WELCOME TO THE MACHINE

I admit that I’m feeling the need for a little Floyd-nostalgia tonight since my wife persuaded me to remove my allusions to “the Wall” from my new manuscript. I guess talking about Pink Floyd isn’t worthy of a serious book about the essence of Judaism and the challenge Islam presents to the non-Muslim world. Well fine. But I love Roger Waters and the boys just the same. And nobody would argue that Floyd isn’t worthy of reference in a blog. That’s the great thing about this democratic medium.

So here goes:

“Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.

What did you dream? It’s alright we told you what to dream.”

Any of you Floyd freaks know the next line in the second verse?

“You dreamed of a big star.” And indeed I did. I dreamed of a star so big that nobody would talk about whether he played a “mean guitar” or “learned to drive in a Jaguar.” I dreamed of a star who would remind people more of Martin Luther King than Spinal Tap. I dreamed of a star who would appeal to lovers of rock ‘n roll and classical music alike. I dreamed of a star who is known for his intelligence, charisma, looks, religiosity … luck … and bi-racial background. I dreamed of a star who could unite my country with his soaring rhetoric and sound logic and lead us to wage a war on poverty, crime, global warming, AIDS … or something … anything. The key word there being “unite.”

That’s right. I dreamed that in November 2008, we would be electing a man who, according to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr., kicked off his campaign “with a sense that it was a national movement.” In other words, he’s appealing to people who like to dream. Romantic types. Idealists. Utopians. Writers. Artists. Those kinds of voters.

But … in the immortal words of Michael Buffer …”LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLETS GET READY TO RUMBLEEEEEEEE!” In the pink corner, wearing the business suit, with the cold, calculating expression on her face is the woman who “from the moment she announced her intentions on Saturday,” Dionne said, “commended a well-established, well-staffed and well-financed national organization.”

It’s on, boys and girls. With all due respect to Leonard-Duran, these ain’t no welterweights. And as great as Hagler-Hearns was – and it was great enough that I forced my then-fiancee, and now wife of 18 years, to watch the bout on tape – these ain’t no middleweights either. This, my friends, is the Main Event. Ali-Frazier. Dempsey-Tunney. Louis-Marciano.

I just hope that Hillary doesn’t become Marciano, and Obama, Louis. But I digress.

Right around the time that Hillary announced, I received my first fundraising call from “The Machine.” It was a woman – a 20-something, to the extent I could tell by the voice – calling on behalf of James Carville’s new organization. I engaged her for a couple of a minutes in a Socratic dialogue that was worthy of law school. Mostly I wanted her to know that I was from the “democratic wing of the Democratic party,” which is precisely why I wasn’t supporting Carville’s Machine, uh candidate. I trotted out the tired-old argument that Hillary wasn’t so electable, and the slightly less invoked argument that I had qualms with supporting a candidate who had recently tried to ban flag-burning. And, of course, I added that I REALLY liked Obama. But I have to say that when I hung up the phone, I reflected on just how massive an advantage The Machine would give our Hil. If this were the GOP, I would say that her degree of Machine support would be dispositive. It’s less important on the donkey side, but it still shouldn’t be underestimated.

If I were a Hil supporter, maybe I’d say something here about relishing the battle – some kind of toned down version of “Bring it on.” I know – I’d echo my candidate’s own words when she said “I’m in. And I’m in to win!” But I’m not a Hil supporter. I’m a supporter of Obama. I suspect my guy is less “in to win” than he is “In to unite. In to inspire. In to nurture.” Or maybe just “In to humbly lending a helping hand.”

In that spirit, let me say that I’m thankful that we have not one heavyweight, but two. Move over John Edwards – go back to announcing Tic-Tac-Dough, or whatever it is you do to hone that smile of yours. Move over Chris Dodd – I love you, but get out of here, you knucklehead, I mean it. Move over Bill Richardson (What kind of Hispanic name is “Richardson,” anyway? I mean admittedly, I’m one to talk, having a name like Spiro and not being Greek, but it’s not like all anyone ever says about me is “He’s a Jew.”). Move over Tom Vilsack (and I apologize if I already bumped into you and didn’t even know it.)

We now have two brilliant, SUPER competent politicians going head to head. And better yet, they bring conflicting styles. Americans cannot help but benefit from the fight and/or dialogue.

Remember, I may think Hillary Clinton isn’t fit to be President, but I think she’s a heck of a Senator and a valuable asset to the American political scene. As for Obama, I’m buyin’ the hype. I’m dreamin’ the dream. In my pantheon, you have Barack. Martin. Mick. Ludwig. Rembrandt. (Hey, what can I say? That was the artist’s first name.) Thomas. Abraham. And Baruch – or, if you prefer, “Benedict de.”

Please don’t tell me you don’t know who I’m talking about. OK – I could have meant Martin Luther King or Martin Buber. And I could have meant either Lincoln or the first of the Patriarchs. But the other ones should be obvious. If they’re not, you need to read more literature, listen to more music … and STOP taking calls from The Machine.

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS

For the Mass Media

1. Have you considered finding talking heads for talk-radio and TV who are passionate about issues but whose passions are not predicable? I get bored turning on a show, seeing a familiar face, and immediately knowing what the loudmouth is going to say – regardless of the issue. Must we give every microphone to Rush Limbaugh and his imitators, left and right?

2. In a society in which crimes are commonplace, why do you devote so much attention to individual “celebrity” crimes, like the Jon-Benet Ramsey killing? Wouldn’t a discussion of sociological trends be more interesting than a constant barrage of attention to individual crimes? Are you turning news into tabloid pseudo-journalism?

3. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today and ran for President (as a Democrat, I presume), do you honestly think he’d have a chance to survive the campaign season? Wouldn’t your political “experts” brand him as too stilted, too aloof, and too wonkish to be electable?

4. Why do your sports reporters constantly feel the need to talk about spoiled, narcissistic jerks like Terrell Owens, even if they’ve never won a Championship? Is there a reason why we need to follow their tribulations on a daily basis? Do you think all sports fans are motivated primarily by schadenfreude? I thought the point of spectator sports was to relax and enjoy the exploits of good people who perform spectacular feats, but you pay no more attention to Tiger Woods’s excellence, say, than to Owens’s incessant pouting or back talking. Why?

For Liberals

1. Why do so many of you support gay marriage and oppose capital punishment, but virtually none of the top leaders of your party purport to share your views? Why don’t you find other leaders who share your perspective? Do you see America as such a right wing country that it’s incapable of electing as President an unabashed liberal in the same way that it is willing to elect an unabashed conservative like Reagan?

2. If you care so dog-gone much about people other than your family and friends, why do you spend so little time joining social action organizations? Do you think that your fellow liberals have demonstrated in the amount of time they’re willing to devote to the planet (as opposed to themselves) that they care more about Mother Earth than conservatives?

3. Do you think liberals can continue to ignore the power of religion and spirituality? How can you hope to compete with conservatives if, every week, they “unionize” with fellow travelers in church, listen to sermons there about the evils of the liberal agenda, and then head out with the mission of fighting for their principles? When they’re doing that, what are you doing – driving your kid to soccer practice? Reading the newspaper? Sleeping?

For Conservatives

1. If Jesus were alive today, how much would he care about helping the poor? And if the answer is “a lot,” would all of his methods involve self help or would he request big sacrifices from those who are wealthy? For example, would he fight the tax on huge estates by calling it a “death tax,” or would he instead propose ways to use that money to help support the working poor?

2. With whom do you sympathize the most – human embryos, fetuses, or children who are poor? Why do you talk so much about the first two groups, and so little about the third?

3. If you hate unnecessary killing, and you want to condition people to be gentle instead of violent, have you considered giving up hunting? In fact, have you considered a vegetarian diet?

4. Are you concerned about global warming? How do you respond to those who say that there is a near consensus in the scientific community that current trends, if left unabated, will result in terrible disasters for our planet?

5. You rested so much of your defense for the Iraq War on Saddam’s temerity in flouting the United Nations’ demands, and yet you constantly bash the United Nations? If you don’t respect the UN, why should he?

For Those Who Wish to Transcend Liberalism and Conservatism

1. Are you organized at all? Why don’t you identify certain principles, goals, and programmatic suggestions that you believe all of us should agree upon? Please!

2. Do you know of any politicians that you can trust as a fellow traveler? I mean trust – not someone who stakes out moderate ground only when it’s expedient.

For Moderate Muslims

1. What in blazes are we going to do with the loonies who follow the cancer-agent known as Osama Bin Ladin? If the “surgical” approach that we took in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t work, can you suggest other forms of oncological treatment? God forbid we’d have to use radiation or chemotherapy, so please: what else can we do to persuade the Arab street that their interests lie with the non-Jihadist world?

For Catholics

1. Why do I keep encountering Catholics who are theological liberals but who attend churches led by theological conservatives? Wouldn’t it make sense for your people to split into Orthodox and non-Orthodox groups, like we have in Judaism? Or do you liberal Catholics feel like you can’t, without effectively becoming Protest-ants?

For My Fellow Reform Jews

1. What is it about Reform Judaism specifically – or liberal Judaism generally – that we believe will survive for the next 500 years? What’s the glue that gives us a raison d’etre: our common culture? Our ethnicity? Our religious principles? Our rituals? Our spirituality? Wouldn’t it be worthwhile for the community systematically to explore these questions, and then polish the gems that we reveal?

2. Let me ask that question differently: How should we stop the decline in our numbers – (a) procreate like the Orthodox, (b) preach against intermarriage to a community that consists largely of intermarried families, or (c) figure out a way to make our religion a more compelling alternative to a secular lifestyle? If the answer is (c), would anyone care to share any ideas?

For Everyone

1. You wouldn’t mind if I revisit one or more of these themes, would you?

MAYBE FOOTBALL SHOULD BE PLAYED WITHOUT A HELMET

While many of us were vacationing, the entire nation mourned the passing of a former President. He was a President of a democracy in the truest sense of the term. Elected? No, not even. He was, in fact, the only President never elected either in that capacity or as a Veep. And yet the America he led was a democracy, he was the head of its government, and, unlike others who held that job in recent decades, he brought to the world’s most difficult job an ample supply of humility. He recognized that he was not a supreme visionary, not the most knowledgeable policy wonk, and far from being either a “natural aristocrat” of the Jeffersonian variety or a traditional/hereditary aristocrat of the Bush variety. The fact that he was never even elected to do the job was merely the cherry on top of the cake. Accordingly, he didn’t seem to let the power get to his head.

It is precisely because of that fact that so many of us mourned his death.

Let me first of all announce my biases. I am biased in favor of Gerald Ford because I am a Jew. In my culture, like most others, we have elevated one man as being above all others. In our case, the man is Moses, and we elevate him not because he was the wisest (like the Greeks elevated Socrates), not because he was the most loving (like the Christians elevated Jesus), and certainly not because he was the most knowledgeable or the most wealthy. We elevate him because he was the most humble – or at least that’s what the legend teaches.

On the other hand, I am biased against Ford because, he was a Republican and I am a Democrat. When he was President, I was a teenager and was taught by my parents that he was too conservative on the issues, too cuddly with the dishonest schmuck who elevated him to the office, and too damned stupid to warrant being in such a high position. We Democrats all had our share of laughs at Lyndon Johnson’s line that Ford “spent too much time playing football without a helmet.” And if that wasn’t funny enough, we had Chevy Chase, the comedian, who routinely started Saturday Night Live by imitating Ford acting like a schlemiel.

Who knows? Perhaps it was all the ridicule that we heaped on Ford’s supposed stupidity that drove him from the White House. I’d like to think it wasn’t the fact that he pardoned Nixon, because in hindsight, is there any doubt that this was the right thing to do?

Since Ford left the White House, we have perfected the job of political ridicule. We have learned not only how to make people laugh at our politicians, we’ve now learned to make people despise them. I can understand why people despise Bush. I can understand why people despise Clinton – Hillary or Bill. But I can’t fathom why there is so much loathing for the unassuming ones – the Gores, the Kerrys … who knows, perhaps soon, the McCains? Loathing is something we should reserve for a select few objects in our lifetime. Now, however, all you have to do is turn on talk radio and you will hear vitriol heaped on any politician that doesn’t side with the host. It’s the new mantra: “if we disagree, you must be evil and dishonest.” Pretty sick, I’d say.

Next time you’re driving home and listening to some bully on the radio shout down a caller and then dump all over a politician, remember Gerald Ford. Especially if you’re a Democrat like me, remember that man. You could disagree with him, you could laugh at him, but could you really dislike him? Could you fundamentally disrespect him? Could you desire to take away his dignity? It was pretty darned difficult to do any of those things. He was simply too decent a man. Too unassuming. Too humble.

I could praise certain things about the substance of his ideas, such as his interest in slowing the consumption of energy, but that’s really beside the point. Gerald Ford wasn’t our nation’s greatest intellect. He wasn’t our most charismatic leader. Nor, I would argue, was he our most courageous. But he was perhaps our nation’s foremost compass. He pointed to what characteristic is most important in a person who leads our country.

When you’re in charge of a great power, as we still are, it’s always hubris that gets you in the most trouble. That’s what people envision when they say that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I don’t know about you, but when I detect hubris in my nation’s leaders, I get pissed off. But today, I ask you not to dwell on any of that ugliness. I ask you to remember that loveable, alleged lunkhead, Gerald Ford. I ask you to recall his decency, his modesty, his humility, and his earnestness. And when you see other potential Presidents on the horizon, I’d ask you to figure out whether they share all those same characteristics. Trust me – you’ll sleep better if they do.

ONE JEW, NO OPINIONS

I’ve always loved the old line, “two Jews, three opinions,” even though I never really believed it. Growing up as a kid, I thought the numbers were reversed. There were three people in my family: my dad, who often kept his opinion to himself; my mom, who had an opinion on everything (whether she had thought about the issue previously or not); and me. If you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you know full well which of parents I’ve emulated.

Of course, it’s one thing to be opinionated; it’s still another to be willing to proclaim your opinions loudly to friends and strangers alike. Happily, my mother does not belong in that category. I, on the other hand …

When you realize the above, maybe you’ll understand how painful it is for someone like me to view two sides of an issue in a way that neither one appears to be appreciably stronger than the other. When the issue is raised, your ears perk up so that you can absorb more information, more perspectives, more fodder for a legitimate heartfelt impulse to enter your soul. But in the back of your mind, you’re also cringing in fear that someone will ask the question “So, what’s your perspective on _____,” and you’ll have to answer – “Ah … well … I kind of see both sides on that one.” Yes, that’s right – you’ll cop out. You’ll picture yourself as a senator walking up to the well of the senate and then, when your name is called, saying “Abstain.” It’s downright un-American.

Yes, we Jews love our opinions; so do we politically-minded Americans. And those of us who are politically-minded Jewish Americans, my God, our opinions practically define who we are. “Hi, my name is Irving. I have two legs, two arms, and 716 opinions (that’s my best guess on the average number, though since I’m a sports fan, that number is probably low in my case).”

What? You think I’m stalling? Fine. Let me state the issue. Then you have to help me develop the opinion. If you’re a keen observer of the American political system, you’ll note that there are but a handful of issues that divide the Democratic party. Gay marriage and capital punishment are examples. And on those, my mind is pretty firm: pro gay marriage and against capital punishment (unless you’re talking about capital punishment for “pro lifers” who favor capital punishment, in which case I’m willing to reconsider …). Anyway, a third issue that divides Democrats is the issue of trade. Should we be protectionists or free traders? Let’s leave aside whether trade sanctions may be adopted for non-economic purposes, such as to persuade countries to respect human rights or do a better job of environmental protection. I obvious support such sanctions under the appropriate circumstances, but that issue is too easy. Here, I’m speaking about whether we should ever adopt protectionist measures purely for economic purposes.

If you would have asked me two years ago, I would have called myself a free trader. I thought that free trade was in the long term best interests of ALL countries – after all, what can be more natural, and therefore healthful, than the free flow of goods and services? By contrast, protectionism came across to me as a selfish, myopic idea propounded by groups like labor unions whose interests lay in the welfare of discrete groups of people, rather than all the planet. I analogized protectionism to the decision of a state to erect toll booths on its highways; ultimately, other states follow suit, and the primary consequence is slower traffic for everyone. Great idea, huh?

Truth be told, I still sympathize with that perspective, at least to a degree. But now, I’m wondering if the competing perspective isn’t equally powerful, if not more so. Proponents of protectionism aren’t saying that we want to permanently erect barriers on trade. They’re saying that conditions exist in America that warrant protectionist measures, at least for the short term. The United States has a huge national debt, a gaping trade deficit, and a rapidly graying population. The nation appears headed for an economic disaster unless it takes steps to protect its own industry. Given these circumstances, wouldn’t some protectionist measures be in order to help stabilize our economic health?

If any of you have strong perspectives on this issue, feel free to share them in this website – or at least to share them with me privately. While I enjoy having such an open mind on this issue, I’d much rather be able to combine that open mind with a strong, heartfelt opinion. As a Jewish American prince, I feel that such an opinion is my birthright.

EXPEDIENCY AND DEATH

In Judaism, it is said that to save one life is like saving the whole world. But there is a corollary to that principle, now isn’t there? To take one life needlessly …

By contrast, in secular America, it is said that you’ve got to crack a few eggs to make even a lousy omelet. And there is a corollary to that principle too: the folks who’ve been in charge of that Iraq War are definitely secular, not Jewish.

Now, boys and girls, let’s add a new set of names to that list of people in charge. Names like Pelosi, Reed, Clinton, Obama, Hoyer, Emanuel. That’s right – Democrats all. They will be asked to finance the war in Iraq, just as many of them were asked to approve the invasion in the first place. They may even be asked to finance a surge in our military’s involvement in the war – a prolongation of the conflict that has resulted in a Civil War in which the only thing the two combatants have in common is a hatred of the United States.

The Democrats know that a surge means simply a surge in folly. But they just might let it happen. Politically, why would they bail out the GOP? Let the GOP take responsibility for the success or failure of the war, right? Don’t give them an excuse to blame the lily livered donkeys for tying their hands … not when "victory" was still within reach.

Some of my more conservative friends still take the position that Vietnam War was a just, winnable war that would have had a groovy outcome if we only had stepped up the attack. They blame our defeat on the wimps who demonstrated in the streets and the woosies in the Pentagon who refused to give the troops the firepower they deserved. These same conservatives would clearly whip out similar rhetoric if Pelosi and Company pulled the plug on the Neo Cons’ Folly (aka the Mess-o-potamia). Politically, the Democrats would be well advised to give the conservatives all the rope they need to hang themselves.

But then again … there’s more to governing than playing politics, now isn’t there?

Permitting an escalation in this war under these circumstances essentially qualifies as aiding and abetting. Even the Generals don’t support the kind of surge the President is talking about. Now, if we brought back the draft and doubled our troop size and waged a total war against the insurgents … then maybe, a victory would be more plausible (I said more plausible; I didn’t say likely; winning Power Ball is plausible). The problem, of course, is that nobody is suggesting such a massive increase in troops. Not the Generals … not the President. And possibly, not even John McCain.

Actually, I may be wrong about that. McCain seems to be moving further to the right every day. By the time I get around to posting this, he might have passed Barry Goldwater and might be approaching Genghis Kahn in his rear view mirror. Unquestionably, McCain has touched a nerve with the bazillions of gun toting ‘Mericans (I believe that’s how they pronounce it) who supported the war wholeheartedly before it started, after it started going south, and up until the time that Condoleezza Rice admitted that we have made more mistakes in waging the war than the number of stars in the Milky Way. That was a tough admission, but you’ve got to credit Condi for her honesty.

Anyway, McCain seems set on winning the whole damn thing as if it were the Super Bowl – and while I’m not sure if he means the war in Iraq or the Republican nomination, I do know that he means business. Otherwise, why would he – a former Vietnam prisoner of war – toss more American bodies into a place where they’re not wanted?

Yes, to write about McCain is to underscore the Democrats’ “wisdom” in continuing to stand by their President. He’s the one who’s hanging himself politically. He’s the one whose pandering, recklessness, war-mongering, or twisted sense of humor (the charitable view) is going to be most tragically exposed if the surge idea becomes a reality, even in Bush’s more modest and palatable form.

My problem is that I don’t care so much about the political realities. I’m just sick and tired of our throwing gasoline onto this fire.

Democrats – if you are listening, please practice what you’ve preached. You’ve said that you oppose the war. You’ve said it was a lost cause. Frankly, you still say it. But I haven’t got the impression that you’re willing to throw your muscle whole heartedly into the movement for peace. Now that you’re in charge of the Congress, let Iraq be your first real battlefield … either that, or stop blaming the Republicans if the senseless carnage continues.