At Long Last

Over the weekend I listened to a lengthy Rachel Maddow interview that she conducted with Jon Stewart in 2010. There was a lively back and forth, and contrary to what one might expect there were points of disagreement. Maddow struggled and pushed back, for example, on one of Stewart’s central points; the idea that the media promotes a right-left, red-state-blue-state dichotomy built on a false premise. To Stewart's point of view the real conflict was not between Republicans and Democrats or even between conservatives and liberals. The real conflict, the real heart of the matter was the battle between what Stewart called “corruption” and everyone else. Obama himself made remarkably similar comments in the Marc Maron interview.

Stewart's argument was that corruption was not best confronted by, or at he suggested the fight ought not to be confined by, narrow political views of like-minded Americans. The battle for real right against real wrongs, real evil, was far too important for such a restricted dialogue.

He argued that on this basis both FOX and MSNBC shared certain traits that were worthy of criticism. Maddow, pointing to several cases of well financed and choreographed so-called protest, suggested Stewart was positing a fall equivalency between real protest on one side and movement on the levers of power on the other. For the most part I thought Maddow got the better end of the argument, but Stewart’s idea of opposition to corruption without party affiliation, especially the freedom it must provide in contrast to party dogma, was compelling.

I am so liberal, so attached to my own secular theology, that I get sick of myself sometimes. I am frustrated with the Democratic Party, often finding it a weak counterpart to the colossus of wealth and power which is today’s GOP. Though I prefer no label or category, I find progressive or liberal so much more an agreeable attachment or location to occupy than Democrat. Millions of Republicans have made it pretty clear they feel the same away about the GOP.

So it seems to me that this must mean that there ought to be some things we can agree to, moments when we all should be able to identify the corruption among us. There should be moments when we don't attach our flag of political belief, either in support or opposition, to someone, and we should not always define our most firmly held beliefs in a purely political context.

In recent weeks, we have been subjected to a series of statements that ought to on their own give us pause.

There are over five million undocumented Mexicans in America. Is it possible that all of them are criminals?  I look at all the immigrants in my community. I see mothers and fathers with their children, tiny voices dancing on the summer wind, and workers, sun-baked men with clothes worn from the activity of physical effort.  At the bagel store, the grocery, and in the public space or the bike path, I see my neighbors, and cringe at the words that have been repeated in our public discourse, ad naseum. Do I need to be a follower of one political party or another to denounce the awful things that were said, to feel the urgent desire, indeed the demand, to stand with my neighbor?

Assuming that the practice institutionalized in the term “anchor baby” is actually a real thing, the term still refers to the use of a baby, an innocent and helpless child. The Washington Post has run more than one article pointing out the folly of using your children as an immigration strategy, so much so the political argument, though repeated endlessly, is null and void. But even if the practice were true, have we no mercy for the family or the child at the heart of such desperation?

Critics on both right and left use Nazis and the Holocaust as metaphors for any and all manner of political exercise with which they disagree.  During the Iraq war protesters frequently carried images of Bush and Cheney with the Hitler mustache, and during this administration conservatives have trotted out the Hitler analogies for all manner of protest, including opposition to the Affordable Car Act.  Some, who like me, are extremely frustrated with the militarist policies of are so-called ally Israel have tried to use the imagery of those memories as a blunt sword to cut down Netanyahu. Nothing could be more obscene. Every time I hear these comparisons I feel the wound on the souls of the six million. Rather than a metaphor for evil, the Holocaust is the greatest known example of the existence of evil. Now to score cheap political points rather than point to the final solution as an evil for all times, it’s thrown around like a sports statistic, against which modern day players can be measured.  

And now this.

Appearing at the Eagle Forum, Former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, said this about the refugees pouring into Europe from the Middle East:

“Are they really escaping tyranny, are they escaping poverty, or are they just running because we’ve got cable TV? I don’t mean to be trite — I’m just saying we don’t know.”

As a political statement this is an awful, appalling, sentiment. But we have grown numb to awful, immune to appalling. The hypocrisy is enraging, especially this statement, coming from a man who has spent the better part of the last several weeks vaingloriously espousing his so-called Christian values.  

I'll be the first to admit that the religious faith of my younger years is lost to me now. I cannot decipher the scriptures in the way many of you can and I’m sure still do. But I understand the admonition-- common to all monotheistic religions-- that places love and charity at the highest altar of human endeavor. 

"For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;"

I have heard these words dozens of times before. When the challenges are deemed insurmountable we are told to have faith. Heard those words too. I never understood the statements to be orders, but even on the road I now travel they seem to be fairly important aspirations. I posted briefly about Huckabee’s words last night, but they linger with me even now. What Huckabee said is more than out of step with how I feel or the political views of the party I will support in the next election. To me, they should stand, as Stewart suggested, in an area where red-state blue-state should carry little value.  They are more than improper. If we respond to them purely on the basis of our political perspective, don't we surrender something to the inherent political calculation that inspired such immorality?

Are we truly lost to this now? So committed to winning political victory or scoring points in that arena that no morality or shame penetrates the personal armor of our ego or our political arguments?

Joseph Welch was the chief counsel for the United States Army while it was under investigation for Communist activities during the McCarthy hearings. He is famously quoted as confronting the abusive Senator, who destroyed countless lives with the question, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” 

I feel that way now, or rather the way I can only imagine some must have felt then. We are caught in a vortex that only spirals faster and deeper. Every day seems to bring a more astounding surrender of our ethics and values. We are told we are a Christian nation, or at least one of profound faith, but our politics too often either reflect none of that or a distorted fun-house mirror image of what true morality would look like.  Huckabee's comments are cynical, ugly, and selfish, and that is the best that can be said of them. They are easy to condemn, but tomorrow's another day, and another opportunity for fresh moral compromise.

The refugee crisis is a metaphysical crisis for America and for the world. Easy solutions are not in sight. We can choose now to stand with those who are suffering, in spirit and action, or we can excuse corruption.

Does this mean America should volunteer to house 800,000 refugees as Germany has done? Probably not. Is this the time to sort out who was at fault and whether western powers  shredded an opportunity presented  by the Russians in 2012 to get Assad to step aside and leave the country as reported in the Guardian today?  I hope not.

But maybe, just maybe, we can hope and put that hope into action through political power. Let us hope  that in our collective conscience we still have some sense of decency, at long last some tiny shred of decency.

Progressivism V. Cynicism

If you want to know why there is no compromise among the political parties, let this be exhibit one. Wherever one stands on matters in the Middle East, especially is it pertains to Israel and issues that Israel is deeply engaged in, like the recent negotiations with Iran, there is an overwhelming force, one wealthy  individual,  pulling the American political center in one direction.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/sheldon-adelson-is-ready-to-buy-the-presidency.html

Sheldon Adelson is an 82 year old billionaire who made his money in casinos. While he diddles in various issues, he is basically a one issue donor. Israel. Adelson is a huge supporter and personal friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, and his Super-PAC campaign donations have been a primary reason that Republicans have increasingly allied themselves with unquestioning support of Israeli policies, especially those of Netanyahu’s right wing Likuid.

In the last election cycle Adelson donated close to $100 million, much of that going to Newt Gingrich. Adelson’s financial support may be only a tenth that of the Koch Brother’s network this time around, but he expects so much less in policy terms than the Kochs. Other than the Israel issue, Adelson is against marijuana legalization. He favors casino expansion, and generally tilts in favor of low-tax business-friendly policies espoused by most of the other billionaires. But make no mistake. Israel is the fuel that drives Adelson’s political giving.

The Republican brand is already closely tied to the right wing Israeli political movement. Since Reagan, Evangelicals have become far more unquestioning and supportive of succeeding Israeli governments, even those that moved further and further right than the broad diaspora of American Jews supported. Adelson’s narrow focus and mega dollars  have been a magnet, drawing most of the GOP candidates into making a pilgrimage to Adelson's offices in Las Vegas, some with great enthusiasm and some more surreptitiously. As the article points out Cruz and Walker are virtually tumbling over each other to latch onto the teat. Meanwhile, Bush is playing a more nuanced game. All GOP candidates are lined up against the Iran deal though, and the entire field is tilting further and further to the right in policies towards the Middle East generally, and Israel in particular.

Much of Israel's political support is legitimate political principle, but in 2015 there is so much money at stake, it’s hard to tell where principle leaves off and hunger for campaign cash picks up. Since these matters brush up directly against US military policy, the way in which these matters are decided is critical to every Amercian.

As with the ACA, it’s unlikely when the votes for the Iran deal come up in the House, and if they come up in the Senate, that even one GOP elected official will side with the President. That’s the kind of commitment to principle that ONLY money can buy.

This is what democracy looks like in a Citizen’s United country. Americans on both right and left decry the partisan gridlock, but as this article clearly points out if you want access to Adelson’s $100 million, there can be no grey in your policy statements towards Israel. You must do more than support the Israeli people; you must support the policies of the right-wing Israeli government without qualification or hesitation. You must agree that the Palestinians are, as Adelson says, a “made up people”. If you are going to venture anywhere in the direction of the real compromise that would be required to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine forgot squeezing a dime from Shelley Adelson.  As it pertains to policy towards Iran’s containment, you better be willing to put forward an overt military component, almost certainly requiring American troops on the ground. Anything short of these policy positions will be seen by Adelson as little more than milquetoast blathering. If you want a taste of Adelson’s dollars get on board or get lost.

Polarization in the US, driven by campaign cash, has combined with a hard right Israeli Government, publicly hostile to any negotiation, in such a way that no administration since Clinton has wandered into the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Even as Netanyahu made overt appeals to race in the closing days of his campaign, criticism from the US government was muted. Obama let it be known he didn’t like it, but aided by a small cadre of Democrats, the Republican right wing has neutralized any moves towards removing US policy from the noose of Likuid control. Aid to Israel, mostly military, has continued to flow. The whole world watched in horror has Israel bombed Gaza in the summer of 2014. But while the US complained about civilian casualties-- perpetuated almost completely by advanced rockets and other weapons produced in and provided by the US-- the Pentagon simultaneously re-supplied the Israeli stockpile.

In the same way that huge majorities support efforts at gun control, but Congress never enacts legislation consistent with those aspirations, votes in Congress pertaining to Israel follow a similar pattern. Amongst voters, Democrats when polled are far more tepid in their backing, but rock hard Republican support ensures that public opinion is seldom reflected in Congressional votes.

Line up ten billionaires with unlimited resources, each with a narrow agenda, and you will see uncompromising gridlock on ten issues. Line up a dozen corporations or their wealthy overlords, those willing and able to bundle tens of millions of dollars, and you will see Washington hopelessly tied up on 12 additional issues. The resulting gridlock drives more cynicism, which opens the field up further to narrow financial interests. Then more gridlock, then more cynicism, then more narrow interests, and so forth. Sprinkle generously with emotional issues like civil rights, gay rights, and abortion, all of which have proven quite effective in getting poor and working class whites to vote against their own economic interests and you’ll find yourself cruising to a landing in the political environment of 2015.

Ironically the bulwark against these purely financial considerations is the Obama coalition: African Americans, Latinos, the LBGT community and their supporters, young people, and liberals, especially in the Northeast and on the West Coast which account for a huge junk of the Electoral College. I say ironically, because what we are seeing at the moment is that financial interests are empowering extremist candidates, which by their very action are strengthening and mobilizing the progressive coalition.  

In an even match between big money donors and the progressive base of the Democratic Party, all but the most flawed candidates should carry Presidential Elections for the Democrats. Hillary is flawed, though I doubt she’s far enough gone to make people forget the GOP brand, and Sanders for all his principle will have the mighty mountain of “Socialist” to climb if he gets the nomination. That won’t matter, even a little in California or New York, but in the suburbs that ring major cities in every swing state in the country that’ll be a thing.

On the upside, as we have seen over these last months, Republicans are almost constitutionally committed to overreach on social issues. They literally can’t help themselves. The real danger both in this election and beyond is the sense of deep cynicism which is swallowing our politics. There is little danger in my view of the Obama coalition breaking up, but will they show up? Money, as I said, is the most common ingredient in the recipe for political cynicism. Adelson doesn’t care if his hoary cavalcade so disgusts the electorate that half the voters stay home in disgust on election day, so long as those that show up are willing to support candidates that are blindly pro-Israel. The awful choice isn’t really between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between progressivism and cynicism. Regardless of the polls this race is much closer than people think.