And in each case, the problem seems worse and worse with every passing year.

So what do we do? How about whipping out a “Singing the Other’s Praises” campaign? I’m quite serious – let’s pair up a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat, and have them take to the airwaves together. Talk radio. Fox News. MSNBC in the evening. CNN. Local news. Wherever there’s a microphone, pairs of politicians should grab the mike and chatter away. But the catch is that each politician would have to stay in character – and that would involve what Hollywood calls “playing against type.” It would become the job of the liberal Democrat to talk about how we can no longer afford the magnitude of entitlements that we’ve enjoyed during our nation’s economic peak. This includes entitlements for that most beloved of Democratic fundraisers, the obscenely wealthy trial lawyer, and entitlements for the those who believe that once you reach 65, you have the God-given right to spend bazillions of taxpayer dollars on every possible end-of-life treatment imaginable and without regard to cost. As for the conservative Republicans, it will fall to those politicians to talk about the need to restore some semblance of fairness to how we finance our government and to how we spend our scarce governmental resources. So they would be the ones to express the need to increase taxes on the wealthy, curb defense spending (and wars of choice), and eliminate the tax loopholes and subsidies that large corporations seem to view as their privilege.

Just consider what such a campaign would sound like. For starters, everyone would be speaking the truth. Lord knows that the present system of expenditures and revenue generators is untenable, and the only way it has been allowed to continue is that each side can point to how unreasonable the other side has been. With a “Singing the Other’s Praises” campaign, however, those who are truly serious about debt reduction would stop the finger-pointing and start giving credit where credit is due. Just as with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, both parties have a point when it comes to identifying the causes of the ballooning national debt. It is now time to get together and take on these causes. It’s not hard to figure out what they are; the difficulty lies in politicians summoning the political will to fight their party’s establishment. But if those politicians could pair up with people from the other side who truly have their back, maybe they could summon the needed political courage. In fact, if a national campaign were to begin in which people took on corporate welfare, an ever-expanding military complex, and the insatiable appetites of those from every stratum of the economy who have grown addicted to federal handouts … we just might be able to put our house in order.

Utopian? Sure -- if you think I mean that all of a sudden, every politician in America is going to join this campaign. But all we need is for the campaign to grow two at a time … like the animals arriving in Noah’s Ark. And surely, such politicians exist. Let’s hope they find each other, and fast … before the National Debt balloons from trillions into quadrillions.

Millions, billions, trillions, quadrillions, quintillions, sextillions … pretty soon, you’re talking real money.

2011-04-09T06:15:00.001-07:00

ANOTHER SURREAL DAY IN WASHINGTON

Washingtonians have a reputation for taking themselves way too seriously, and I cannot say this reputation is totally undeserved. You can hear it in the way people talk about their jobs, as if tomorrow’s sunrise depended on their being at the office. And you can hear it in the way people talk about the city itself, as if it is the Emerald City and every place else is Munchkin Land.

Bostonians may call their town the “Hub of the Universe,” but when I lived there, I always thought that statement was meant somewhat playfully. By contrast, here in D.C., when one of the local TV personalities refers to our town as “The Most Important City in the World,” you get the impression that they mean it. And I suspect a lot of Washingtonians believe that drivel.

Well, I don’t. My parents raised me with too much of a respect for the importance of economics for me to elevate D.C. over, say, New York. Still, every now and then, even I have to note that all eyes – nationally and internationally – focus on Washington. And well they should. One of those days was the day after Obama was elected President. Walking around town that morning, I felt like a character in a sci-fi movie. Nothing seemed real. People couldn’t believe that with all of our racist baggage, this nation was actually electing a black man as its President – and in a landslide at that. I will never forget standing outside the Newseum and reading the headlines from around the world. Every one dealt with the election. And I’m sure that all eyes returned to our nation’s capital two months later when Obama was inaugurated, and literally millions descended on the National Mall for the world’s biggest party. Those were days when you felt blessed to be a Washingtonian. Yesterday … not so much.

Sometimes, the surreal can be wonderful. Yesterday, our sur-reality evoked a sense of pathos. We knew that, once again, all eyes were on Washington, but this time, the world was shaking its collective head. There was only one question in everyone’s mind: how can the country with the planet’s largest economy not figure out a way to keep its Government running? Is it so difficult to make budget compromises? Or is something else at play here – something quite unattractive about our nation’s present mindset. From what I can tell, Washingtonians did not have much trouble answering those questions, albeit cynically.

The good news is that the leaders of both political parties ultimately were pragmatic enough to get the job done and avert a Government shutdown. But this was not without wasting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars, as every agency had to waste its time on shutdown contingency plans, rather than doing the nation’s business. How, you ask, did we reach the brink of a shutdown? Was it just that both sides care so deeply about the substance of budget issues that they felt compelled to fight to the bitter end for their principles? I wish that was the explanation.

As I walked around town yesterday from one Government meeting to another, I could not help but reflect on the real subtext to this latest Washington Soap Opera. Increasingly, we are facing a situation in which millions of Americans – many more, in fact, than the numbers who came to town for Obama’s inaugural – have decided that the enemy isn’t so much the deficit, but the Government itself. You can see this in the concerns raised by the organization that represents these people, the so-called “Tea Party.” Tea Partiers are not whining about the tax cuts for the rich, even though those tax cuts balloon the deficit. Similarly, Tea Partiers are not whining about the Government subsidies for large and already-profitable corporations, even though those subsidies further balloon the deficit. In each of those cases, the money is perceived as being plowed directly back into the hands of the very people who generated the tax revenues to begin with, and is thus a tolerable expenditure. Rather, the Tea Party reserves its barbs strictly for those instances in which the Government employs people to make discretionary decisions as to how to spend the taxpayers money. That, and that alone, is the perceived assault that shocks a Tea Partier’s conscience.

When Spinoza wrote that “hatred is pain, accompanied by an external cause,” he was voicing what few of us like to admit about ourselves, but most of us know to be the case. Here, when so much of the Tea Party’s anger is directed to how Government workers exercise their discretion to spend taxpayer dollars, is there any question that the Government workers themselves have become the object of the Tea Partiers’ anger and resentment? And yesterday, when roughly a million such workers faced the possibility of being deprived both of their salary and the opportunity to do their jobs, is there any question that many a Tea Partier inwardly glowed at that prospect?

As I walked across town yesterday, thinking some of these cynical thoughts, I assumed that the Government would be shut down for the weekend – just long enough to give the Tea Partiers their pound of bureaucrat-flesh, but not so long as to do any obvious long-term damage to our nation’s infrastructure or economy. The fact is, however, that damage is being done whenever Government workers perceive themselves as the enemy of millions of Americans, and politicians fan the flames of those who would create this adversarial relationship. This cannot be good for Government morale, and it is hardly likely to lead the public to make the best decisions in choosing their legislators or, for that matter, their Presidents.

As a lifelong civil servant, I will continue to work long hours to protect the interests of the public to the best of my abilities. But I’ve already seen the popular hatred of the Government impact my ability to do that job, as it affects the willingness of people to cooperate with the Government. Without cooperation between the Government and the people, what you have is a third-world nation. Yesterday, walking around Washington, D.C, I was beginning to feel like we are turning into just such a place.

2011-04-02T13:56:00.001-07:00

WAR AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST

When I heard that the U.S. military would help enforce a no-fly zone in Libya, my visceral reaction was joy. Though I realized this could mean involvement in a war, Obama’s decision just felt right. Gaddafi had said to his political opponents in Libya that “We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity.” And in uttering those words, he was threatening the residents not only of Libya but of any Arab country who dared to fight tyranny. Indeed, Gaddafi was also providing a road map to tyrants: brutalize your would-be reformers in the worst way, or risk going the way of the dodo bird … or Mubarak.

Sitting in the relative calm of my home in Bethesda, Maryland, I had but one sentiment: we’ve got to stop this son of a bitch. We can’t let a few power-crazed strong men snuff out expressions of dissent in the Arab world. In Gaddafi’s case, he wasn’t just talking about cracking down on reformers. He was going to get Medieval. Tarrantino, DePalma, and the ghost of Kubrick couldn’t help but be impressed by the impending “ultra-violence.”

When it comes to the emotions, then, my reaction to Obama’s call to arms in Libya was unambiguous. Intellectually, though, certain doubts crept in. How, I asked, is this any different from the other circumstances where we used force to impose our own chosen type of government on another people? Should we invade every country whose leader strong-arms would be reformers? Should we bomb the compounds of all the world’s dictators? Should we give the leaders of developing nations a choice: implement a republican democracy or die?

Soon, I started hearing the voice of that Klingon from an old Star Trek episode: “Surrender must be unconditional and immediate … Prepare to be boarded, or destroyed.” Somehow, an act of humanitarianism had turned into a macho chant of jingoism. And that’s when it dawned on me that the problem was simple: wars should be initiated very, very sparingly, and only based on compelling and clearly enunciated principles. Otherwise, the next thing you know, you’ll be behaving like a Klingon … or a Cheney.

So, here’s the question: have we enunciated sufficiently compelling principles that support waging war in Libya? The answer to that is obvious. We haven’t clearly enunciated much of anything when it comes to Libya – except for the idea that Gaddafi is a bad man who ideally would be out of power. (Something that could be said for numerous other world leaders.) Perhaps because of everyone’s fatigue from the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither the Administration nor the American public is willing to embrace stopping Gaddafi as the grounds for war.

Consider the words of White House press secretary Jay Carney, when we asked point blank this past Wednesday whether we should call what is happening in Libya a “war”:

"Look, it is a -- obviously, it's military action. Did we invade Libya? No. Are we -- do we have U.S. troops on the ground in Libya? No. You can call it -- it's been a false argument that some media outlets have tried to engage about the nomenclature here. It is the use of military force in concert with our allies. Military force is inherently a risky proposition, puts men and women in harm's way, and military -- but what it is not is in the context that we live in today, anything like a situation where you had I believe at one point 170,000-plus U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq; where you have 100,000 U.S. troops and 140,000 ISAF troops overall in Afghanistan in a prolonged engagement, a prolonged war. That is not what is happening in Libya.”

I think we now have a new definition of waging war – a military action in which you invest a minimum of 100,000 troops. So by that definition, when in Dr. Strangelove, General Jack Ripper initiated a nuclear holocaust of the Russians through the use of B-52 bombers rather than scores of thousands of ground troops, I guess he wasn’t waging war. It was a mere “military action.” Somewhere under the ground, George Orwell is smiling in his grave.

At times, American leaders trump up justifications for war when they can’t think of a good enough reason to explain the real McCoy. In this case, the opposite may be happening. We might be afraid to announce our support for a war even though one could truly be justified. What is a more compelling reason to implement “regime change” than that there exists a madman who is threatening the most inhumane possible slaughter of his people – or at least those of his people who dare to speak out against his tyrannical leadership? And doesn’t this rationale for war become especially compelling when it is taking place during a pivotal juncture in the democracy movement that is spreading throughout the most explosive region in the world?

Frankly, the only way you could justify NOT acting under such circumstances is because you don’t want that democracy movement to succeed. And many westerners don’t. It’s the old line about how “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.” In this case, that’s code for the idea that the authoritarian, though somewhat pragmatic, leaders who’ve been dominating the Arab world could well be preferable to the elements in the Arab street who wish to implement Sharia law, at the expense of, among other things, women’s rights and the welfare of Israel.

Truly, I have no crystal ball and am unable to guarantee what will happen in Arab countries like Egypt and Tunisia that are overthrowing their dictators. But I for one would like to see this happen in Libya. More to the point, as a Jew, I can’t sit back and watch Gaddafi threaten what amounts to genocide against the Libyan people, particularly when he obviously had the means to carry out his threat absent NATO intervention.

Another reason why I tend to support the United States’ attack on Libya is because I trust it is not motivated by our typical pedestrian (i.e., short-term, materialistic) sense of the so-called “national interest.” Sometimes, you get the impression that we pick and choose which countries to invade based on whether the enemy poses a threat to our pocketbooks, or its ouster presents an opportunity for our pocketbooks. Personally, I don’t like the idea of waging wars over oil. I prefer the idea of waging wars to stop an impending slaughter. People matter more than oil; it’s just that simple.

So when I hear Secretary of Defense Gates say that it “is not a vital national interest of the United States” to involve itself in the Libyan conflict, that actually makes me MORE likely to support military involvement there, not less. It makes me trust that the NATO nations are compelled to act because Gaddafi is presenting an unusually profound humanitarian threat, and nothing short of military means can stop him. I still don’t know the end game. I still don’t know how many NATO lives and how much money will be lost in the fight to remove Gaddafi. So yes, I still have my intellectual doubts. But all and all, if asked whether I would support war here, the answer would be yes. It continues to be in the long-term national interest of the United States – and any other nation that has learned the lessons of the Holocaust – to prevent an impending genocide if at all possible. And who knows, if America can help stop Gaddafi and return Libya to the Libyans generally, and not to one megalomaniacal Libyan in particular, maybe, just maybe, the Arab street will deeply appreciate us for our selfless act of humanitarianism on their behalf.

Now THAT would be in our national interest.

2011-03-26T05:01:00.000-07:00

TIME FOR MY ANNUAL PURIM ESSAY

Nearly every year for the past quarter of a century, I’ve thrown a party for the Jewish holiday of Purim. I was moved to do so by an experience back in 1981. Having recently graduated from college, I went to Israel for an extended visit and was living in one Orthodox yeshiva in Jerusalem and hanging out with some friends in a second such yeshiva. That Purim, I spent the evening of the holiday in my yeshiva and the next day at my friends’. In both cases, I had the privilege of watching some normally straight-and-narrow Orthodox Jews, including rabbis, get shit faced drunk. For a 20 year-old kid like me, the whole experience was mind blowing. Who knew Orthodox rabbis got drunk? I sure didn’t.

A half a decade later, while living in Northern Virginia, I decided that if rabbis could get plastered while celebrating Purim, so could a fledgling lawyer and his then-girlfriend in their mid-20s. Well that relationship didn’t last, but the annual tradition of Purim parties did. My friends and I don’t drink so much any more, fortunately for our longevity, but we drink enough alcohol that certain of my Muslim friends won’t even show up at the party -- in other words, we're not abusing the holiday by behaving like tee-totalers.

As part of the event, I started writing and delivering essays for the occasion. They usually have Jewish themes, though every now and then I’ve strayed from that constraint, as in the year when I spoke about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Anyway, this year’s talk is indeed about Judaism, though I’d like to think that the points I’m making are relevant to non-Jews as well.

So without any further hype, I’d like to encourage each of you to read this year's speech. (Scroll down and click on "Purim 2011".) I hope you enjoy it.

2011-03-19T04:59:00.000-07:00

MORE INSPIRATION FROM LAST MONTH'S SPINOZA CONFERENCE

Paola Teresa Grassi is an Italian philosopher whose talk about Spinoza and Goethe was one of the highlights of the Spinoza and Feminism conference in which I participated last month. She has been kind enough to translate into Italian my blog post regarding the conference. For all you Italian speakers, here's a link where you can find the translation: http://www.fogliospinoziano.it/

After I wrote that blog post, Paola was inspired to write a piece of her own. I contributed a few thoughts, and now we have a finished product. So here it is. I hope you enjoy it.

Shakespeare, A Prophet in the Spinozistic Manner by Paola Teresa Grassi

With the passage of time, ideas have the capacity to germinate. It has been almost a month since the Spinoza Symposium at American University, and I am finding that some ideas from that Symposium are becoming clear for the first time, and others are becoming quite powerful. I find myself especially struck by two reflections. First, that an effective demonstration in philosophy is not merely a theoretical exercise; it is a practical one. Secondly, philosophy at its most practical asks such fundamental questions as "what is ethical"? But it does not stop with these questions. They are used as points of departure from which emerges a lively byplay, experienced at the very core of those who take up the challenge.

At a symposium on Spinoza, perhaps the most basic question is what is meant by the "Spinozist project"? For me, this project is a phenomenological resource for nothing less than a revolution, one that takes place in both the political and the theological domains. Indeed, just as Spinozism has this dual soul, so does philosophy as a whole. This is illustrated by the work of the recently deceased French scholar, Pierre Hadot. Hadot spent his life reformulating the history of his field as a never-ending process that furnishes evidence of a symbiosis between philosophical discourse and a rich, dialectically-stimulating existence. One of the main lessons taught to us by Hadot is that modern philosophy does not forget philosophizing in the manner of the ancients. Quite the contrary -- modern philosophy, at its best, grapples with many of the same issues and ideas that the ancients raised. The innovations accomplished by modern philosophers have the ancients to thank for providing the needed background.

You certainly can see this phenomenon operating in the work of Goethe, which owes so much to the teachings of Spinoza. Much has been said about the connection between those two thinkers. What has not, however, been widely revealed, are the many intersections between Spinoza and another literary great, Shakespeare. You don't often hear the name of the Bard invoked as a prophet among men, but I would argue that that is precisely what he was -- if the word "prophet" is used in the sense employed by Spinoza.

Readers of Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise will note that Spinoza thought of prophets as people who were distinguished, not so much by their command of the truth, but by the power of their imaginations. Who can deny that as a master of the imagination -- and the psyche -- Shakespeare was at the very pinnacle of his species? Shakespearean stories are stories for the people deliciously invented by a man of the people whose main craft was acting. The characters crafted out of Shakespeare's imagination emerge as moral icons in the Spinozistic sense that, armed with a complex and increasingly self-aware inner life, they succeed in transforming the self. And all this happens on the wooden stages of the Elizabethan age, in front of those who are standing on the ground (the groundlings).

The range and profundity of Shakespeare's characters are mind-boggling. You have the stoic, if not ascetic, skepticism of Hamlet. Then there are such counter-cultural lovers as the bitter Beatrice, who strives to love in a reasonable manner, or Ophelia, who unconsciously finds profit in the negative. And finally we have fighters, like Henry V. These characters evoke different portions of the human soul, each one conjuring up memories upon memories in those who observe the fictional lives of these characters. (Can they really be fictional? They do not appear that way by the story's end.) The depth of these characters is such that they become models to strive for, each in his or her own way. In the effort to reproduce these models so that they can come alive on the stage, the Bard creates a way of being in the world, one that is entrancing, thought-provoking, and ultimately challenging to the observer's system of ethics.

What Shakespeare has forged on many levels is nothing less than a way of being in the world -- an accomplishment that Spinoza reproduced, in his own way, a century later. And insofar as they have opened our eyes to a new way of living, they are both aptly termed not only philosophers, but practical philosophers. In other words, they are philosophers for the people, and not merely for academicians. Both men, using very different media, came to the conclusion that wisdom lies in a life led by questioning the world so as to grasp the nature of every movement of the human soul. Spinoza explored this via pure reason. Shakespeare, via drama.

For Spinoza, prophets are not merely lions of the imagination; they are also the people who carry the nature of the world in a language that is particularly accessible, and stirring, to the commons. Shakespeare is surely a prototype of such a prophet. Spinoza characterized the knowledge learned from prophesy as "knowledge of the first kind" -- by which he meant the lowest form of knowledge (beneath that of reason and intuition). Yet an encounter with Spinoza's ideas reveals Shakespeare as a "philosopher of the first kind," and I mean that in the highest sense of the words. For what Shakespeare's plays communicate to the acute observer is the true nature of the human mind; he has as much to say on that topic as does any protégé of Plato or Aristotle.

As Spinoza the theologian was well aware, the Biblical figures beautifully translated reality into images and events to produce the most indelible convictions in the minds of the faithful. Shakespeare's plays do the same, and can accomplish this feat without even a pretense that the events ever happened. What's more, Shakespeare defined the real language of the people -- the vulgar language -- not only during his own time but even today, half a millennium later, when his beloved English has become the closest thing we have to a universal tongue. When Shakespeare depicted an image, that image would become publicly available then ... and now. And so, when the "theatre of the passions" was played out in Spinoza's century -- as it is played out in every century -- it had already received some of its flesh and blood on the London stages that had been graced by the works of the Bard. Spinoza knew those passions well, as you might expect given that he was banished from his own community at the tender age of 23. And so, armed with the knowledge of these passions, which Shakespeare has made so real for so many, Spinoza set out to forge his own creation -- the "geometrical" deductions of his own masterwork, the Ethics.

This historical overview takes me back to where I started: the idea of philosophy as a practice. Attending a Shakespeare play is definitively an exercise in philosophical practice -- an exercise for which Hadot may have used the term "spiritual." It is intriguing for those who love Spinoza to consider that this brilliant philosopher from Stratford wrote so soon before the century of Spinoza. Was Spinoza influenced by Shakespeare? Were the psychological ruminations that many view to be the heart of the Ethics deepened by those of the Bard? Historians may well know the answer to these questions. But for me, as a lover of philosophy -- practical philosophy -- I'm just grateful that we can enjoy both of these luminaries as our teachers.

2011-03-13T06:44:00.001-07:00

RELIGIOUS VALUES AT THEIR MOST PRIMITIVE

The best argument for the proposition that America is a center-right country is that, whereas states like Utah and Mississippi can be counted on to support conservative measures, even the so-called “bluest” states aren’t reliably blue. That point was driven home yet again this week in my own home state of Maryland.

Currently, there are five states that legalize gay marriage. After a bill that would do the same in Maryland passed the State Senate, the Old Line State seemed destined to be the sixth. The Governor indicated he would sign the legislation, and the House was known to be more liberal than the Senate. So it’s a done deal, right? That certainly was the conventional wisdom.

Unfortunately, those of us who had counted our chickens before they hatched had failed to take into account the power of right-wing religious ideas even among supposedly progressive communities. And when push came to shove, the bill was done in by the “liberals” from the African-American and Catholic communities. They’ll reliably vote Democrat, but that doesn’t mean they condone “sodomy.”

The irony of African-American opposition to the gay marriage bill became quite the subject of debate among Maryland legislators. Some African-Americans pointed out the obvious: that it wasn’t long ago when conservatives thought that blacks and whites shouldn’t be able to marry each other, so how in good conscience can African-Americans support a law that prohibits other pairs of consenting adults from joining in holy matrimony? But merely to ask the question is to answer it. To a large swath of religious people, homosexuality can never be holy. It says so right there in the Lord’s book. Marriage is a sacred rite. And homosexuality is a sin. Never the twain shall meet. Those, apparently, are the views of a substantial percentage of Maryland’s progressive community.

Candidly, other than representatives of orthodox religious communities, I haven’t met a single Democrat who admits to opposing gay marriage. They’re hard to find in Reform or Reconstructionist Jewish congregations, that’s for sure. Among progressive Jews, gay marriage is a civil right. In fact, it’s more than just a right – the marriage ceremony is a sacred rite, bringing together two consenting adults who pledge their undying love to each other. Whether it involves two men, two women or one of each seems irrelevant to us. Whether the two can have children, want to have children, or will have children also seems irrelevant. We all know plenty of heterosexual couples who haven’t tried to have children, and none of us question whether their marriage is authentic.

It’s difficult enough for me to contemplate why progressives would attempt to take away the opportunity for two consenting adults to enjoy an undying love together. But what boggles my mind is how this right can be stripped … in the name of God? I’m sorry, but I can’t help believing that in 500 years, people will look back at those who once opposed gay marriage the same way that we today look at those who once opposed interracial marriage. Granted, the one kind of opposition might be grounded in Scripture, whereas the other isn’t, but Scripture also commands killing adulterers and women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night. Do we really want all religious people to dip into our respective Scriptures and advocate prohibitions of non-violent conduct among consenting adults? Do we really want the words of our Scriptures to determine whether our Government gets into the business of whether we should fall in love with a man or a woman? Or are we saying simply that, according to God, some people have the right to get married and others don’t? Whatever message is being sent here, it is neither modern nor spiritual.

2011-03-06T18:50:00.001-08:00

IT’S A SMALL WORLD AFTER ALL

I’m sorry that I didn’t have a chance to author a substantial blog post this weekend. A brief note will have to suffice.

I find myself reflecting sometimes on just how small and petty the concerns of Washington can be. I’m thinking about the old saw that the only thing that matters in American politics is the economy – if it’s doing well, the incumbents will be rewarded; otherwise, they won’t. Supposedly, the political equation is just that simple. When we get a campaign team that really knows what they’re doing, like the one that impelled a young Bill Clinton to the Presidency in 1992, they come with slogans like, “It’s the economy, stupid.” And perhaps they’re right – if all a statesman cares about is getting re-elected, perhaps that is where he should be devoting virtually all of his time and energy. Of course, when you actually think about how a statesman on the federal level can truly serve her nation, becoming expert on a particular area of foreign policy comes immediately to mind.

As I read the newspapers and consider all that is going on today in the Middle East – in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan … (I could keep going, but you get the point) – it almost seems ridiculous to speak about our own economic needs in the same breath as the international issues. What is going on now in these countries could dramatically affect the future of our species. Am I exaggerating? Not when you consider the increasing potency of our weapons of mass destruction and the difficulty of keeping all the possible Middle Eastern genies inside their respective bottles. Clearly, what we need is a formula to usher in peace and prosperity in that region, and I’m not measuring prosperity by the wealth of the ruling class, but rather by the wealth of the middle and working classes. It is their poverty and lack of education that fuels all the violence … that, and the stubborn, ruthless leadership that the Middle Eastern people have so commonly faced over the years.

It would be glib to say that I know how the present events will unfold. Like everyone else, I haven’t a clue. All that I can do is pray for the best and hope that the toppling of tyrants will at least not make the situation worse. But with respect to the one Middle Eastern hotspot in which I have the broadest knowledge base and the longest history of activism – the Israel/Palestinian conflict – there I am hoping for something very specific. I desperately would like to see Netanyahu and Abbas figure out a way to go back to the bargaining table, where they would encounter an Obama and a Clinton who would propose a peace deal and fight like hell to see it implemented.

We absolutely must not squander this opportunity to reach such an agreement. At least let’s give it a try. It’s madness not to.

2011-02-27T17:29:00.001-08:00

TAKING IT TO THE STREETS

First Tunisia. Then Egypt. Then Yemen. Then Libya. Then … well, then America. I’m thinking of the protests that have been going on in Madison, Boise, Indianapolis, Lansing, and Columbus. Tomorrow, from what my wife tells me, Maryland’s teachers will be taking to the streets in Annapolis. If only they can get the Naval officers from the academy to join them, who knows what they can accomplish? From reading about the events in Cairo, I remember how important it is to have the armed forces with you when you’re staging a protest.

Truth be told, the protests here in the good ol’ US of A cannot legitimately be compared to the revolutions in the Arab world. The latter involve an interest on the part of the masses to live in a democracy and enjoy the basic freedoms associated with that form of government. By contrast, here in America, nobody is threatening to take away our right to vote in a free election, or such fundamental liberties as the freedom of speech or of religion. Comparatively speaking, the firefighters of Wisconsin or the schoolteachers of Maryland have very little to complain about.

So they should just take their medicine and thank the Lord they have a job, right? That’s certainly the Fox News party line, and it is echoed by all the big-time talk radio DJs. Frankly, the attitude was propagated in part by our President, the so-called “socialist,” who proactively froze the pay of the federal civil servants (but not the military), arguing that in tough times, they too should bear their fair share of sacrifices. But in a number of our state houses, legislators have picked up where Obama left off; they have proposed not only to dock public workers’ pay but also to strip them of the right to bargain collectively. It’s a bold move, considering that the five states that currently deprive public school teachers of such rights rank 34th, 38th, 45th, 48th and 49th, respectively, in student SAT scores. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, paying teachers a decent wage is a good idea?

Anyway, I’m convinced that what is going on here is about much more than the need to make tough choices during hard economic times. Clearly, the really tough choices aren’t being made. We’ve just been through two years of bailouts – first the executives on Wall Street, then the car manufacturers – and tax cuts for the rich. Now, despite all the talk of fiscal conservatism, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives continues to support subsidies to highly profitable industries, and nobody is even making a stink about that on the Democratic side. I, for one, haven’t seen a shred of sacrifice from the “haves” of the private sector, let alone the heirs whose only accomplishment in life is to be born the son or daughter of a multi-millionaire. Without such sacrifice, why is it exactly that the public employees should take it on the chin?

It has become a cliché that America has voted in the mid-term election, and the politicians are listening. Supposedly, what they are hearing is the sound of angry citizens, but it is worth pausing to reflect on the nature of that anger. Supposedly, the citizens are angry about our unbalanced budget; apparently, though, they are not angry enough to demand that the government raise the revenues needed to match its expenses. That’s why our Democratic President could cut the taxes on the rich and brag about it. Supposedly, the citizens are angry in particular about wasteful spending; apparently, though, they are not angry enough to demand the government to stop subsidizing highly profitable industries or fighting unwinnable wars. That’s why when it comes to private sector or military spending, you won’t hear many complaints from the Tea Party.

Now, as for the true object of the citizens’ anger, what the politicians are hearing is quite simple: that they should stop all the God-forsaken handouts to undeserving individuals. That means to stop funding welfare queens. But it also means to stop paying big salaries to the so-called “unaccountable, lazy civil servants.”

The message that I pick up from Fox News and talk radio is a clarion call. We should indeed pay the men and women of the armed forces, and pay them well. After all, they are doing God’s work – a job we all need done well. But civil servants? That’s a horse of a different color. Even if they were given important work, which supposedly most are not, the best we are told to expect from their performance is a mediocre one.

On the surface, then, the striking workers are protesting about money issues – salaries and pensions, to be specific. But deep down, they’re protesting about respect and dignity. Somehow, the critical mass of this society has decided to group them in the same category as every other dead beat who is “sucking on the public tit.” And whether you are a firefighter, a cop, a teacher, or a DMV clerk, you don’t appreciate being treated as someone who doesn’t earn his or her keep.

Personally, I keep finding myself going back to the decision of President Obama to begin the so-called “lame duck” period by effectively docking the pay of the non-military federal workforce. If he had previously been willing to fight to increase the taxes of the ultra-rich, or had then been willing to freeze the pay of soldiers together with that of the civil servants, maybe the protests in our state capitals wouldn’t be nearly as passionate. But he didn’t. And now we have a nation of civil servants who have correctly surmised that if they want their rights, they better damned well fight for them. Trusting a politician these days is crazier than trusting a used car dealer.

2011-02-19T09:26:00.001-08:00

AIPAC AND J STREET

I customarily disagree with the American-Israel Political Action Committee’s (AIPAC’s) policy stances on how Israel should be interacting with its Palestinian cousins. But even we critics have to respect AIPAC’s political clout. That power was on display once again yesterday at the United Nations. The U.N. Security Council was voting on a resolution that would have condemned Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank as illegal. More than one hundred U.N. members had co-sponsored the measure, and 14 of the 15 nations in the Security Council were prepared to support it. But wouldn’t you know it, the 15th is the United States, and it had the right to exercise a veto. So the resolution failed.

According to the Netanyahu party line, which AIPAC obviously supports, Israel remains willing to negotiate a peace agreement; it is the Palestinians who are creating peace impediments by demanding first that Israel freeze its settlement construction. The Obama Administration does not buy into that perspective. In fact, stopping the settlements was once the cornerstone of the President’s peace plan. So why couldn’t we support yesterday’s U.N. resolution? Why was it the wrong time to send a message that the more settlements Israel builds, the harder it will be to make peace? Isn’t that proposition obvious to all but the most partisan observers?

Perhaps. Yet traditionally, when it comes to American policy towards Israel, the AIPAC position will carry the day. When combined with the conservative gentiles who dominate the GOP, AIPAC’s power among Jews of both political parties has proven impossible to defeat over the long haul. Occasionally, an American President will send a strong message against an Israeli policy, but after every such blip (such as Obama’s Cairo speech), there is a sharp reaction from the Israel-right-or-wrong lobby, and the United States soon finds itself back in its customary role of Israel’s lone, prominent defender.

Whatever else can be said about AIPAC, the fact is that it is congenitally incapable of criticizing Israel for moving too far to the right. Consequently, when it comes to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians today, AIPAC would prefer instead simply to change the subject. The mantra goes something like this: “We’re ready to make peace when the Palestinians can speak in one, moderate voice and comport themselves accordingly. In the meantime, we’re concentrating solely on a more pressing issue: the threat of Iran’s nukes.”

Frankly, if that attitude were replicated throughout Israel, we’d NEVER make peace with the Palestinians. Peace will come only when each side goes out of its way to make concessions, rather than playing the game of “I won’t reach out my hand until he reaches out his hand first.” This is elementary stuff. AIPAC knows it and so does Netanyahu, but they just don’t care. They probably figure that the status quo could be a whole lot worse for Israel, and if it’s unbearable for the Palestinians, that’s “their problem, not ours.” Somehow, that doesn’t exactly sound like an attitude consistent with Prophetic Judaism.

What’s particularly disturbing about AIPAC is how even liberal politicians are willing to espouse the right-wing party line when they speak to an AIPAC audience. What does that say about the rank-and-file of AIPAC members? Are they really so out-of-touch with the Middle East peace equation? It was at such a conference in 2008 when then-candidate Obama uttered his now famous (or infamous) declaration, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.” Truly, the idea of an undivided Jerusalem is not a part of any credible peace plan, yet for some reason, a politician as sophisticated as Obama felt the need to advocate that one-sided solution. It’s a sad commentary on his willingness to pander, and a sadder still commentary on AIPAC’s unwillingness to advocate what is necessary to make peace.

Clearly, we Jewish peaceniks have for years needed an alternative to AIPAC. Now, finally, such an organization is beginning to attain prominence. One week from today, J Street will be starting its annual conference in my home town of Washington, D.C., and most of my buddies in the peace movement here are all abuzz. They look at J Street as the focal point of our hope for a more enlightened U.S. policy toward the Holy Land. Finally, the Jewish community has created a lobby in Washington on Israel-Palestine issues that does not come across as an “Amen chorus” for the Israeli Government.

J Street is a voice that must be reckoned with on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. It is extremely well funded, with backers that include billionaire George Soros. Needless to say, people who have big money don’t spend it on advocacy organizations that come across as “fringe.” As a result, J Street works hard to situate itself in the mainstream. It takes every opportunity to style itself as pro Israel, pro peace, and pro two-state solution. Its leadership even calls itself “Zionist.” On the surface, then, this is an organization that sounds a whole lot like AIPAC … except that it is willing to criticize Israel when necessary to accomplish the same ultimate goal that most members of AIPAC would embrace: a peaceful, prosperous Israel.

Ah, but an organization is more than just a mission statement, isn’t it? And when you take a closer look at J Street, what you’ll see remains a lot more muddled than what is advertised. Prior to the formation of J Street, there was a vacuum on the political left when it came to U.S.--Israeli relations. In filling that vacuum, J Street has brought into the tent a wide cast of characters. I’m going to avoid the temptation to call out names. But suffice it to say that J Street’s more prominent supporters include certain figures who might call themselves “pro-Israel” (a meaningless statement if ever there were one), but who reserve 90% of their barbs for Israel’s conduct, preferring to give the Palestinians a free ride unless and until Israel lives up to the standards set forth by the Biblical Prophets. How’s that for balance? Palestinians are treated with kid gloves when they depict Israel like dirt in their textbooks, deny the Jews a right to their own state in the Middle East, and refer to the Jews’ return to Zion as the “catastrophe;” by contrast, Jews are expected to behave like Amos, Micah, and Isaiah? If that attitude is “pro-Israel,” I’d hate to hear what “anti-Israel” sounds like.

As for the word “Zionist,” I rarely if ever hear it uttered by those of my friends who are in J Street. My guess is that they’re sick of what it represents – the advocacy of a state in which Jews are granted special privileges, even if those privileges are confined to immigration policies. They prefer instead to think of Israel as a Jewish “homeland” or “haven” in which Jews may ultimately find themselves in the minority, but that’s OK, as long as they are treated with equal rights. To be sure, there are undoubtedly honest-to-God Zionists in J Street. But to call the organization as a whole “Zionist” strikes me as quite a stretch.

For these reasons, I won’t be joining my friends at the J Street conference. When I work in the peace movement, I prefer to situate myself on the outside of that organization so that I can criticize it with the same frequency that it criticizes Israel. If it can remain “pro-Israel” even though it does little else but complain about Israel, I can certainly remain “pro J Street” even though I am frequently complaining about its unwillingness to take on the Arabs with half of the vehemence that it reserves for Israel.

How’s that for a backhanded compliment? Honestly, though, I can call myself “pro J Street” in one important respect. If forced to choose between J Street and its sheepishness toward the Palestinians on the one hand, and AIPAC and its incessant Israel defending on the other, I’ll take J Street any time. And I say that as a staunch Zionist and lover of Israel. The fact is that sometimes our friends and family need tough love. (That’s precisely why we should criticize the Palestinians more – they are truly our cousins, and we should expect a lot more from them.) And as crazy as the Netanyahu Government is behaving in cow-towing to the Israeli settlers, that Government needs a whole lot of tough love these days.

Personally, I am thrilled that the United States remains a friend of Israel. May it always be so. In fact, it is my hope that Israel is treated by my own Government not merely as one ally among many, but as the closest of friends. The only question for me is what kind of friend Israel needs the most -- one that, in essence, lets it drive drunk (the AIPAC position), or one that holds it to a higher standard than it holds everyone else (the J Street position)? Isn’t there a third alternative?

Maybe, but that third alternative doesn’t yet have well-funded institutional support. And not coincidentally, after decades of battling, Israel still doesn’t yet have peace with its neighbors. Such a pity. But then again, what is a Jew but a person who both laments and hopes at all times.

As we Jews have been saying for centuries, “Next year in Jerusalem.”

2011-02-12T03:33:00.001-08:00

HONORING A TRUE PROPHET

“And Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.’” Mark 6:4

Spinoza expired in his tiny apartment in the Hague on February 21, 1677. He died a widely reviled man in both the Christian and Jewish communities of his day, associated with the refusal to accept the existence of a supernatural God, free will, human immortality, and many other concepts that remain hallowed by the peoples of Abraham. Surely, more Dutchmen of his day associated him with the Devil than with God, despite all of Spinoza’s efforts to proclaim his love for the divine.

While he walked the earth, then, Spinoza was indeed “without honor,” and not merely in his own community. But does that make Spinoza anything less than a prophet? Not to me. The afore-mentioned verse from the Book of Mark has its greatest resonance when it is construed to refer to a prophet’s reception over time. Forward thinkers may indeed be ignored, even derided, by the “luminaries” of their era. In some instances, it takes years before their brilliance is widely appreciated, and in the case of Spinoza, it took roughly a century. Thanks to Goethe, Lessing, Mendelssohn, Schiller, Shelling and others, Spinozism became all the rage among much of the intelligentsia in late 18th century Germany. Across the pond, in the fledgling republic known as the United States of America, Spinoza’s fans included a man named Thomas Jefferson.

I have taken us back a bit down memory lane because I believe we are witnessing yet another renaissance in the relevance and appreciation for Baruch Spinoza. Increasingly, people are beginning to realize that he was ahead not only of his time but of ours. This is why Spinoza has been adopted by so many academics, in field after field. When attempting to bridge the gaps in conventional modern thinking, it often becomes clear that Spinoza was mining this same avant-garde ore centuries in the past.

To me, that makes Spinoza the kind of prophet who we in the 21st century can honor as such. By “prophet,” I do not mean a recipient of supernatural messages from an omnibenevolent, yet inscrutable Cosmic Will. Spinoza, for one, has debunked the belief in such prophesy, and for that matter, anything else that could be called “supernatural.” Rather, I am referring to a genius whose ability to see ahead of his time in critical respects can enlighten the paths of those of us who are mired in darkness. Speaking as such a traveler, I am fortunate to be able to lean on Spinoza when it comes to metaphysics, theology, ethics, psychology and politics. But what amazes me even more than how useful I personally find his writings is to witness his reception among those who are truly expert in their fields. More than three centuries after his death, Spinoza is seen not only as having anticipated modern trends, but in some cases as holding the keys that can unlock the doors of our present ignorance. I have witnessed such testimonials every time I’ve attended an academic conference on Spinoza, and I’ve attended these conferences on multiple occasions and concerning a wide range of topics. The latest was at the Madeline Renee Turkeltaub Memorial Symposium on Ethics held at the American University on February 7, 2011. It was entitled “Spinoza: Feminist Perspectives/Aspects of Embodiment.”

As someone who is sick and tired of seeing “prophets” treated like superhuman objects of perfection, I appreciated the way the Symposium began. The first speaker, McGill University professor Hasana Sharp, addressed the so-called “Black Page” of Spinoza, which also happened to be the final thing the man wrote in his final (albeit unfinished) book, the Political Treatise. The Black Page is a term used by feminist thinkers to refer to Spinoza’s argument that women should not be able to serve in Government with men. For all of us who love Spinoza, it remains a rare blot on his legacy. But I have learned to appreciate it in spite of its falsity, for it reminds those of us who would tend to lionize the man excessively that he is indeed no “prophet” in the conventional sense of the word, but rather a flesh-and-blood mortal who, failing supernatural assistance, was the product of his own limited mind and experiences. Arguably, Spinoza’s upbringing in an Orthodox Jewish community, combined with the sexual repression he likely experienced as an adult, convinced him that if men were forced to serve with women in Government, they would likely find themselves more and more frustrated sexually, and less and less efficient administratively. At least that’s my speculation.

After confronting the Black Page, the Symposium was off to the races with one tribute after another to Spinoza’s seminal ideas. He was presented first by Professor Sharp as an early feminist – notwithstanding that one page. Then my friend Paola Grassi, an Italian philosopher, explained how Spinoza has inspired some of the greatest literature our species has known, in the form of the works of the Great Goethe. Goethe, Paola said, essentially turned Spinozism into a private religion – one that celebrates nature over the imaginary “supernatural” realm, recognizes the transformative value of self-awareness, and appreciates that such self-awareness requires grappling with both one’s intellect and one’s emotional faculties. Indeed, as I learned later in the Symposium from James Blair of the National Institute of Mental Health, and Heidi Raaven, a renowned Spinoza scholar from Hamilton College, emotions are truly at the heart of any efforts to think rationally. The next time someone tells you that Spinoza was a stoic, just shake your head. No less than his disciple Goethe, and no less than the rabbis who taught him, Spinoza knew that to be human is to be the product of one’s emotions, and he developed neurobiological theories that have stood the test of time. As any Spinozist could tell you, contentment consists of understanding our own unique emotions and ensuring that the ones that dominate us are as wholesome as possible. When we attempt to will our emotions away -- when we repress them -- we end up espousing stupid stuff. For example, we say things like women have no business serving with men in Government … or in combat … or as rabbis … or … well, you get the idea.

Other speakers at the Symposium included Sarah Donovan of Wagner College and Karen Houle of the University of Guelph. They reminded me that Spinoza can be invaluable in addressing the most contemporary of public policy debates – such as how our culture should deal with post-partum depression or what kind of moral standing should be extended to non-human entities (i.e., animals, plants, ecosystems). These two academics would surely laugh if someone referred to philosophy as mental masturbation or as some sort of “impractical” discipline. In fact, I’ve long known that philosophy could and should be the most practical discipline in any university. Classically, it was the discipline that asked us how we can live the good life. In other words, philosophy didn’t merely explore morality (which asks the meaning of what we “ought” to do) but also ethics (which asks the meaning of what we, who wish to lead the good life, “might” freely choose to do if given all the possibilities available to us). It’s no coincidence that Spinoza, who in the 17th century was viewed as an enemy of freedom, has come to be understood as a thinker whose moral and political philosophy is primarily devoted to the pursuit of liberty. And what did he call his masterpiece? What else but “The Ethics.”

I have described the Symposium in such detail to give you an idea of the extent to which this man has the power to inspire and to educate. But Spinoza is not alone. Surely, similar symposia could be, and have been, devoted to other “prophets,” people like Darwin, Shakespeare, Muhammad, Aristotle … the list goes on. Not very far, but it does go on. We can all take pride in such individuals, and particularly in the knowledge that as great as they were, they remain mere examples of our own tragically flawed and yet incredibly advanced species. We have such potential, both as individuals and collectively. Now, with the help of Spinoza, let’s just remind ourselves of our obligations to use that potential primarily as nurturers, and not exploiters, of our precious common resources.

Before signing off, I wish to leave you with an example of a Spinoza-inspired verse, which was prominently featured in the Symposium. It is the verse by which Goethe concluded his Faust. On the surface, its subject relates to the topic of the Symposium, that of feminism. But don’t fool yourself. Like everything Spinoza inspired, and like every thing Goethe learned from his mentor, the true subject of this verse is the Subject of Subjects, the Name of Names. Or as it is said in the Qur’an, “the Eternal, Absolute, who begetteth not, nor is he begotten, and there is none like unto Him.”

So here you have the ending of Goethe’s Faust.

“Everything that can be perceived is only a symbol;
the imperfect, which cannot be realized,
here makes itself reality;
that which cannot be described,
here finally completes itself.
It is the eternal feminine,
always attracting us to the higher.”

2011-02-05T09:26:00.001-08:00

A QUICK LOOK ACROSS THE POND … AND THEN THE DESERT … AND INTO THE PROMISED LAND

"It is vital to preserve the stability of the Egyptian regime at all costs; the public criticism of President Mubarak must be toned down." Israel Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman

We interrupt this story about Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes, I mean Aaron Rodgers at the Super Bowl, I mean Steven Tyler on the set of American Idol … to bring you back to the Middle East, where a wee uprising has been taking place on the streets of Cairo. Thankfully, truth be told, the American media has actually been covering this story. Egypt isn’t Tunisia. Or Sudan. It is a country that actually registers in the American consciousness. It’s the sight of one of our most evil symbols, that of the Pharaoh, a symbol of cold-hearted tyranny. And sure enough, that symbolism is being played out, night after night, on American television, in the form of a dictator of three decades who strangled his people’s prosperity and liberty until finally, miraculously, they rose up against him, calling out for human rights, democracy, and universal dignity … and all the world cheered.

Except for the people of Israel.

How’s that for irony.

As a participant in the peace movement, there are times when I feel out of place, a lone Zionist (not a blame-Israel-first Zionist, but a real Zionist) amidst a plethora of universalists who could care less if in 200 years, there is not a single majority-Jewish state in the world. Today, though, I am not feeling at all out of place in the peace movement. It’s when I reflect on the state of the Zionist movement that I feel a little queasy.

For those who care about Israel’s highest values, this should be a Shabbat of rejoicing. A Shabbat to reflect on how the people of Tunisia, Egypt and other nations throughout the Arab world are finally standing up to injustice and oppression. We’ve seen similar populist uprisings before, in places like Iran and China, but this time there are no armies getting in the way. This time, the people have the upper hand, and the dictators are figuring out that their days in power are numbered.

What we are witnessing is nothing less than human evolution -- the inevitable replacement of monarchal societies by democratic ones. What is not to celebrate? To be sure, the results of any given democratic election could foreseeably give rise to a regime that is worse than that of a so-called “benevolent dictator.” But in the long run, is there any doubt that the fruits of a democracy will improve upon that of a monarchy? Spinoza may have been a tad optimistic when he wrote that “it is almost impossible that the majority of the people, especially if it be a large one, should agree in an irrational design.” But given the choice between following the will of 83 million Egyptians and one power-drunk dictator, I’ll gladly take the former. And so will virtually every other individual I know who is involved in the peace movement.

The same, unfortunately, could not be said for all of the leaders of Israel, or many of her friends here in the US. Minister Lieberman’s above-quoted comments about the importance of preserving Mubarak’s power clearly resonates throughout the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, or, for that matter, Borough Park, Brooklyn. It’s not difficult to understand why – the hatred of Israel in much of the Arab street has been palpable, and Mubarak has been one of Israel’s only true Arab friends. If you ask the question, “Is he good for the Jews?” one can understand that the answer given would be an unqualified “yes.”

Yet that is but short-term reasoning. In the long-run, any Arab despot who has kept his people poor and ignorant is part of the problem, not the solution. In the long run, what is good for the Jews is an Arab street that is educated, prosperous, and filled more with hope than hatred, or pride more than victimization. That is the only way that Israel will ever see a “warm” peace, and not the cold peace that it has enjoyed with Egypt under Mubarak – a peace in which school children have been taught to dislike Zionism, even as they are prevented from taking up arms with the Zionist state. Israel can afford to have a cold peace with Egypt since a desert effectively separates the two countries. But any true peace with the Palestinians must necessarily be a warm one – like the peace between Belgium and the Netherlands. Without an educated, prosperous, and autonomous Palestine, such a peace will forever remain a pipe dream.

So, from the standpoint of Israel’s long-term peace and security, the events on the streets of Cairo have been wonderful indeed. Sadly, though, Netanyahu’s Israel, like all misguided regimes, is mired in short-term thinking. You might even call it paranoid thinking. Consider the following words of Netanyahu himself:

"We are in a situation of instability. In this situation we have to look around us with open and realistic eyes. We remember what it was like here before there was peace. How we fought at the [Suez] Canal, on the banks of the canal. On the Jordan. We fought. All of us. Since peace broke out, we have benefited from not needing to defend those borders, with all that this implies. Peace changed our strategic situation and the whole world. Now we must understand that the basis for every future settlement is the fortification of Israel's might. Security arrangements on the ground, in the event that agreements are violated or there is governmental change on the other side. Every peace settlement that will be achieved must be durable in the face of the upheavals that characterize this region."

Rather than seeing what is happening in Cairo as an opportunity for progress, he sees it as something to be feared. You can just tell that his minions are getting ready to circle the wagons, to prepare themselves for yet another of Israel’s Hobbesian “us against the world” episodes, like the ones in ’67 and ’73. Having failed at giving peace a chance, Netanyahu is readying himself for the possibility of entertaining yet another war. War comes easily for Israel’s right wing. It requires no efforts to trust “the other.” No efforts to concede anything to its “enemies.” And given that Israel has the superior firepower, what’s not to like when the time comes to take up arms?

The problem, of course, is that Israel is supposed to be a JEWISH state. And “Jewish” means more than just culturally or ethnically Hebrew – it also refers to a religion. Religiously, living in a state of perpetual war and hatred of one’s neighbors isn’t exactly the ideal. In fact, it’s absolutely unacceptable. Now that the Palestinian Authority is controlled by a leader who is actually prepared to make profound concessions to Israel in order to arrive at a just and secure peace, Netanyahu’s intransigence on issues like the West Bank settlements seems … well, it seems almost reminiscent of the Pharaoh.

So here we have a new dichotomy. Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, and the Egyptian masses on one side of the line … and Netanyahu, Lieberman and their friend Mubarak on the other. I cannot tell you how much I hate that formulation. No less than Netanyahu and Lieberman, I too want a strong, secure and permanent Jewish State. What I don’t understand is why that State must disregard the basic human rights and freedoms of the Palestinians who live within its ambit. Mubarak similarly disregarded the rights and freedoms of his charges, and look where that got him.

Why oh why must history keep repeating itself? That is what I don’t get.

2011-01-29T06:34:00.001-08:00

INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP: IS THIS ADMINISTRATION UP TO THE TASK?

This past Tuesday night, I was participating in a panel at Washington’s Jewish theatre, Theatre J, talking about a play we had witnessed concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All three Abrahamic faiths were represented on the panel, which was composed mainly of members of Yes We Can – Middle East Peace (www.yesmep.org), my favorite peace group. But what we have in common is far more than our religious heritage: we all viscerally care about working for a just and secure peace in the Middle East. And I don’t doubt that as a result of the play we witnessed and the talk-back session of which we were a part, members of the Jewish and Arab communities began to understand each other’s narratives just a little bit better. Facilitating such understanding, one Jew and Arab at a time, is the key to reconciliation.

Barack Obama is a man of peace. You can tell that from listening to him speak. He is calm, rational, deliberate, thoughtful, friendly, and, like all other Presidents, he’s had to develop a thick skin. If that’s not a formula for a peace-loving person, I don’t know what is. On Tuesday night, while we were talking about peace at Theatre J, Barack had an opportunity to do the same in his own State of the Union. He had an opportunity to address our nation’s commitment to ushering in an era of justice and peace throughout the world, and especially in the Middle East, an area which seems to spawn so much violence and hatred.

Suffice it to say, the President whiffed. He said precious little about the outside world, other than the obligatory boasting about how splendidly our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. Indeed, if this speech could have a title, it would be “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”

Well, in a sense it is the economy, though not just the economy our President had in mind. Last month, it was the Tunisian economy. This month, it’s the Egyptian economy. For whenever an oppressed people realizes that its economic well being isn’t adequate, that’s usually when it starts reflecting on other things, such as the extent to which it enjoys basic liberties. In that regard, the “Arab Street,” as technocrats like to call the hoi polloi in most Middle Eastern nations, is coming to grips with the fact that it has not exactly created Jeffersonian Democracies. And do you know what? These folks are none too happy about that. As someone who always carries around two $2 bills in my wallet, I can’t say I blame them.

Barack is not blind to foreign affairs. In fact, it is still my view that when he came to the Presidency, he actually understood those matters infinitely better than he understood economics. That is probably why he has devoted virtually all of his energies to the latter; it was as if he realized he needed to go back to school and major in economics in order to be a well-rounded fellow -- I mean, leader of the free world. The problem is that Barack tried once to truly lead in matters of foreign policy, and in that regard he fell flat on his face. Ironically, in light of what is going on right now, the place he chose to exert his leadership was the great city of Cairo, and the topic on which he chose to stake his claim as an international leader was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Talk about swinging and missing.

Truth be told, the President had the right idea in Cairo, though I’m not sure why he chose Cairo as opposed to Jerusalem to give that speech. He devoted equal time to both the Palestinian and the Israeli causes. Unfortunately, someone mistakenly gave Barack the idea that it made sense to demand that Israel make a very important concrete concession (freezing settlement construction) and not to make any analogous demand of the Palestinians. As a result, he pissed off Israel, its Government thumbed its nose at him, he realized there was nothing he could do to change their policy and backed off his demands, and now he has unified both Arabs and Israelis in thinking of him as irrelevant.

Is it surprising that during the State of the Union address, despite the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been all over the news lately, Barack didn’t say a single world about it? He spoke for an hour, but on what was supposed to be the crown foreign policy jewel of his Administration, he couldn’t even muster an “Oy Vey.”

Where’s the leadership we know he’s capable of?

As for Egypt, on the 25th of January, the day of Barack’s speech, Cairo was flooded with demonstrators who had had just about enough of the Mubarak Government’s repressive policies. Again, Barack was silent on the matter, as he has been throughout his Administration. Notably, though, he did have something to say about the spark that lit the Egyptian torch: “And we saw that same desire to be free in Tunisia, where the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator. And tonight, let us be clear: The United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.”

There you have it, the sum and substance of what Barack had to say about the Democracy movement in the Middle East.. We stand with the people of Tunisia! We stand with all who demonstrate for democracy and against tyranny! No matter that Tunisia’s dictator had already stepped down more than a week before the speech, and that Egypt’s dictator is still very much in power and refusing to give it up. God forbid we would take a stand against Mubarek and send a message of solidarity with the Jeffersonians in the streets. (We sure didn’t do much of that when Iran was having its demonstrations.) Better to just wait and kick around the guy in Tunisia – the one who is already kicked out.

Where’s the leadership we know he’s capable of?

Mr. President, I realize that you spent December and January reading the polls and listening to the pundits. And I know how many talking heads have been falling all over themselves praising you for your successful Triangulation strategy – with you playing the role of honest broker, you’ve seen one domestic policy bill after another passed by Congress. But as much as you might like this nation to go back into our shell and obsess exclusively about its tax rates and infrastructural investments, knotty events abroad have a tendency of rearing their ugly heads. And occasionally, just occasionally, when those events occur, Presidents are called upon to do something other than splitting the difference between Democratic and Republican orthodoxy. It’s called showing leadership.

In printing those words, I have to laugh, because when I think about the foreign policy actions most often associated with Barack to date, I think about his war policy, and especially the way he’s dealt with Afghanistan. The Democrats wanted out. And the Republicans wanted a surge. So what did he give us? A surge, combined with a promise to leave within a couple of years. So even when it comes to the issue of war, Barack’s instinct was to split the baby. It always seems to be his instinct. Triangulate for Breakfast. Triangulate for Lunch. Triangulate for Dinner.

Given our own nation’s growing allergies to polarization and partisanship, Triangulation should probably work pretty well as a domestic political strategy. But overseas, I don’t foresee the same appeal. For years, America was looked to for leadership, especially in the Middle East. This, after all, is a country where Jews, Christians and Muslims come together into a vast melting pot, a nation founded on a respect for religious values exceeded only by its respect for religious freedom. If such a country can’t stand proudly for Democracy and Justice, what can? But Bush got our manhood stuck in our zipper in Baghdad and Kabul, and Barack made his fateful boo-boo two years ago in Cairo. So at this point, I’m not sure who is looking for leadership from us. At this point, we’ll have to earn some of that credibility back.

Barack is perfectly capable of doing just that. He is a great orator. He is a true believer in Democracy. And he is a natural mediator. The man is brilliant, charismatic, and just plain likeable. But what he’s not, at least not yet, is a politician who is willing to sail out into the wild blue yonder on behalf of a vision. Reagan did that, and lo and behold, the Iron Curtain came down. Barack, by contrast, would rather devote all his time to acting domestically, thinking small, and getting re-elected.

Call it a Presidency on cruise control. The President on whom I placed such tremendous hopes doesn’t even seem to be breaking a sweat these days. Triangulation is the easy way out. Or if you prefer a different metaphor, call it playing the prevent-defense shortly after half-time. Barack might think he has a big enough lead, and judging from the Seven Republican Dwarfs who are aiming to take him on next year, he may indeed be playing a bad enough team to justify that strategy. But I’m not so much thinking about Barack the candidate, I’m thinking about Barack the Leader of the Free World. When it comes to the latter, the Gallup Poll won’t help and neither will the pundits.

Leadership isn’t something one simply calculates by splitting the difference. It requires a vision, and it requires courage. In fact, when you style yourself a progressive and a leader, you had better figure out a way to appeal to the aspirations of the masses. Right now, Barack might be appealing to the aspirations of David Brooks and the other chattering moderates in the New York Times and Washington Post. But his gig isn’t working in Cairo, and it’s doing little better in Tel Aviv or Hebron. Let’s pray that changes soon. Before the events spin out of control in Egypt and Yemen, and before we lose another opportunity to make peace in Israel/Palestine, the world needs some meaningful input from the land of Jefferson. That’s a hell of a lot more important right now than the Obama re-election campaign.

2011-01-22T05:53:00.000-08:00

JUNE CLEAVER SHE’S NOT

There’s no time this weekend for my customarily lengthy blog post. I’m off in a few minutes to Philly to see one of the world’s greatest private collections of art. And when I return tomorrow afternoon? You guessed it – the NFL playoffs.

But before heading up I-95, I wanted to say a few words about the book seemingly everyone is talking about this week, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” by Amy Chua. Admittedly, I may be a tad biased, since I’m good friends with the author’s sister, yet I truly believe that my general attitude about this book is unaffected by that relationship. Instead of reviling the book’s author, as many are doing, I praise her. She has written a candid and courageous memoir about a topic that this country had better start confronting: how the hell we should be raising our children.

I have found nothing in life, and I mean NOTHING, more challenging than being a parent. You approach the job thinking that your kids are as malleable as clay, and then at some point, you realize that some of them are more like rodeo horses, and your job is simply to hold on and pray. At least that’s the way it feels sometimes, when you learn the extent to which teenagers are capable of acting like jerks or idiots.

In light of that fact, I can fully appreciate why Amy Chua would be tempted to steer away from the rodeo metaphor and break her kids down so that they more resemble race horses who needed to be whipped by a jockey in order to reach their greatest speeds. Her style is not exactly what I would advocate, but I’ll tell you this – it’s sure preferable to the opposite approach, which is often affectionately known as the “Cookie Mom.” I’m referring to the laissez-faire style, in which parents are satisfied with being their kids’ friends, and don’t bother to instill much discipline or push their kids to realize their potentials.

Chua and I agree that it is a parent’s job to push our kids – and I mean push hard. Where we differ is on the destination. I want my kids to develop moral and social skills every bit as much as intellectual skills. And while I, like Chua, also want my kids to achieve artistically, I don’t believe that you can do that by coercing them to practice, practice, practice (whether they want to or not). Real artistry requires creativity, which is based on freedom and an attitude best expressed by the French phrase, joie de vivre. Stated simply, creative people need to have plenty of down time – time to hang out with friends, sit in front of a mindless TV show, or just plain lie in bed and day dream.

The fact is that we’re not race horses – or if you prefer a different metaphor – we’re not rats racing each other in a maze. But I’ll tell you this much. I may chuckle when I see parenting styles like Amy Chua’s, and yet at least I have a modicum of respect for the product of such styles. At least I see these kids growing up so that they’ll make something of themselves. The far bigger problem with our society are the parents who set LOW expectations for their children. And when those kids grow up, all they can do is eat, drink, passively entertain themselves, and do an uninspired job at work. When we have our national debate on parenting – that latter approach is what we really need to put on trial, not the style illustrated by Amy Chua.

2011-01-16T08:18:00.001-08:00

MY RETURN TO HAIFA

Haifa is one of the most beautiful cities I’ve ever visited. It has been called the “San Francisco of Israel,” and indeed, the two are officially sister cities. Like the City by the Bay, Haifa is hilly, scenic, adjacent to the sea, and quite the melting pot. In Haifa’s case, the races that come together are Jews and Arabs – both Semites, both cousins in the family of Abraham. And yet tragically, they have increasingly come to see themselves as mortal enemies, locked in a never-ending war over a relatively small land mass.

Haifa was the last city of any size that I visited before coming to Jerusalem at the beginning of March 1981. I spent much of my time in Haifa high above the city where I could savor the view. But mostly I was reading books – books by the philosopher Nietzsche railing against organized religion and the God that has emerged from it. I knew, you see, that one of my next destinations would be an Orthodox yeshiva in Jerusalem, and I wanted to absorb “both sides” of the religious philosophy debate into my veins. It worked, I suppose: in Jerusalem, I became for the first time in my life a passionate believer in God. And yet my experience in Haifa reminded me of the need not to believe everything I hear from the mouths of clerics and theologians, which paved my way for a life as both a believer and a heretic . Yes, indeed, one can be both at the same time. In fact, to the extent one believes that an integral part of religious belief is the pursuit of truth, an argument can be made that heresy is an absolute must … which is why the greatest spiritual leaders of the past were the heretics of THEIR day, even though now, their so-called followers are anything but.

Candidly, I haven’t set foot in Haifa in nearly 30 years. Literally. Then again, Muhammad never literally set foot in Jerusalem, but we owe much of the intractability of the Arab-Israeli conflict to the idea that Muhammad did indeed visit Jerusalem, at least metaphorically. According to a story held dear by over one billion Muslims, the Angel Gabriel led the Prophet to a white, winged mule, who flew him to the holy city of Israel, where he is said to have been whisked up to the first gate of heaven by the Angel Ishmael. That “Night Journey” and all that flows from it has helped to make Jerusalem the third most sacred city in the Muslim map, and largely explains why there will be no peace in Israel or Palestine unless the Palestinians are given a part of that city to call their own. Such is myth. Such is history. Such is destiny.

My own metaphorical return to Haifa was not nearly so symbolic, or as momentous. It occurred yesterday as I was reading the script for a play called “Return to Haifa” that is now being shown at Theatre J, the Jewish playhouse in Washington D.C. I will be one of the panelists for the talk-back on January 25th. My rabbi will be one of the panelists for the talk-back on January 23rd. If you’re in DC, I would urge you to make one of those performances, or if not them, some other one. Like most of the Theatre J productions, this play is definitely worth seeing.

The play was hardly a vivid description of the tourist attractions in the city of Haifa. In that sense, the Chamber of Commerce would have been severely disappointed. Rather, the drama focused on a particular Haifa home and its role in the lives of two families – one Jewish, the other Palestinian. The play succeeded in reminding me of why a city as majestic as Haifa and a region as majestic as the Land of Israel could inspire such a passion to “return” for both Jews and Arabs alike. So as not to spoil the plot, all I’ll say about it is that the play was set both in 1948 and 1967 – two pivotal years in Israeli/Palestinian history – and the home at the center of the action belonged to Palestinians in 1948 who decide to return in 1967, only to find their house occupied by Jews. Do they find “cousins in the family of Abraham”? Do they find “mortal enemies”? Or is what they find a little bit of both?

I think you know the answer. Playwrights trade in ambiguity. But let’s leave the arena of fiction and turn for the moment to that of reality, shall we? What this playwright has done is put his finger on the pulse of the problem with the Holy Land. There, on a relatively small piece of turf, we find many millions of inhabitants, the number of which seems to be growing at a substantial pace. These individuals fall into two general categories of people, and it ought to be clear to them that they desperately need to get along and embrace each other as family. Indeed, they have largely similar, if distinguishable, ethnic backgrounds and religions, so the family metaphor isn’t nearly as artificial as it first may appear. What’s dicey is that these individuals, these peoples, have a choice. They can choose to live as brothers and sisters -- aka the “one state solution.” They can choose to live as cousins -- aka the “two state solution.” Or they can choose to live … as enemies – the choice with which we all are most familiar.

Ah, but there is a fourth choice now, isn’t there? It involves choosing to live in denial, or to be more specific, denial not only of one’s responsibility for helping to achieve a resolution but in the very possibility that such a resolution exists. Sadly, this attitude is especially becoming the norm among American Jews, a group that not long ago was deeply engaged in the fight for peace and recognized the incredibly powerful role that America can play in bringing that fight to a successful end. Back in the day, the American Jewish community was composed of legions of “Blame Israel First” Jews who joined various leftist peace groups, numerous “Israel Right or Wrong” Jews who supported the American-Israel Political Action Committee, as well as countless others who fought passionately for a middle ground. So yes, they lined up on all sides of the political spectrum. But the one thing we had in common is that everyone seemed to be deeply engaged in the problem – we all cared.

That was then, and now? We have plenty of apathy. Increasingly, American Jews are throwing up their hands and saying that Israeli/Palestinian peace is unachievable. Or that Middle East Peace is someone else’s problem, not ours. “We can’t want it more than they do,” has become the slogan de jour among all nouveau apathetics. In other words, one can only justify banging one’s head against the same wall or rolling a boulder up the same hill so many times. At some point, even Sisyphus realizes the meaning of hopelessness.

What’s worse, the apathy about peace that seems to have engulfed much of the American-Jewish population may merely be reflecting an increased sense of hopelessness in Israel. From what I’ve read and heard, many Israelis believed that when they removed their settlements from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians would take this as a gesture in support of Palestinian autonomy and a legitimate two-state solution. When the Palestinians responded with the election of Hamas, and the continual firing of Qassam rockets, more and more Israelis threw up their hands and said … “Netanyahu, they’re yours; deal with those animals as you please.”

Yes, it could be said that this is the choice that says Jews and Palestinians are “enemies.” But perhaps even more importantly, Jews are choosing to wash their hands of the fight for a solution, and preferring to turn their attention to other matters. Enmity and apathy can go together quite snugly.

As for the attitude of the Palestinians, in some sense the situation is less bleak, but in another sense, it is even bleaker than that of the Jews. The Palestinians I have met are singularly assured of their own side’s victimhood and of the Israelis’ status as oppressors. It’s as if we were talking about the Jim Crow South or about Nazi Germany, a place to which Palestinians love to analogize their own situation. The sanctimoniousness that so commonly ensues does have the benefit of helping one stay engaged, and perhaps even encouraged, about the prospects of a solution. But the problem is that the solution they envision is the ultimate death of the Zionist State – and if they think that’s realistic, they haven’t spent much time lately around non-fringe Jews. The Jewish will to survive is legendary. Israelis will not give up the Jewish State without losing their lives along with it.

So what is the solution? Despair? Apathy? Self-righteousness? Taking up arms? How about simply showing up at an interfaith meeting or a peace meeting and offering an expression of hope. No more talk of enmity, no more talk of frustration. No more talk of oppression, or terrorism, or human rights violations, or any of the other buzzwords that get thrown about by activists to stick a finger in the eye of one of these peoples or the other. Just a simple expression of hope, and perhaps while you’re at it, a vision of what a peaceful Middle East would look like.

Is your vision a “one-state solution,” in which Israelis and Palestinians would live the way we all live in the United States – in a pluralistic society, a sort of larger-scale version of Haifa, but even more pluralistic and integrated? Or do you think that the Jews should be given their own state, and the Palestinians a state of their own, each adjacent to the other, friendly, trading partners, but still separate – like Belgium and the Netherlands? As far as I’m concerned, whichever vision you can enunciate, as long as it’s stated with a compassionate, respectful and hopeful tone, would be appreciated.

And if you find yourself too “busy” or too scared to come to a peace meeting, do us all a favor. One night before you go to bed, express your vision to your bedroom wall. We all need to get in the practice of visualizing Middle East Peace. Then more and more of us will find our voices, raise them together, and, before long, we can actually consider a return trip to Haifa to be one involving holiness and not war. We must never forget that the two are mutually exclusive.

2011-01-09T18:43:00.000-08:00

HAS ARIZONA GIVEN US ALL A “MOMENT”?

I hope you all had the opportunity to watch Meet the Press today, and specifically the roundtable discussion in which Democratic and Republican Congresspeople spoke about yesterday’s shootings in Tucson. That roundtable ended with a simple question by the moderator to one of the Congresspeople: “Was this a moment?” The answer she gave was a resounding yes. Indeed, that is the politically-correct response. Whenever some tragedy befalls us, whether it’s an environmental disaster, an economic meltdown, an episode of mass-murder, or the recognition of a pointless war, our nation’s leaders and talking heads wax eloquent about the lessons we’ll learn and the changes we’ll make.

But tell me, are you really impressed with our track record in learning from tragedies? Have we fixed our war-mongering problem after Vietnam? Our gun fetish after Columbine? Has the Great Depression taught us to permanently protect our working class? Has our recognition of climate change caused us to radically transform our addiction to fossil fuels? Don’t think too hard about those questions, folks. They are all rhetorical. And that is why if I were asked “Was this a moment?” I’d give a more nuanced answer: “Well … yes, a moment … just a moment. Before long, we’ll be back to normal.” It’s sad to say that, but I’m not in a sugar coating kind of mood.

The fact is that what happened in Tucson ought to be a teachable moment, but I suspect it won’t, and the reasons why were on display in Meet the Press. One Democratic Congressman brought up perhaps the most obvious point, that we need to take a look at the laws that permit people like the assailant to obtain semi-automatic weapons. But two of his Republican colleagues were quick to respond that the problem is not with guns but with the people who abuse them. One pointed out if that someone in attendance had a similar gun, maybe he could have stopped the bloodshed. And another suggested that there are strict gun laws in Washington D.C. and no shortage of killings, so why would we think stricter gun laws are the answer?

The simple reality is that as long as we have urban communities in America that are structurally impoverished, we will have no shortage of killings, regardless of the gun laws. But why make it easy to obtain attack weapons? Frankly, it’s nothing short of bizarre that we live in a nation where a young punk cannot legally obtain a joint of marijuana, but he can legally acquire the means to fire dozens of bullets. As for the idea that we need to arm all the good people in order to deter the bad ones, that has some paucity of resonance if you’re arming people with old fashioned handguns, but is there really need to arm all the citizenry with weapons that fire dozens of rounds?

It’s a laughable point. And yet nobody on Meet the Press wanted to call out the Congressmen on the issue. Indeed, the gun control lobby is about as weak in this nation as the lobby to protect orangutans or gorillas. Those species of ape aren’t quite extinct yet, but politicians whose pet issue is to fight the proliferation of guns have probably all left Capital Hill. Face it: the gun lovers have won the battle. And while these folks do not all own attack weapons, they will fight to protect our right to do so, for such a fight is deemed needed to guard against the slippery slope that could ultimately take their beloved choice of firearms away.

And so … periodically, some well-armed lunatic goes off and kills lots of people, and everyone of sound mind sincerely mourns the result. But the laws don’t change. “Guns don’t kill, people do,” remains one of our national mottos.

Another obvious way in which yesterday’s mayhem in Tucson SHOULD be a teachable moment, but likely will not, involves its lessons with respect to the nature of our political discourse. To be sure, thanks to the madness of Tucson, we may --repeat may -- have seen the end to the most blatantly violent metaphors in our political attack campaigns, like the ones run by Sarah Palin to suggest that if a politician takes an opposing position on a particular issue, we should “target” them and place gun-sights on maps of their Congressional districts. Truly, that form of communication is beyond obnoxious and has no place in civilized society. But folks, I don’t hear Sarah’s party calling her out on her antics; at least they didn’t on Meet the Press. And even if they had mentioned her excesses, or if both parties agreed not to include gun metaphors in their political language, would that honestly stop the bloodshed?

The root cause of yesterday’s tragedy – other than the fact that some people are a whole lot crazier than others, and modern weapons allow these crazies to take many lives – is that our political environment has become the equivalent of a battle royal in the Octagon. We can preach all we want about the virtue of civility, and the panel did a lot of that on Meet the Press, but Americans are competitive, aggressive people who often see matters as a simple choice between good and evil. While it is clearly in our power to take away a few limited types of metaphors from our political arena, much as we have taken away words like “Nigger” or “Kike,” the vitriol, cheap shots, and general sense of antagonism with one’s political rivals is surely here to stay. Given that reality, as long as we enable the loopiest among us to acquire semi-automatic weapons, we’re going to have mass murders, whether we use gun-metaphors in our political slogans or not.

I started the Jewish-Islamic Dialogue Society of Washington two years ago in part because I felt that only by bringing opposing camps together in a legitimately collegial environment can we ever achieve the kind of civility that statesmen love to talk about, but all too rarely seem to practice. And even before starting that group, I wrote in a novel about how wonderful it would be to turn on the TV and watch Arabs singing the praises of Jewish interests and Jews doing the same for Arab interests – all of which would make the point that it would have to be a pretty thin pancake not to have two sides.

But my humble efforts only involve fiction books or local dialogue societies. In the “real world,” national politicians fight like hell to get elected and then become beholden to the well-financed interest groups who determine whether they’ll get re-elected. And radio and TV personalities, who are told to get ratings or get off the air, recognize that when it comes to ratings, the more combustible their show, the more marketable their show. So are we really going to see progressive Democrats stand before the nation and explain in clear terms why liberty-loving, Bible-toting Republicans aren’t hypocritical pigs, or see conservative Republicans get on the air and explain why Democrats who favor a generous social welfare net aren’t socialists or communists?

Political parties have been around in this country as far back as the days of Jefferson and Hamilton. They are part and parcel of a vibrant democracy. The problem is not that they exist. The problem is that they exist in the absence of civility-promoting values that can be stronger even than partisanship.

At present, we Americans do not see a crisis so profound as to require the nation as a whole to come together. Those on the right still believe they can hopefully dominate and eviscerate those on the left, and at least as of two years ago, the opposite applied as well. We don’t believe we’re in an “all hands on deck” situation, as we believed during the Depression … World War II, or, I am guessing, during our Revolution. If we really believed that climate change posed a clear and present danger to our own welfare or those of our children, perhaps we would come together, figure out a plan, and implement it – without vitriol. If we really believed that we were at war with a foreign country that posed a clear and present danger to the residents of our cities, perhaps we would come together and fight behind a single leader – without vitriol. And if we really believed that we had such an economic crisis that the well being of poor and rich alike was at stake, perhaps we would come together, figure out the fairest possible way to grow the economic pie, and work like hell to make that happen – without vitriol.

But until events truly threaten us – and not merely tiny pockets of us on rare occasions – I don’t see us working together very often, and I sure don’t see an end to the vitriol. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but sometimes pessimism and realism coincide, and this is one of them.

2010-12-31T14:39:00.000-08:00

EMPATHIC RATIONALIST AWARDS – 2010 EDITION

It’s that time again, boys and girls. Time to look back at the last year and give credit where credit is due, or blame where blame is due. It’s awards time.

So without further ado, let’s give out some cyberspace hardware.

MAN OF THE YEAR: MITCH McCONNELL

It wasn’t the greatest of years, was it? So it seems fitting to give out some awards to the people who made it what it was … a bust!

Let’s start with the man who gave us Republican solidarity in the Senate and the ability to turn 40 or 41 seats into absolute parity. Give him and his minions credit for all but annulling the election results of 2008, though frankly, he had plenty of help from the Democrats.

For years, I’ve underestimated this man, thinking about him solely in terms of his penchant for pork. But now, he has pivoted away from pork and toward an embrace of the Tea Party’s pro-fiscal conservatism policy. Of course, if you were lucky enough to find yourself in a smoke-filled room with the guy, he’d probably tell you that fiscal conservatism, 21st century style, does have a caveat: we’re fiscally conservative only insofar as spending is concerned. On the revenue side, we believe that less (for the Government) is more. And thanks to Mitch and his minions, we now start the next year with a mind-boggling deficit. But hey. At least all the folks on Wall Street and in the polo clubs will be getting huge tax cuts!

So let’s hear it for the New Fiscal Conservatism. Let’s hear it for Mitch McConnell, co-President for another two years.

WOMAN OF THE YEAR: SARAH PALIN

Remember that scene in Scarface when Al Pacino orders the killing of his boss, claims his boss’ girlfriend (Michelle Pfeiffer) for himself, and then looks up, with that sleazy smile on his face, to see a Pan-Am blimp with the words “The World is Yours”? That was fiction. But in reality, you’d have to forgive Sarah Palin if she thought that slogan applied to her and her alone.

One minute, she’s a lackluster student transferring from one college to another and to another, and the next thing she knows, she’s elected mayor of her town. One minute, she’s running a little town, and the next thing she knows, she’s the Governor of a State. One minute, she’s known only in cities like Juneau, Anchorage and Nome, and the next thing she knows, she’s nominated by the GOP for Vice President of the U.S., and she has almost singlehandedly catapulted her ticket into the lead. One minute, she’s back in Alaska, bored silly at the thought of running her State for another two years, and the next thing she knows, she’s quitting her job – only to find people everywhere willing to throw millions of dollars in her direction just to hear her speak or read her prose. One minute she’s trying to identify every possible Mini-Me who is wiling to run for elected office, and next thing she knows, she’s helping these people capture Republican nominations – and either win general elections or at least scare the crap out of the old-line Republicans who are not very enamored with Sarah’s brand of populism.

Pacino’s character, Tony Montana, used to say that the one thing about his boss that bothered him was that he was “soft.” He lacked “balls.” Well, if that’s what Montana respected, then Sarah Palin would have been his type of politician. She may be thoroughly ignorant about the issues, not terribly intelligent, and willing to say whatever her far right-wing base wants to hear, but damned if she doesn’t have balls. In fact, right now, she seems to be contemplating a run for the Presidency in 2012. Imagine her and Obama, mano-a-mano. He would try to speak polysyllabically about economic and foreign policy. She would challenge the guy to a cage fight. If he had his way, the election would turn on which candidate was better able to enunciate a path for fighting unemployment, reaching a Middle East Peace deal, or achieving energy independence. If she had her way, the election would turn on whether, in their cage match, the candidates would be confined to the Marquis de Queensberry rules, or would be permitted to bite, scratch, and kick in the nads.

That’s our Sarah. She’s scaring me less these days, because now even the mainstream Republicans seem to be tiring of her act. But hey, for sheer entertainment value, you can’t beat her. And let’s face it, she might not be as beautiful as Michelle Pfeiffer, but she’s a hell of a lot prettier than Tony Montana.

SPORTS FIGURE OF THE YEAR: GINO AURIEMMA

Please don’t tell me you’ve never heard of this guy. He was born in Italy 56 years ago and moved to Pennsylvania when he was seven. He has been the head coach of the University of Connecticut women’s basketball team since 1985. Since then, he was won seven national championships and nearly 750 games, including a streak of 90 in a row. That streak finally came to an end last night, but not until it became the largest winning streak in the history of men’s or women’s college basketball.

I won’t lie to you and call myself the world’s biggest fan of women’s basketball. But I happened to watch the game because Stanford was the opponent, and if the Stanford tiddly-winks team was on TV, I’d probably watch it. More interesting than the game was the post-game interviews, in which the interviewer kept wanting to talk about the team with the historic streak (U Conn) and the interviewees kept wanting to talk about the team that won the game. But before Auriemma graciously sang Stanford’s praises, he pointed out what had to be said: that a 90-game winning streak can’t be fully appreciated until you’ve seen it broken and you realize just how easy it is for a team of college kids to lose a game on any given night, when the opponent might be on their game.

Stanford was one of the best teams in the country and was playing at home. So why shouldn’t it have a good chance to win? But Auriemma’s implicit point was that during the previous 90 games, U Conn played a number of top teams, and frequently played them on the other team’s turf … or at least on a neutral surface. It’s an accomplishment to win 50 percent of those games. Or 60 percent. Or 70 percent. But this team won them all, including more than 30 games in a row against nationally ranked opponents. That’s just insane.

I have no idea how Auriemma would stack up as a basketball mind against the top men’s coaches, like Phil Jackson and Mike Krzyzewski. But I suspect he’d hold his own. In any event, now that his team has finally lost, it’s time to give the guy and his players the credit they deserve.

Oh, by the way, go Stanford! Not only did they win last night, but they were the last team to beat Connecticut before the streak started, and my hope is that they’ll be the next team to beat Connecticut – at the end of this year’s NCAA tournament.

ENTERTAINER OF THE YEAR: JEFF BRIDGES

Earlier this year, Jeff Bridges won his first academy award for his role in the film Crazy Heart. Now he’s on the screen again and is receiving critical acclaim. Bridges will surely be in the hunt for a second Oscar in a row for playing Rooster Cogburn in True Grit, the only role that won the statue for John Wayne.

How cool would that be to see the Motion Picture Academy permanently link two figures as disparate as Jeff Bridges and John Wayne? One evokes whiskey, the other weed. One evokes the power of guns, the other the power of flowers. One rides, the other abides.

To me, Jeff Bridges has become so associated with one character that it’s difficult to see him in another role. We see this phenomenon particularly clearly in our TV stars -- William Shatner will always be Captain Kirk, Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock, and Carol O’Connor will be Archie Bunker. We also see this play out with movie stars. Malcolm McDowell will always be the ultra-violent Little Alex from A Clockwork Orange, Linda Blair will always be the possessed Regan from The Exorcist, and Louise Fletcher will always be the soulless Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Even an actor as accomplished and decorated as Anthony Hopkins has trouble moving beyond a certain role, and I suspect he will be forever associated with Hannibal “the Cannibal” Lecter from Silence of the Lambs.

I point that out because it’s difficult to imagine too many better movie characters than Bridges’ “Dude” from The Big Lebowski. That has to be one of the top 10 or 20 movie comedies of all time, and he was clearly the star of the show. In light of that, I can’t wait to see if Bridges’ own little hot streak last year and this year can catapult him into truly rarified Hollywood air: actors who have played truly iconic parts … multiple times. I already mentioned Pacino. He wasn’t just Tony Montana, he was Michael Corleone. Jack Nicholson was Randall McMurphy and Jack Torrance. Dustin Hoffman was the Rain Man and the Graduate. I probably could go on, but it’s not that long a list.

And don’t bother to check the names who’ve won the Oscars. Those awards are given out every year, but in most cases, nobody in their right mind would call the winning characters “iconic.” Just look at the career of Sean Penn. He’s won the top Oscar for playing Jimmy Markum in Mystic River and more recently for playing Harvey Milk in Milk. He’s also been nominated for playing Sam Dawson in I am Sam, Emmett Ray in Sweet and Lowdown, and Matthew Poncelet in Dead Man Walking. He truly has had a decorated career. But for me, and I suspect the Dude would wholeheartedly agree, he’ll always be Jeff Spicoli.

So, from the Empathic Rationalist, have a happy New Year, and please – whether you tend toward weed, like the Dude and Spicoli, or prefer alcohol, like the original Rooster Cogburn -- stay safe.