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.