SOCIALISM IN THE U.S. AND EUROPE

SOCIALISM IN THE USA AND EUROPE

I’m not a professional expert on socialism or the Democratic Socialists of America. But I do know something about the subject given that my grandmother was an avid registered socialist in NYC (she was also a socialist in Poland before she emigrated to the USA), as was my father until some time in the 1950s or 60s.. And I went to a Jewish socialist summer camp as a child. My father’s family was close to David Dubinsky who was originally a committed socialist and one of the founders of the modern American labor movement. They were so close to one another that they were all buried next to another in an NYC cemetery (as part of the cemetery’s Lodz Workmen’s Circle–which had socialist roots). Socialist rhetoric and ideals were something I heard constantly as a child and were a formative part of my upbringing.

Very few of the people in that world, however, stayed socialist (like Dubinsky who became a progressive capitalist), as most realized that in the USA socialism came to mean something very different from what it has come to mean in Europe.

In Europe, social democratic movements are generally NOT anti-capitalist. In Scandinavian countries, social democratic parties are part of the fiber of political culture, but their leaders don’t believe that the state should “own the means of production”–which is what classic socialism argues for. Scandinavian countries strongly support small business and the importance of a market economy that is not dominated by monopolistic corporations. They all have publicly accessible stock markets and private markets as well. They generally emphasize a regulated free market economy with a strong social safety net that keeps business competitive with one another and protects the interests of the middle class and poor. These social democratic parties are close to what Dubinsky and many others thought of as progressive capitalism. This was also true for FDR who believed in a regulated market economy.

Obviously socialism doesn’t mean one thing, but the Democratic Socialists of America (founded in 1982) are committed to opposing capitalism and a market economy. Unlike most social democratic parties across Europe, they oppose a profit-based economy, they oppose stock markets, and they oppose open, free markets.

So, if you think that American socialism is just like liberal capitalism with a strong safety net (e.g. FDR, most of the American labor movement, liberal Democrats), you would be incorrect. There are some members of Democratic Socialists of America who share that view, but it’s not the view of their party. The DSA is in fact committed to replacing the free enterprise system with a collectivist economy–though it’s not always clear to me what precisely they mean by that.

See less

Miscellaneous Thoughts on Antisemitism and Israel

Criticism of Netanyahu, of Israel’s government is absolutely NOT antisemitism. Calling Netanyahu a war criminal might or might not be correct, but it’s not in and of itself antisemitism. Criticizing Israel’s Gaza war or West Bank policy is certainly not antisemitism.

I criticize Netanyahu and his government all the time, as do most American Jews and most (believe it or not) Israelis. In fact, Netanyahu isn’t popular at all right now with Jewish Israelis. I don’t know what will happen tomorrow, but that’s where it is right now.

Obviously when critics of the Israeli government say that Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state, that’s almost certainly antisemitism. Unless you’re willing to criticize every country with ethnicity or religion enshrined by law (including virtually every country in the Middle East, many counties in Europe, India, Japan, and many other nations), you are singling out Jews for special criticism. That is wildly inconsistent and therefore antisemitism. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anyone actually do this. It’s possible, but it’s really more theoretical and than actual.

When people start using the words “Zionist” as a slur, that’s antisemitism. While the word, “Zionism” has come to mean Netanyahu and his policies to some, it really means the right of Jews to have their own state (as countless other ethnic/religious groups do). Whether or not Jews call themselves “Zionists,” about 90% of American Jews believe in the legitimacy and desirability of a Jewish state (i.e. Israel). Clearly for some on the far-left, the word, “Zionist,” is simply a proxy for Jews. If 90% of Jews believe in a Jewish state, and people slur them, well we know how Jews view that. We also know that much of the rhetoric is not ultimately about Israel, but about Jews themselves.

Even worse than “Zionist” is “Zio.” That’s clearly not an abbreviation for ease of speech, but out-and-out hate speech. It’s not much different from other slurs used against various minority groups

Zio” is everywhere in far-left circles, especially on social media. On X/Twitter I see it every day–unless I stop myself from looking at post comments (but I don’t have enough self-discipline for that).

Personally I don’t regard “Free Palestine” as inherently antisemitic. Palestinians have a right to their own state IMHO (as do Kurds, for example). So in isolation it’s not a problematic phrase.

If “Free Palestine means “Free of Jews” (as some have clearly said), that’s antisemitism. If “Free Palestine” is accompanied by attacks on the idea of a Jewish state or a desire to annihilate Jews, that is antisemitism. If Free Palestine is used alongside “From the River to the Sea,” that’s a promise of annihilating Jews, which is clearly antisemitic.

I support a two-state solution. So for me “Free Palestine” is reasonable as long as it’s about Palestinians getting their own state.

“AIPAC” is another hot word these days. I should say that I have criticized AIPAC for years now. Honestly I can’t stand them, and I have been ripped for criticizing them. I have told a few AIPAC reps what I think and I’ve said a certain amount on social media, and they just ignored me and moved on.

The problem is that politicians are using the word “AIPAC” repeatedly as if it’s a magic word or an obscenity. It’s essentially become e a code word for “Zionist.” While it’s certainly not antisemitic to criticize AIPAC (I’ve done so for years well before the current flood), to repeat it ad nauseam is a problem–especially if you don’t criticize other ethnic advocacy groups (Armenian, Turkish, Irish, etc.). If all you do is repeat “AIPAC” as a mantra, yes, you are wandering into the land of antisemitism.

Using “AIPAC” repeatedly also enters in the classic antisemitic trope of accusing Jews of ‘dual loyalty’. This goes back hundreds of years. This was one of the main accusations Nazis hurled against Jews and was effective in their murderous propaganda.

If you want to criticize AIPAC (as I have), explain precisely what you’re criticizing them for and make sure that you don’t solely focus on Jews when you discuss loyalty to foreign governments.

If you want to criticize AIPAC and not be problematic, you have an obligation not to simply repeat the word as a slur, but to explain what exactly you’re criticizing.

Another word thrown around regularly is “genocide.” I have taught courses on the Holocaust/Shoah, genocide generally, and mass murder,. I have studied it quite a bit, though I’m not an international lawyer. With that caveat, the word is deeply problematic.

For one thing, the population of Gaza is approximately the same as it was before the conflict (there are competing statistics here, but all in all there’s not much of change in population totals). Genocide laws require that a perpetrator target wiping out an entire population or wiping out a substantial portion of the population. No such evidence exists, however.

Second, you can’t just kill a lot of people in a genocide. You have to prove “intent” to eradicate a group or large part of a group. Without getting into the weeds (there are a lot of weeds), there’s not enough evidence that the IDF are attempting to do this.

So I think this is very likely not a genocide in a legal sense. Is it possible for a kangaroo court to conclude otherwise? Possibly I suppose (though the evidence is almost non-existent). People hate Jews for whatever reasons. In fact, the accusation of genocide is echoed in Nazi propaganda of the 1930s. The Nazis claimed that they had to kill Jews because Jews were trying to annihilate (exterminate–a word I don’t like) Aryans and Germany. You might think this sounds silly or crazy, but this is precisely what Nazi propagandists argued.

So in some ways, the word, “genocide,” is for Jews a kind of red herring–because it’s not based on facts or truth. Rather it’s an old trope without evidentiary basis that allows people to treat Israel and Jews badly. In fact, it’s the kind of language that encourages physical attacks on Jews globally–as some of the perpetrators themselves have acknowledged.

Also a substantial portion of those killed are members of the Hamas military. Hamas recently said that it was sending out payments to about 30,000 widows of Hamas soldiers. That makes a genocide accusation even less likely.’

Jews have been accused of targeting children since the 4th century C.E. This is one of the most common tropes used against Jews. Many of the Jews in the USA today have grandparents who fled Eastern Europe partly because they were facing mass attacks of local populations. We call them pogroms. The mobs murdered Jews in part because they accused Jews of killing Christian children or putting children’s blood in their matzoh during Passover. So when Jews hear about Israelis targeting children, and there’s not much evidence of intentional targeting, then Jews hear the sounds of 2,000 years of people calling Jews child murderers.

Also many of the deaths in Gaza occurred because Hamas used civilian locations, including neighborhoods and hospitals, to protect their soldiers and equipment. This is clearly an issue for any war crimes charges. This policy is often referred to as using “human shields.” It would be a difficult legal argument to overcome in any prosecution of war crimes.

Again I’m not an international lawyer, but killing civilians is not a war crime per se–especially if Hamas embeds itself in civilian locations. In war, militaries have the right to attack civilian areas if military units are located there. This is an intentional Hamas strategy. At Nuremberg and in other trials, Nazis (including Herman Göring) claimed that Allied bombing campaigns like Dresden were war crimes. This was rejected consistently by the courts. If we were to examine the Allied bombing campaign, we would be horrified by the level of death and destruction. We have seen how awful things were recently in the battles of Mosul and Fallujah in Iraq. If we examined WWII battles and civilian casualties and property destruction, we would be horrified. War is always brutal, but that in itself doesn’t make it a war crime. War may be wrong or even immoral, but that doesn’t make it necessarily a crime.

Netanyahu might well have committed war crimes in certain areas, such as denying food to come into Gaza. Also obstructing medical assistance could be a war crime conceivably. There are probably other potential crimes I have not thought of. I don’t know the evidence, and obviously the fighting isn’t over, but we would have to wait and see what might qualify as a war crime legally.

If we were to examine the Allied campaign in WWII, both in Europe and Japan, there were very likely war crimes committed. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes? Didn’t the atomic bombs intentionally target civilian populations? This is a subject of debate.

In Europe, Allied soldiers often killed POWs (because having to use fighting soldiers as POW guards was viewed as hindering Allied military advances). Allied troops sometimes denied medical care to German and Japanese soldiers in WWII. Are these not war crimes? These kind of things happen in virtually ever war I’ve studied. The question is: are they isolated incidents or are they part of an intentional policy?

The biggest issue for me when it comes to Gaza is proportionality of protest.

This is very, very important. In Syria, there were between 500,000 and 1,000,000 killed by the Assad government in Syria. Most of them were civilians. We did not see protesters marching in the streets about that even though the total number of dead and wounded was far greater than in Gaza.

In Yemen approximately 150,000 people have so far died in the civil war (most civilians) and another 225,000 died of malnourishment. This was caused by the Houthi (Shiite-Iranian) revolt. Where have been and are the protests against this?

2.5 million people have died in the ongoing conflict in Sudan over the years. Where are the protests about this?

In February of this year, the Iranian government murdered (executed) between 30,000 and 40,000 people simply for the crime of protesting against the current government. Did we see protests in the streets of NYC or SF or anywhere? No we did not. In fact, many on the far-left have defended the Iranian government and criticized the protesters.

The Chinese government has placed 1,000,000 Muslim Uighurs over the past two decades in concentration camps and murdered thousands more. Are there people on the streets about this?

I could go on and on. The question is: Why do protesters focus on Israel and not on other countries? Why do some on the far-left and the far-right defend Assad in Syria and the Iranian government for what are more obvious violations of morality and war codes? If protesters treated all these cases seriously, including Israel, then we would have a far different landscape to look at. Why don’t protesters do this: For most Jews the answer is obvious.

If protesters were consistent (more or less) and applied their protests tactics equitably on various forms of violence, the Jewish community would feel a lot differently. But they don’t and have shown no indication of doing so. Criticism of Israel doesn’t occur in a vacuum. There’s over 2,000 years of history. Christians don’t have a lot of credibility here, given centuries of persecution of Jews, including the Crusades (which targeted Jews along the way, as well as Muslims). They are not neutral arbiters or observers. So when protesters focus on Israel at the expense of other brutal situations, this is what it looks like to Jews and those who understand the history.

Btw, I would say the same about Christian Zionists who blindly support Israel and Netanyahu. They honestly have no clue what they’re talking about. Sure the Israeli government loves their support and their money, but they’re wrong IMHO. They care about themselves and their theology and want Jews to convert. Many younger Evangelicals are not supportive of Israel or Jews. So the landscape is going to shift again probably–not too far away either. In any case, I’m under no illusion that they care about us. They don’t.

Some have argued that disproportionate criticism of Israel is justifiable, since the U.S. provides significant military and economic assistance. As far as economic and military ties go, do observers really think that there would be no protests against Israel if this had not been the case? In Europe where there is much less connection (and a lot more connection to Arab governments), there are massive protests against Israel and more attacks against Jews than in the USA. It’s clearly worse now there than in the USA for Jews. The diminished connections between European countries and Israel has not changed the protest landscape at all. There are no significant protests for any of the countries I mentioned.

Israel knows its days of U.S. support are coming to a close. It’s already established close relations with the Gulf countries (especially UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia). It has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. With Hezbollah weakened there are now talks with the Lebanese government–which is weak but wants a change from constant war status. It’s in a state of non-belligerence with Syria. It is developing close relations with India–and is probably cutting deals with China. It has relations with several countries in West Africa and improving relations with Morocco.

In fact, many in Israeli leadership would be happy not to have U.S. support at some point in the future. It would give them more freedom to operate independently. This might not be a good thing for Israel because the USA has had a positive influence overall. And it won’t probably be a good thing for the USA–since it provides jobs for Americans and since it gives the USA a lot of influence over an important area of the world. U.S. influence is already dissipating with the Iran war and with our current incompetent government, but the dissipation of influence will accelerate as U.S. aid diminishes to Israel. That is the reality of where we’re headed I think.

Jews in the diaspora are a whole different story. Many of our neighbors dislike us and conflate us with Israel. There’s also the 2,500 years of antisemitic history that we have to face daily. Israelis think all Jews should live in Israel and so they don’t really care that much about our lives here. We’re alone at this moment.

As I talk with my friends in the Jewish community, I hear lots of talk of moving outside the USA. We’re a nation of travelers, migrants, and nomads. That might happen again. But where? Is it really a good idea for all Jews to live in one place (Israel)? One or a few bombs can kill us all. I don’t think that Israelis have thought the diaspora issue through.

There’s a scene in Schindler’s List where a Russian soldier finds the Schindler Jews wandering around somewhere after Schindler had to flee. They’re trying to figure out where to go. He tells them that whichever way they travel, the people they meet will hate them (and probably murder them–which actually happened historically). So most of them ended up in the USA or Israel. It was a very claustrophobic situation, and it is now once again.

I still believe in the USA, even with MAGA, Trump, an authoritarian government, and the massively increasing antisemitism. It still can be a good place for Jews. I believe most Americans don’t like what they see with antisemitism on the far-right and the far-left. I believe that they’re overplaying their hands, but … I’m not sure about that. We just don’t know what’s going to happen on anything these days. I’m still an optimist at heart, but I’m a realistic optimist. Much as it pains me, I have to embrace uncertainty.

I’m betting that Jews in the USA will eventually get through this and that Israel will be ok.

Israel’s problem is no longer primarily strategic, but political. Except for Iran, Israel’s relations with its neighbors are much better than they’ve ever been. That said, Israel’s Public Relations are just dreadful across the globe. If the Israeli government can think of something to alienate people–even its supporters–then they almost always do it. It’s honestly breathtakingly dumb. How can really smart leaders do stuff so stupid?

Also Netanyahu has been pushing hard against democracy and freedom in his own country. Like Trump he’s trying to rig the courts and the political system so that he can stay in power and avoid prison time. This is is a serious problem, though it could prove (I hope) temporary. We’ll see. The next government after Netanyahu will be a big test.

In the USA, we’re experiencing a massive wave of antisemitism and Jew hatred, especially on the far left and far right. Jews in the U.S. have never experienced anything quite like it. Ultimately this has almost nothing to do with Israel, and everything to do with Jews. A lot of people despise and resent Jews in ways that they previously hid. How do we get past that? As someone who spent a large part of my life trying to address antisemitism, it’s disheartening to say the least. This is part of a populist surge, however, and those kind of waves usually wear themselves out over time and dissipate–as we just saw in Hungary.

“Populism” is almost never good for Jews. Historically, when the lid comes off and people start expressing (and acting on) how they really feel about one another, then the resentment and frustration almost always turns to attacking Jews–who are the world’s eternal scapegoat. It’s clockwork.

Graham Platner, Jews, and Israel

This is a response on social media to someone defending Platner:

—————

Platner didn’t remove/cover over the tattoo until he was shamed into doing so by the media. This tattoo is a TotenKopf tattoo, the death head image used by the Nazi Waffen SS who were in the front lines murdering Jews in the death camps and in the East. He has never apologized. He seems to have known what the tattoo meant over the years, but has tried to make that go away. To my knowledge, while he has generally condemned antisemitism, he has not explained what his specific views of the Shoah are. Calling the tattoo a youthful mistake is way, way insufficient. If he had apologized and explained why he did what he did was wrong, he would have a much better reception.

On this basis, if Platner is the future of the Democratic Party (as some have suggested), Jews don’t have much of a place in such a party.

Most Jews and many African Americans have warned Democrats about Platner, but White people haven’t bothered to listen. They apparently have already forgiven Platner. There aren’t many Jews or African Americans in Maine. So there you go. Apparently they know more than we do. When most Jews tell Democrats that someone has an antisemitism problem and they don’t listen, we already have a clear answer on how a large number of people view Jews. It’s honestly hard to miss.

I hope Platner proves me wrong by taking a more humane path. I truly do. But, if history has lessons to teach, we shouldn’t ignore obvious warning signs.

If I lived in Maine, unless something changes, I could not vote for either Platner or Collins. I’ve already explained Platner. But Collins is a coward who enables Trump, and she does virtually nothing to support democracy. Every step of the way she undermines our freedoms and only does what’s best for her politically. It’s gross.

I’m watching Trump, Republicans, and SCOTUS undermine and try to wreck our democracy, but many Democrats care more about ostracizing Israel and Jews than they care about the Constitution and the values that underlie it. Yes, we’ll likely get through this, but living through it sure is painful and exhausting.

Democrats and Jews

This is something I just wrote on a Democratic Substack group having to do with the Democratic Party and Jews:

____________

I am a life-long Democrat. I administer a Facebook group devoted to opposing far-right global nationalism. I have always supported civil rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, Medicare for All, fairer taxation, reasonable regulation of markets, and liberal democracy. I could go on and on here, but you get the point. I have actively supported Democrats over decades and worked hard for them–both through volunteering and through contributions.

But I’m also Jewish, am an historian of Judaism and have studied and taught on antisemitism. I have spent my professional life teaching and writing about both Judaism and Christianity, trying to help heal the wounds of two millennia of pain. I’m sure that I was in part motivated by the Holocaust and the horrifying experiences of many of my fellow Jews during the Holocaust, including members of my own family. Though I strongly oppose the government of Netanyahu and support a two-state solution, I also believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state (just as numerous other countries rely on ethnic and religious identities).

What I’m seeing now in the Democratic Party is disappointing to me to say the least when it comes to the Jewish community. At a time when Jews are facing a massive upsurge of hate and threats (synagogues on average are spending upwards of 14-15% of their budgets on security), I’m watching the DNC and Democratic voters enable candidates like Graham Platner and Abdul El-Sayed. Of course, they are just the tip of the iceberg, with numerous Democratic candidates at lower levels espousing all kinds of crazy ideas about Jews. All this is happening while the FBI reports that about 68-69% of religious hate crimes are against Jews.

For example, Platner’s infamous tattoo is not just a Nazi insignia, but a death head (TotenKopf) SS insignia of the Waffen SS–the most vicious of Nazi storm troopers who wore it on the clothes as they led Jews to the gas chambers in death camps and swooped into eastern Europe to murder Jews. They were the most vicious and vile of the the Nazi murderers. They were responsible for the murders of countless Jews in Europe, including presumably members of my own family. Yet the DNC and voters do not seem to care about that, even though Platner has never apologized for wearing it and seems likely to have known what it in fact meant. If I lived in Maine, could I really vote for someone like that? I mean he wore a tattoo that the SS used when murdering millions of Jews and members of my family. That would be for me a violation of what I owe to them and their legacy. I’m not even mentioning the misogynist and racist rants in which he engaged on Reddit.

In addition to El-Sayed’s controversial comments on the West Bloomfield synagogue attack, he has campaigned with Hasan Piker who has called Orthodox Jews “inbred” and said that he supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Piker is avowedly anti-Zionist. Effectively in a speech a few days ago, El-Sayed essentially said that for Jews to be ok, they have to reject Israel and the Jewish state. He says that’s not antisemitism. But for most Jews that is in fact antisemitism. He doesn’t get to define what antisemitism is any more than I get to define what anti-Black racism or misogyny are.

Is it possible to be anti-Zionist and not antisemitic? Theoretically, yes, as long as you condemn all nations with ethnic and religious identities in parts of their constitutions. This would include basically the entire Arab/Muslim world, many countries in Europe, and Japan, as well as other nations. If people aren’t willing to do that, then, yes, they’re espousing an antisemitic idea by supporting anti-Zionism.

These are just two examples. I’m seeing all kinds of crazy stuff about Jewish money, Jewish power, Jewish dual allegiance, and on and on. This is happening all over the place in “progressive” Democratic circles. Of course, the far right does the same thing and is just as dangerous, but somehow I was naive enough to think that liberals and Democrats wouldn’t fall prey to that. I was clearly wrong, as I’m watching a sea of hatred against not only Jews, but also against African Americans and women on the far left. I know that this site is mainstream liberal–not far-left–but the Democratic party is not pushing back very hard against this. On the other hand, I’m very impressed by the British Labor party’s efforts to eradicate antisemitism from its ranks. They have not allowed far-left antisemitism to take hold. Unfortunately that’s not yet happened in the U.S. Democratic Party.

Maybe they figure that Jewish voters are too small a number to matter, that there will be such a blue wave that they don’t need Jews. Maybe they’re right. I’m not sure. The Jewish vote has generally been about 70%-30% Democratic. If that vote goes down to let’s say 55%-60% Democratic, that will cause problems for Democrats as some point, especially in 2028. Jews vote at a much higher rate than almost any group and are key voters in many state elections. Of course, Democrats need also to ask themselves whether this is the kind of party they really want to be. Do they really want to be a party that traffics in bigotry? If they do that, what makes them different from Republicans on issues of diversity and prejudice?

For many of us in the Jewish community, this is a painful time. I intend to vote Democratic as much as I possibly can and to support Democrats where I can. Antisemitism is my red line, however. Democracy is so important to me that I might even consider making some uncomfortable choices, but not when it comes to blatant bigotry. I will not be gaslighted. I hope the Democratic ship rights itself on this. Otherwise I have no party any more and will just float around as a free agent I guess. My ideas about liberal democracy and liberal values will continue, but not necessarily my party affiliation. This is the conundrum for many Jews who aren’t sure at this point what they’re going to do.

Jewish Space Lasers and Shabbat: Recent Controversies

From Andy Borowitz: “Marjorie Taylor Greene Claims Jewish Lasers are Turned Off Friday After Sundown.” Borowitz also recently coined the phrase, “magic Jewish mittens,” in relation to this controversy and the trending Bernie Sanders inauguration meme.

______________

Laurence Kant’s Response to Andy Borowitz:

In fact, the Talmud has extensive discussion of this in Tractate Mittens 39a BT (missing from the Palestinian Talmud unfortunately). Lasers are in fact a sub-category of work and therefore prohibited on shabbat (sabbath). Rabbi Shmuel ben Laser (part of the now well-known Laserofsky dynasty) holds a minority opinion, however, that lasers are life-giving and therefore excluded from the shabbat prohibition—but only when protected by magic Jewish mittens. This is extensively debated in Responsa literature. As a traditionalist, I accept the prevailing majority view here and will turn off my lasers on shabbat.

If anyone really wants to know, my giant Jewish space lasers are hidden in an invisible, secret compartment dug by me in the earth in my backyard. Rothschild Inc. (LLC) has paid me money (with interest) to do their bidding whenever they text me.

As far as the mittens go, I just want to say that I love my magic Jewish mittens. Bernie has provided them to me at wholesale through Rothschild Fashion Inc. (LLC). They allow me to hypnotize my enemies and get them to walk in the path of my giant Jewish lasers.

If you need to use the lasers, please let me know. They are available for use at a discount in 5- to 30-minute slots—but only if you act FAST.

I want to offer profound thanks to Professor Andy Borowitz for alerting the public to the enormous significance of magic Jewish mittens. We are all in your debt. You are a light to the nations.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2021 Laurence Kant

MORE ON ILHAN OMAR AND ANTISEMITISM

There was no state of Israel in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but antisemites, and later the Nazis, made similar claims about Jews then: they’re more loyal to one another than to the nation; they’re “clannish”; they stick together; they plot against the nation; they have foreign allegiances; they’re “cosmopolitan”; and on and on. If you watch a Nazi propaganda film like “Jud Süss,” you’ll see much of the same rhetoric repeated.

Ilhan Omar is not using language that relates specifically to AIPAC and those who have a particular view of Israel. She’s using language that those living around 1900 or in the 1930s would have had no problem understanding.

If Omar had criticized AIPAC’s backing of Israeli settlement policy, that would be one thing; it would be a policy dispute. And I don’t agree with AIPAC much of the time. But that’s not what she did here. She used a trope that revealed her real views of Jews and who we are as a people and how we’re not really authentically loyal Americans. David Duke (former Grand Wizard of the KKK) is now praising her and backing her. And, sadly, he has good reason to do so given what she said.

I may strongly disagree with those who back Israel right or wrong, but I don’t question that they want the best for the United States and for Jews and for Israel. I don’t doubt their motives. They believe that the interests of American and Israel are aligned and that we share common values of democracy and freedom. And they have a point on that, even though recent Israeli policies on democracy have fallen far short IMHO. I think that their views are misguided and leading us to a situation where Jews and Israel and the United States will find themselves in much greater danger. In fact, I see Omar’s comments as vindication of my argument. But those with whom I fiercely disagree are loyal Americans as well as committed Jews, and I will not question their motives. We’e all doing our best in a confusing world and trying to make sense of very difficult and hard-to-solve problems and issues.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

ILHAN OMAR AND ANTISEMITISM

This is my response to Michelle Goldberg’s column in today’s New York Times saying that Ilhan Omar’s comments were offensive, but only mildly so:
————
Stating that Jews have dual loyalty is not mild antisemitism. It’s raw. It’s ugly. It’s mean-spirited.

None of us knows what was in the heart and mind of Ilhan Omar, but we know what she said this time and at least twice before. By any reasonable definition, that’s antisemitism. It’s prejudice and hatred, and there’s nothing any of us can legitimately do to dress it up and make it look like something else.

My father (a Jewish physical chemist) worked for the military most of his career and suffered and eventually died from an illness that was related to his work in the Manhattan Project and other government laboratories. His brother served as a Navy ensign in World War II off the coast of Italy and saw many die? Were they loyal enough to the U.S.? Are some now going to question their efforts and their colleagues and compatriots then and today? Is my loyalty now under question because I’m Jewish? Are we wanted here any more?

Republicans are even worse with their ongoing displays of white nationalist and neo-Nazi rhetoric. Almost as painful are those Democrats who try to play Omar’s words down or talk about “unintentional” antisemitism.

The language Omar used is found in the Protocols of Zion and throughout classic antisemitic literature. We can see it in 1930s propaganda as Nazis questioned the loyalty of European Jewry. I’m a Democrat who holds many progressive views. What are those like me supposed to do now? Maybe, if I go to sleep now, I can dream this all away.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

DEMOCRATS FIGHTING OVER HOW TO RESPOND TO ILHAN OMAR ANTISEMITISM

Ds had better deal with this one way or another. If they don’t, they will lose a core constituency and also lose their moral authority on issues of diversity and hatred. Good luck on winning in 2020. This is not Trump or a racist Republican. This is one of their own. If you want to stand against prejudice, you start with your own. Otherwise, you’re hypocrites and should just shut up on all issues of hatred. If you can’t see that accusing Jews of dual loyalty is profoundly antisemitic, then the white supremacists and neo-Nazis really have won:

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

Womens March Leadership and Jew Hatred

Apparently, as they curry favor with Louis Farrakhan, Tamika Mallory and her colleagues have also concluded that they can exclude Jews who are in their view “white” and therefore privileged. They have no problem exalting a man who has called Jews “termites” and praised Hitler, but they happily decide that “white” (whatever that means in this context) Jews don’t deserve to belong in their circle of power.

This is hatred, pure and simple, and it’s disgusting and revolting. Hitler and the Nazis murdered Jews because of their “race” and didn’t give a s*** what their color was. Almost all of those six million were “white” according to this interpretation by Mallory’s little band of haters–a definition which is absolutely idiotic given that Hitler and the Nazis did not view Jews remotely that way. Jews were their own “race,” which had nothing to do with color, but with genetic theory in which the 1930s gang of swastika wearers placed great faith.

Do the murdered in Pittsburgh matter to Tamika Mallory? Do the gassed in Auschwitz matter to her? Do my bullet-rain relatives matter to her? Maybe their blood is irrelevant to her because we don’t actually count as human in her system of accounting–and in Farrakhan’s. Are these representatives there to give her and her friends cover to spew more venom at Jews? Sure looks like it. They are being used.

There are all sorts of excuses made for why Tamika Mallory and others supposedly don’t have to condemn Farrakhan: the history of oppression of African Americans, separation of families, previous requests to condemn other African American leaders, different responses to hatred on the part of Jews and African Americans. But there should be no excuses. Being a victim does not excuse one from following basic moral principles. That applies to Jews, as well as to any other group. Making excuses for not condemning Farrakhan is relativism gone mad. Wrong is wrong. And we need to say so for Farrakhan and for anyone else no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel.

Further, why is Linda Sarsour not white, but Vanessa Wruble white? We’re all descended from Semitic peoples and related to one another. Basically, they call Wruble white because she’s Jewish, but the others are passable because the big bosses decided that they’re another kind of minority and get a pass for their Jewishness. So once again people who are not Jewish are trying to control the lives of Jews for their agendas and writing some Jews out of history. Really that’s not much different from what the Nazi commandant, Amon Goeth, said in the film “Schindler’s List” when he talks about eradicating the history of Jews in Krakow and Poland. (Yes, I know, that was not an historical quote, but it was definitely how Nazis like Eichmann conceived of their project). If you erase Jews, then you’ll get rid of them forever. Sounds familiar once again. It’s a form of dehumanization.

I cannot express how utterly depressing and maddening this is. Until they repudiate Farrakhan and his despicable beliefs and meaningfully apologize, Tamika Mallory and her buddies should be shunned.

https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/279077/the-womens-march-doesnt-get-to-decide-who-the-white-jews-are?fbclid=IwAR3BT8y7VARbQaSxUbGNQQXLV7HyDKQWY4OOlzQFi5cMVUbp-Wmc81dOGTs

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

Covington Catholic Incident in Washington, D.C.: The Two Sides Narrative Prevails for the Privileged

The student named in many of the accounts was the wrong person. It was another individual–which shows how risky it is to report on subjects in the midst of the drama. Get the facts straight before leveling accusations against someone.

At the same time, I am profoundly disturbed by the “both sides deserve blame” version of events–found in the article below and now today throughout the media. Apparently the Covington Catholic students had faced taunts from others. And that is supposed to excuse their behavior? No, it does not. What those kids to did to Nathan Phillips was wrong. Their behavior was disgraceful and shameful. They were surrounding this man, mocking him with tomahawk chops, yelling, laughing, with one kid from another school declaring that we all have to get used to stealing others’ land because that’s the way it is. No one deserves receiving the kind of threats these students are facing, but they do deserve severe criticism and punishment of some sort for their obviously repellent behavior. Their parents and the chaperones and the school deserve even more.

And these are “good kids”? Really? Now we call a person “good” even when they bully and intimidate a veteran and a native American? No, what they did was not good, and they deserve to experience some shame. We can’t judge the totality of a person’s life, but we can assess his or her actions. And these actions obviously fell far short of anything we can remotely call “good.”

But now that the “two sides” narrative is taking over, these kids will likely face few repurcussions-like most privileged kids who can act out and get away with it. That’s unlike African Americans, native Americans, and other minorities who don’t even have to make a mistake to get pilloried. No, they can do nothing, and someone can kill them for just existing–even sitting on their own property or walking down the street. And that’s just fine. No one does anything about it.

We’re watching how the privileged get off and society brings out the red carpet for them so that they can flourish without regard to their actions. If they were black, there would be nothing but venom and hatred and recriminations. The Covington Catholic students are probably going to get off, and the media will get criticized. They can hire expensive attorneys and PR teams who cast doubt on the versions of events, and the beat goes on. You can just see it. Nothing happens when you’re the right kind of person. There are no consequences for those who attend the right schools, come from the right families, and have the power of privilege to defend themselves. It’s depressing and demoralizing.

Of course, kids do stupid things, and we have to let them be stupid periodically so that they can grow up and become responsible adults. Adults make mistakes too and deserve a chance to atone for them. But everyone should have to face some kind of accountability for actions that are wrong and hurtful. Giving anyone a free pass does no one any good, especially those who engage in the bad behavior. An apology on their part would go a long way. When someone makes a mistake, they should own up to it, apologize, and commit to more positive behavior. They will find a lot of good will, as well as forgiveness out there in the world..

The struggle is long. But we must keep marching. Eventually decency will prevail somewhere in the dim mists of the future.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2019/01/21/jeff-ruby-invites-nathan-phillips-dinner-with-covington-catholic-studentes/2637508002/

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

The Transformation of the Modern Republican Party

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY

I see the transformation of the modern Republican Party in five stages: 1) Barry Goldwater and the rejection of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, followed by Goldwater’s strategy of winning the South via race politics; 2) The alliance of the Republican Party with evangelical Christians in late 1970s, capped with Ronald Reagan’s victory which used that alliance to win the 1980 presidential election–thus began the era of the culture wars, including abortion, gay issues, anti-woman agenda, prayer in the schools, flag politics, etc.; 3) The transition of Republicans from small government to anti-government, with a decisive victory led by Newt Gingrich in 1994 through the so-called Contract with America (I called it the Contract on America); 4) The rise of Tea Party Republicans and the alliance of Republicans with white nationalism and other hate movements after the election of Obama in 2008; 5) The global decline of support for democracy and its embrace by most Republican voters who saw Donald Trump as an authoritarian leader who would align with white voters to revive American nationalism as a homogenous culture that rejects America’s growing ethnic, religious, and racial diversity.Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Friends, Enemies, and Hatred

Hatred is not the answer. It is never the answer.

At the same time, while I don’t regard those who back Trump and his worldview as my enemies, I certainly don’t regard them as my friends. Those who want to take away my rights and the rights of those I care about are not my friends. Those who spew hate toward minorities and immigrants are not my friends. Those who view victims of sexual assault as non-entities or worse are not my friends. Those who are happy to let our planet die are not my friends. Those who want to deny health care to others are not my friends.

https://www.kentucky.com/living/religion/paul-prather/article219868740.htmlCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Media Punditry and Power Sniffers

Every one, even the best, can be wrong. None of us are immune. But certain pundits blaze paths to simplistic conclusions based on claims that have little basis in data. Their assertions actually reflect a sub-conscious (my psychologizing here) desire to preserve the familiar and the well-trod paths of individuals who make themselves feel important by hanging out with one another in select groups of the self-appointed, golden, anointed ones.

Tom Friedman (and David Brooks and even Brett Stevens, and many other media darlings) fall into that category. They are what I call power-sniffers. Sometimes they have good things to say, and I respect them for that (I just posted something from Stevens today criticizing Israel because it a was good essay). But a lot of time they aggravate the hell out of me because they so very much crave to support old institutions, the familiar power circles, and the arguments that play well among the kinds of people who come from well-heeled backgrounds–the kinds of people who don’t ever really get to know how regular people live and what they’re thinking

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/09/end-saudi-whisperer/?utm_term=.7cb11b35433fCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Trump: Words vs. Action and the GOP

He’s right that words do constrain (modestly), but wrong that this is a middle course.

When you have a president who regularly engages in treasonous behavior, challenges fundamental democratic norms, tears down the post-World-War II global order by embracing Russia (our enemy) and attacking our friends (Western Europe), consistently endorses dictators and essentially promotes himself as one of them, views the press as the “enemy of the people,” implements an economic policy (tariffs) that helped to cause the Great Depression, tears children from their parents, and affirms white supremacists and neo-Nazis and other extremist haters, then this is not a normal time.

Words do not suffice at such moments any more than at other historic moments of crisis in the U.S. or globally. Words here are just that: words. Action is required at moments like this, and most Republicans have totally failed to oppose an executive course of behavior that threatens the our historic values, the Constitution, our standing in the world, our way of life, the underpinnings of our economy, and the global order.

Conservatives don’t have to oppose Kavanaugh or hold up tax reductions (both of which I strongly oppose, but I get it that they’re conservatives–though I do think that Kavanaugh has bigger confirmation problems than some people realize). They should, however, support Mueller, condemn Trump when appropriate, support our intelligence services (not undermine them), vigorously (not meekly) oppose treason, and stand up for the security of our electoral system.

History will deride these Republican leaders as bystanders and weaklings in a time when leadership and strength was required. And they will deserve that harsh judgement.

 

‘https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-criticism-of-trump-is-all-talk-but-it-still-matters/

“GOP Criticism of Trump is All Talk but it Still Matters”Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Evangelical Leaders Abandon God

https://religionnews.com/2018/07/18/why-mariia-butina-wasnt-the-only-russian-targeting-the-national-prayer-breakfast/

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Political Revolution in the Air

 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/us/politics/supreme-court-filibuster.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-newsCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Korea and Trump

KOREA

I consider the Korean negotiation a sham, a waste, a tv show, and (worst of all) a threat to peace.

The agreement looks something written on the back of a napkin. There’s nothing new in it all, and the term, “denuclearize,” means zip.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Backpacks and Guns

So, instead of gun control, we focus on backpacks by forcing students to leave them at home and by making them clear ones. Students have to change their lives in order to accommodate the bizarre ideology of unfettered gun rights in the USA. Makes no sense. I understand their fears, and this may be the only thing to do, but it will probably not stop the gun toters. And it will help convert our schools into armed fortresses and camps. It will primarily make life less convenient and more uncomfortable for students, as well as traumatic. There are ways to stop mass gun shootings. Other countries have figured out how to do it. Some states have made huge improvements. We just don’t want to do it.

Bottom line, many Americans don’t care about the lives of young people. They love fetuses, but don’t give a damn about people who are actually fully living human beings. We destroy lives of undocumented children, torturing and tormenting them and their families. And we screw up the lives of young people who live in fear and anxiety just having to attend school. One day people will look back on this period of history and discuss the moral bankruptcy of today’s gun policies. Those who have done this will have to account for their actions as they face themselves and their maker, and they will leave a legacy of shame.Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

GUNS IN THE USA

GUNS IN THE USA

No other country in the developed word has gun policies remotely like ours. It’s easy to get guns in Syria and Congo, which I guess puts the U.S. in their camp.

Guns are now one of the tenets of our civic religion. Evangelicals don’t have much religion any more. They have guns, fetuses, and the gospel of money and hate. Not much about the real Jesus/Christ in there. We have lost our way. I’m Jewish, and I don’t use this language very much, but we have sinned. We have sinned mightily. And the time of our reckoning is coming due. Those who claim to lead us spiritually are the ones leading us to chaos, barbarity, and inhumanity. We have lost our way. It may take the non-religious to lead this country back to some semblance of morality and, ironically, authentic spirituality. The light in the torch is dim, shrouded by darkness, but it’s there waiting for us to approach and spread its sparks of loving heat and illumination across our nation and globe. Time to get going.Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

The Two Ways

THE TWO WAYS

Nationalism and globalism represent two fundamental life outlooks in our word: “Zero Sum Game” vs. “We prosper together.” “Zero Sum Game” assumes that if you win, I lose (and vice-versa). It is a philosophy of conquest. “We prosper together” assumes that we’re more likely to win if we work together and compete with gusto. It is a philosophy of both friendly competition and cooperation.

This is not a right-left dichotomy, but a worldview that goes way beyond politics. Trump is obviously a zero-sum-game person, which is what John Bolton is, as well as Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross and Carl Icahn. The old liberal “soak the rich” philosophy is a zero-sum-game approach also, since it assumes that, in order for the poor to prosper, the rich must suffer. Or, it applies to those on the left who sometimes assume that, in order to help people, you need to have victims to help. For Trump and his crowd, China must lose in order for the U.S. to win. For Icahn to win, his competitors must lose (or more accurately, he must crush them). In sports, Vince Lombardi subscribed to this. That’s their view.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS UNDERMINED THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES OF OUR NATION

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS UNDERMINED THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES OF OUR NATION

By pardoning Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Trump has now directly, publicly, and openly undermined the rule of law in the U.S. I strongly suspect the president of financial crimes related to Russia and of possible conspiracy to undermine our electoral process, but there’s not yet sufficient evidence to establish this within a sufficient degree of certainty–at least for me at this time. I also question the president’s mental competence to execute his duties, but I don’t know for sure. With the pardon of Arpaio, Trump has essentially given a middle finger to the judicial process and said that criminals can violate the law with impunity as long as they back him before they have served any time at all and before they have even apologized or asked for forgiveness. It also says to racists and xenophobes that the president has their back. This is shameful and a scandal. It undermines our Constitution and therefore violates the president’s oath of office. It promotes a culture of chaos and lawlessness.

Protests Against Trump: A Response

THE PROTESTS AGAINST TRUMP

A friend who was a Hillary supporter recently criticized protesters in our county, saying that we would have criticized Trump supporters if they had done this. Here was my response:

——————-

Look, I’m not out there, and I’m keeping an open mind. Nobody really knows what Trump will do. But, for young people, Muslims, Latinos, and women especially, Trump’s words are real and threatening. That’s all we have to go by.

Young people in particular do not understand how someone can win the popular vote and lose an election. It seems undemocratic, and indeed it is. This is the second time in twenty years this has happened, and many feel disenfranchised. These kind of events where the majority loses strike at the heart of our democratic system and persuade many that this is no longer a free society.

I realize from a political point of view, demonstrating at this time may not be a smart move. I get that.

Yet, a man who threatens to deport an entire population of people and to ban an entire religion from this country is not someone we should ignore. This is a man who promised to torture people and to murder families of alleged terrorists. He recently mocked Somali immigrants in Minneapolis and has made fun of the disabled more than once. He is a self-admitted sexual predator, and many women have come forward to confirm this. His closing advertisement targeted Jews as part of a global economic conspiracy.

Bystanders have not been moral actors in the past. History has taught us that, when politicians make horrifying statements and threats, we should believe them until proven otherwise.

I still hope and would not be shocked to see Trump change. Rhetoric is one thing, action another. But, as a member of a family and a group affected by murder and torture in the holocaust, I’ll be damned if I would expect others to sit down and be silent in the face of hatred. That never works, and it never will. The only chance for Trump to change is to make known to him and his supporters that words have consequences and that we will resist evil when necessary.

This is not merely a political contest between two candidates and political parties. It represents a clash of worldviews, one of which expresses a group (white people, especially those less educated) that feels victimized and has decided to victimize others. This is serious and not a “normal” moment in American history and politics. It’s a visceral threat to many and potentially strikes at the core of freedom and democracy.

Maybe this is not the best political thing to do right now, and I’m not participating (yet), but it is understandable and justifiable given the raging hatred and threats that Trump spewed in this campaign.

Maybe we should all chill and not criticize those who are rightfully frightened.Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2016 Laurence Kant

Comey Second Letter: The Fog Finally Lifts

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2016 Laurence Kant

TRUMP, HITLER, AND THE RETURN OF FASCISM

TRUMP, HITLER, AND THE RETURN OF FASCISM

Laurence H. Kant

 

Many, including Melania Trump, have assured us that Donald isn’t Hitler. Some commentators object to the comparison outright; others simply bleat the equivalence hysterically, without further explanation. All should contend with the evidence:

 

• Trump’s tweeting a Mussolini quotation and retweeting neo-Nazis, white supremacists;

• Trump’s belated (and weak) disavowal of David Duke and the KKK;

• Trump’s refusal to condemn or even rebuke Jew-hating tirades—including death threats and concentration camp oven imagery—against Jewish journalists who’ve criticized   him (Bethany Mandel, Ben Shapiro, and Jonathan Weisman);

• Official association of Trump’s campaign with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, giving talk-show host, James Edwards, a VIP press parking space and interview with Donald Trump, Jr. at a Memphis rally, and designating William Johnson a California Trump delegate to the Republican convention;

• Ivana Trump’s Vanity Fair statement (1990) that her husband kept a copy of Hitler’s collected speeches, “My New Order,” in his bedside cabinet (which Trump acknowledged);

• The right-arm salute Trump invokes at his rallies, recalling the Nazi salute (some dispute this, but, given his media skills, it’s safe to assume that Trump knows the symbolic effect of every image he uses);

• Trump’s use of “America First,” alluding to an isolationist, early-40’s U.S. movement that was rife with Jew hatred and called for negotiations with Hitler;

• Trump’s October 13 speech that refers to international bankers, media, and global elites that allegedly strip the U.S. of its rightful power—a trope that recalls the classic Jew-hating screed, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” , and has numerous and widespread parallels in other Jew-hating rhetoric as well;

 

Does anyone really believe that this self-described “really smart” Wharton grad draws on the Nazi tradition of political rhetoric, symbolism, and ethnic/racial scapegoating unawares?

The onus should be on those who deny the obvious connections to explain in detail why they’re not relevant.

Countless other items of evidence connect Trump to fascism more generally:

 

• Using threatening gestures, encouraging supporters to beat up protesters and intimidate critics;

• Forecasting (and encouraging) “riots” at the Republican convention;

• Calling reporters “scum” and implicitly threatening them, and barring major media organizations (left and right) from his campaign events;

• Calling to change libel/slander laws to curb criticism of public figures;

• Demonizing ethnic groups: labeling Mexicans “rapists” and “drug addicts,” calling for mass deportation of 11 million undocumented aliens, advocating a ban on Muslims entering the U.S., and demanding the recusal of a judge as biased and unqualified because of his ethnic heritage;

• Targeting the disabled by mocking the arm and facial movements of New York Times reporter, Serge Kovaleski;

• Praising dictators, including North Korean Kim Jong-un, for murdering potential  enemies; Chinese rulers, for cracking down on Tiananmen Square protesters; and Vladimir Putin for being “a leader’’;

• Openly and frequently calling for the jailing of his political opponent, Hillary Clinton—this happens as a matter of course in totalitarian societies from the Congo to Cuba to North Korea;

 

No, Trump doesn’t outline a genocidal philosophy or well-thought-out plans to implement discrimination—what coherent policy strategy has he ever enunciated?—but he is aware of Hitler and Mussolini and riffs off of them. He knows who they are and borrows their ideas—most notably the use of intimidation and violence to acquire political power.

Does this make him more like a third-world dictator (Marco Rubio’s assessment)? Would Mussolini serve as a better comparison than Hitler? Silvio Berlusconi?

We don’t know what he sincerely believes, but does that really matter? We can only judge him by his words, his actions, and what he promotes.

We d­­­on’t know what Trump would actually do if elected president. Given the American system of checks and balances, his attempt at authoritarian rule would likely be limited by the realities of governance. Yet, is that a risk worth taking?

Why don’t commentators address the specific evidence instead of asserting that Trump isn’t Hitler? Many in the press minimize the Trump phenomenon by laughing off his words or by rationalizing the crazy stuff he does. The reason is clear: because the evidence is so troubling and disturbing, and the implications so appalling, that they would rather it simply go away.

If we’ve learned anything from the holocaust, it’s that we can’t take on the role of bystanders and let troubling events transpire by ignoring or glossing over them.

Too frequently in the past, politicians and commentators trivially compared political adversaries to Hitler and the Nazis, leading to what many call “Godwin’s law”: the inevitable invocation of Hitler or Nazis to refute an argument. Neither mindless name-calling nor willful ignorance force us to face the facts before us.

The facts are clear: Trump uses language, images, and tactics that directly recall those of the Nazis and Hitler, along with other fascists. To allow him to speak destructively by incorporating this pernicious tradition and to permit him to encourage violence without calling him to meaningful account does nothing more than offer him a media get-out-of-jail free card. It amounts to an abdication of the sacred responsibility the founders gave the press in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. Who is willing to stand up and be counted?

 Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2016 Laurence Kant

Donald Trump: “BECAUSE YOU’D BE IN JAIL” (to Hillary Clinton)

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2016 Laurence Kant

The Press, the Storyline, and Politics USA

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2016 Laurence Kant

Hillary, Pneumonia, and Me

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2016 Laurence Kant

Israeli Governing Coalition Likely to Have 1-Vote Majority

Barring a unity government (which the Zionist Union under Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni have thus far resisted) or the sudden withdrawal of Bayit Yehudi (Naftali Bennett = the religious settlers’ party), there will be a coalition government of 61 MKs out of 120. This gives a 1-vote majority to the coalition and is a recipe for political instability and possible new elections. [MK = “Member of the Knesset]

Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beteynu made this possible when they opted out of the government for a variety of reasons (see my post from a couple of days ago: See http://mysticscholar.org/lieberman-and-yisrael-beteinu-out-of-israel-government/

Essentially one member of the Knesset can bring down the government. One member can sit out a vote to prevent legislation from passing. One member can exact retribution on political rivals by voting one way unexpectedly or by abstaining. If someone wakes up in the morning on the wrong side of the bed, that MK can simply gum up the wheels of the government. One member can basically do anything he or she wants. It’s a level of political chaos, which even for Israelis is quite extraordinary. I have no idea how much can get done under these circumstances, unless a military crisis compels unity of some sort.

In Israel, they have nicknamed this potential government: “EVERY BASTARD IS A KING.”

For the moment, there will probably not be new elections, simply because the politicians and the voters are exhausted by the previous campaign. No one apparently wants to face an election right way. That will likely change in short order, however, once the political circus again enters into full season.

Israelis are famously tough and resilient in these kind of circumstances. They will have to use every bit of that ingenuity to keep this government afloat for an extended period of time.

Anybody out there have ideas about how all this is likely to play out?Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Laurence Kant

Lieberman and Yisrael Beteinu out of Israel Government

Uh-ho. It’s possible for Likud/Netanyahu to form a government with 61 MKs out of 120, but that would produce an extremely unstable government. All it would take is one member to bring down the entire government.

This may force Netanyahu to broaden the government to include the Zionist Union (Isaac Herzog/Tzipi Livni) or Lapid’s Yesh Atid. Otherwise, the current constellation of partners would be almost ungovernable. Good luck to a coalition with a 1-vote majority.

It’s well-known that Lieberman dislikes Netanyahu–both personally and politically. He doesn’t trust him, believes him to be opportunistic, and thinks he breaks his word (this is a common complaint even among many Likud members, as well as among Netanyahu’s political opponents). Lieberman also is upset about the Supreme Court, which he wants to diminish in power, but Moshe Kahlon/Kulanu is totally opposed to doing this–and Netanyahu can’t govern without Kulanu. And Lieberman wants pro-Jewish nation state legislation, but Kahlon/Kulanu also opposes that. Further, Lieberman thinks that Netanyahu is soft on Hamas (he wanted him to destroy Hamas in the last Gaza war), though at the same time is more supportive of negotiations with the Palestinians than Netanyahu–a paradox, reflective of Israel’s complex fault lines. And finally Lieberman strongly dislikes the ultra-Orthodox and wants a more secular government–for example on issues of civil marriage and not allowing the ultra-Orthodox to absent themselves from the military. This mirrors his own secular supporters.

I have no idea what will happen, but this does indicate the tremendous complexity of Israeli politics and society and the ideological divisions among Israeli voters.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4653645,00.htmlCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Laurence Kant

Lawsuit to Block Denton Texas Fracking Ban

I am not against fracking when properly overseen (our society still requires fossil fuels), but I am appalled (though not surprised) by the lawsuit attempting to overturn the city of Denton’s (Texas) vote to ban fracking. How can people who attack government power and who call for respect for individual rights, especially for property owners, suddenly do an about-face and file a lawsuit to nullify the will of a community? This has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with money and power, pure and simple.

So much for conservatives and property rights. So much for conservatives and local control.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/06/bush-family-inner-circle-office-denton-texas-fracking-ban-lawsuitsCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

Richard Nixon Sabotaged Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks

Would people view President Johnson more favorably if they knew this story?

In spite of the Vietnam mess of which Johnson was obviously a major player, I think he was a great president and am disappointed in the low esteem in which many hold him. I despised Vietnam as a kid and still do, but there is more to a man than that disaster. How about civil rights, voting rights, fair housing, Medicare, anti-poverty legislation like Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps, and work study, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts, the Public Broadcasting Service, promotion of science including our first trip to the moon (started by Kennedy, finished by Johnson), immigration reform/liberalization, massive aid for education, among others?

That’s quite a list.  However, this sordid tale of Nixon’s misdeeds makes Johnson even more appealing.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/16/does-nixons-treason-boost-lbjs-legacy/Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

How the Koch Brothers Money System Works

A troubling tale about how money moves in the world of the Koch Brothers. We talk about the oligarchs in Russia. How different are we from them? http://www.propublica.org/article/the-dark-money-man-how-sean-noble-moved-the-kochs-cash-into-politics-and-maCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

Peace Protesters Sentenced to Excessively Long Terms

I am certainly not a pacifist and would not agree with the protesters on several matters. This includes the notion that we can just unilaterally stop having nuclear weapons or that we should stop using drones.

Further, I expect protesters engaging in civil disobedience to be willing to accept reasonable punishment (which apparently these ones are). These sentences, however, seem retributive and excessive. How do we put individuals like this away for so long when we allow CEO bankers who have engaged in presumably criminal activity and thereby done infinitely more damage to millions of people and to the well-being of our nation and world to go scott-free? Not only do they have their freedom, but they even get to dine and schmooze with leading politicians, including the president, and other glitterati. There’s something wrong here.

Perhaps the government was simply embarrassed by their incompetent and ineffective security around the most powerful weapons in the world.

In any case, we apparently have a two-tiered society: one for the privileged, and one for the rest of us. This will have to change for us to meet our ideals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/3-peace-activists-sentenced-for-breaking-into-nuclear-site/2014/02/18/13a6bb7a-9815-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.htmlCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

Israeli Election: Western Media Doesn’t Get It

Most U.S. newspapers, like the New York Times article below, have never really gotten it and still don’t get it. This is NOT only about Netanyahu. And it’s NOT just “kitchen-table” issues, a patronizing phrase that smacks of elitism and intellectual snobbery.

This is about studio apartments that cost $500,000 dollars. This is about the Ultra-Orthodox who don’t serve in the IDF and the rest of the population that does. This is about welfare for corporations and for the ultra-Orthodox who live off the hard work of the middle class. This is about a government fixated on Iran while ignoring the economic plight of its own citizens. This is about unemployment and youth who have limited prospects. This is about religious bullying and extremism. This is about a minority of settlers who put at risk the majority of Israelis just trying to live their lives. This is about the vast majority of Israelis from left to right who believe that Palestinians have no interest in peace, but who still place hope above despair.

Israelis do care about serious issues. The issues above are serious. Just because Israelis are not only focused on borders and negotiations, as we are when it comes to the Middle East, does not mean that they are superficial or materialistic consumers. Israelis have a right to live their lives without others imposing their social, political, and religious preconceptions on them.

We in North America and Europe love to babble on (including me) about the prospects for peace, about the children of Abraham, about Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations, about the Bible, about oil, about democracy in the Middle East, and so much more. However, Israelis want to be able to have normal, healthy, fulfilling lives. This elections says to the Israeli government: you have to pay attention to the middle class and stop focusing on everyone and everything else but us. Without a middle class and without working people, there is no Israel. Peace starts at home.

Tepid Vote for Netanyahu in Israel Is Seen as Rebuke

By JODI RUDOREN – New York Times Online 1-23-13

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is likely to serve a third term, but voters gave a surprising second place to a centrist party founded by a celebrity who emphasized kitchen-table issues.

An Israeli Political Earthquake: Election 2013

I don’t know if you saw this, but there was an electoral earthquake in Israel yesterday. Netanyahu is in trouble, and the election at this time is a 60-60 tie in the Knesset between right and left. Yair Lapid (leader of centrist and economically focused Yesh Atid) is king-maker with 19 seats. Netanyahu may still remain as prime minister, but it will be a much more centrist political landscape than before.

It rarely has happened in recent Israeli history (once under a Sharon government in 2003, but there is a real chance now of a government without the ultra-Orthodox (who only constitute 10% of the total population), if Likud/Yisrael Beteinu, Yesh Atid, Labor, Hatnua, and Kadima (probably not Meretz) join to form a government. (Habayit Yehudi is also a possibility, as they are modern orthodox, but they’re also far-right nationalists). Since everyone hates each other, that may not occur, but the possibility itself is a significant development whatever mess may ensue.

What people in the U.S. don‘t realize is that Israelis do not vote solely (or even primarily) on peace/war issues, but economics and religion-state issues are just as important to them. When it comes to the Middle East, we may only care about foreign policy, but Israelis (like Americans, and Arabs too by the way) are worried about their economic futures and their freedoms. Lapid won because people are sick of the ultra-Orthodox military exemptions and the crushing of the middle class by corporations and government expenditures on the fanatically religious. No one predicted this would happen, but secular voters, increasing numbers of moderately religious, and young people showed up in unexpected quantities (sound familiar). The polls were wrong, because they only used landlines and missed the cell-phone youth vote.

I know I’m surprised–and relieved. A new generation is beginning to assert itself in Israel. We‘ll see if they can help to manage the pandemonium about to ensue.

Martin Luther King as a Visionary Activist, not a Domesticated Politician

This article  puts MLK into perspective, reminding us that he was not a bourgeoise moderate politician, but a radical social and spiritual acitivist with an economic vision for justice and equality. Whatever one thinks of his economic solutions, there is no question that levels of inequality in our society threaten our way of life, our democracy, and our freedom. MLK was well ahead of his time on that. We need to remember who MLK was and his vision of a just society and not depict him as the main character in a romance novel in order to domesticate him for popular consumption.  .

 

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/martin-luther-king-jr-was-radical-not-saint

 

 

 

Political Leadership: Misconceptions and Myths

Many environmentalists have criticized President Obama for not leading on climate change. I have defended him on this (see http://mysticscholar.org/climate/), arguing that environmentalists need to produce a movement that is politically effective. This is a question of what political leadership is: 1) having the courage to take positions that your constituents do not support in order to produce legislation that will have long-term positive affects; or 2) having the courage to wait until your constituents are close to supporting a position after you have guided them and persuaded them over time–then you can help them to get over the last impediments to produce the same legislation. It’s my view that #1 can produce short-term results, but cannot produce lasting political change, which only happens with #2.

Of course , there are times of crisis when #1 may be the way to go, in an emergency or a time of horror when waiting is morally and practically indefensible. However, helping people over the last hill that they need to get over is generally what political leadership in a democratic society is. I can’t think of many examples where political leaders in the U.S. have successfully advocated for a policy well beyond where people are ready to go. I include Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt in this. Each one of them took positions as they made sense both from both a moral and political point of view.

For example, it took Lincoln a long time to push for emancipation of slaves; he did not do so until he thought he could so successfully. Now you can criticize him for not doing this sooner given the horror and evil of slavery, but he successfully pulled it off where many others might not have. In the case of Roosevelt, many have criticized him for not intervening sooner in the Holocaust (e.g. not entering the war sooner or not bombing Auschwitz), but the U.S. eventually won the war and defeated Hitler, ending his reign of evil. That was not always a given–it wasn’t even a given that the U.S. would enter the war. It’s easy to criticize Roosevelt in hindsight, but the result was the end of the Nazis. Arm-chair theorists can hypothesize all they want, but political leadership involves difficult decisions that may seem cowardly, yet are in fact acts of courage given the time and situation.

Now, at the same time, it’s the job of activist leaders like Bill McKibben to persuade people to support their positions so that political leaders can act. That what abolitionist leaders in the nineteenth century did. It was true for civil rights leaders such as MLK. It’s the same for women’s rights advocates in the early 1900’s and more recently and for gay rights activists now.

Leadership is different when applied in different contexts. A political leader does not have the same role as an activist leader. Of course, some politicians can AFFORD to act, because their constituents will support them anyway. That was true of abolitionists, and it’s true today of many northeastern and west-coast politicians on the environment. But it’s different for politicians the bulk of whose constituents oppose a particular position and will continue to oppose that politician no matter how artfully or powerfully they craft their oratory.

Of course, many politicians misjudge events either by not acting whey could do so effectively or by acting before people are ready. For example, FDR might have been able to push for healthcare reform, while Bill Clinton did not have the political climate to win on healthcare. Of course, I could be wrong about that too (Clinton’s failure may have set the stage for Obama’s success): in the end, these leadership calculations are an art, not a science.

If you want to push for change before people agree with you, you should be an activist leader (or a writer or scholar or artist), not a political one. That’s one reason why I personally was never interested in professional life in politics. I do not have the patience to operate in such an environment, but thank God there are people who do. Politics is all about patience and the waiting game. It’s only in retrospect that political movements look as if they come from nowhere. They almost never do.

Republicans Trying to Rig the Electoral College

I don’t normally focus on party politics here, but this story is particularly disturbing, because it strikes at the heart of American freedom and democracy. If Republicans succeed in rigging the electoral college so that Democrats win the popular vote by substantial margins but lose the presidency, the U.S. will no longer have a voting system that is free, fair, or representative. I know Republicans are upset about losing elections and the demographics that are making it more difficult to win in the future, but changing the winner-take-all system only in Democratic-leaning states (like Pennsylviania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginian, Florida, Ohio) will lead to a goverment that no longer represents the will of the people. It’s one thing to buy elections so that money rules, which is what we have now, but it’s even worse to set up a voting system that’s more likely to be found in third-world dictatorships. This is a time when Americans of all political stripes need to speak out and try to preserve some fragments of what makes us great and free. Destroying our voting system by ending ‘majority rule’ is a form of evil and ought to be labeled as such.

I see this as a spiritual crisis? Will Americans allow ourselves to have the voting process converted to a meaningless charade, or will we stand up and say that we may disagree on policies and politics, but we believe in the fundamental values of democracy and representative government? If we don’t have that, what’s left?
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-eyes-election-laws-091622720–election.html

Climate Change and Political Action

Bill McKibben complains that Obama is too patient on global climate change in the Guardian article below. However, we can’t expect Obama or any president or congress to do anything on their own. Politics never works that way and never has. Churchill responded to Hitler only because he really had no other choice other than to surrender to a brutal, maniacal dictator.

Environmentalists complain incessantly about how little Obama has done for the planet. However, it’s not his job. It’s our job and the job of activists. If not enough people accept climate change or the urgency of solving the problem, it’s up to environmental leaders to change the discourse and persuade people otherwise. If they aren’t up to the task, it’s their fault, not that of Obama or any politician.

Politicians like Obama will respond, and respond with urgency, if enough people demand it. Right now there is insufficient political space for Obama to do anything on climate change. Environmentalists must stop whining about the failure of political leaders and create the space themselves. This kind of action is what the planet is calling for us to engage in.

The job of a president (or any political leader in a democratic society) is to push people when they are not quite ready to do something, but need the extra lift to get them going. A president cannot create something out of nothing (only God–maybe–can do that in Genesis 1). It’s the job of the rest of us to move us to a place where the president can act without getting totally eviscerated.

From a spiritual point of view, humanity needs to act locally as members of broad-based coalitions and groups. We have depended far too long on individual leaders to do this work for us. By acting on our own as part of collective movements that transcend nation states, ethnic groups, socio-economic classes, and religions, we move humanity toward authentic empowerment by serving as co-creators.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/06/fossil-fuel-special-interests-barack-obama?commentpage=1

Banks Hire Uniformed Police in Banks

The linking of banks with off-duty police in full uniform is a perilous development for our freedom. Corporations and public security join forces to potentially oppose the will of the people. What’s happening to our freedom and democracy?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/nypd-for-hire-cops-moonlighting-banks/print

« Previous Entries