WHY TRUMP SHOULD WATCH “REAGAN”

President-elect (or should we say, President-elected-again) Donald Trump is not known for being much of a reader. So it is doubtful he is preparing for his second term by reading biographies of his presidential predecessors. But as he embarks, there is a useful teaching instrument available to him in movie form: Reagan, the biopic starring Dennis Quaid.  Watching it could be a good use of Trump’s time.

The movie, released two months before the election, chronicles the life of our 40th President, from his hardscrabble origins in a small town with an alcoholic father, to the White House.  It received the kind of reception that ought to appeal to the new President. Critics loathed it. According to Rotten Tomatoes, it earned a paltry 18% score among them. But ordinary Joes and Janes loved it.  Rotten Tomatoes recorded an astronomical 98% rating among regular moviegoers.

The movie is not Academy Award material, as even some honest fans of the Gipper have admitted. It is hagiography, in the tradition of Parson Weem’s Life of Washington.  (If Ronald Reagan ever confessed to chopping down a cherry tree, the movie would have shown it.) And a very wide chasm separates the respective ideologies, temperaments, and dispositions of Reagan and Trump.

Nevertheless, Reagan offers valuable lessons for the incoming administration, if Trump is willing to watch – and learn.  Here are a few of those lessons.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, Politics

JUST GO ALREADY!

“It is not fit that you should sit here any longer. You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing lately … In the name of God go.” Oliver Cromwell to the Long Parliament, 1653

This coming week, Bob Woodward’s latest book “War” will be released. It will feature several critical, profanity-laced remarks about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attributed to President Biden.

It will also remind us of why Oliver Cromwell’s famous words to the Long Parliament seem so apt today. Joe Biden has about 3 months left in office. He cannot go too soon. 

According to CNN, which obtained an advance copy, in the Spring of 2014, Biden privately remarked: “That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy. He’s a bad fucking guy!” He also referred to Netanyahu as a “fucking liar.”

“Bibi, what the fuck?” Biden yelled at Netanyahu in a July telephone conversation, according to Woodward’s book.

These examples of Biden’s penchant for – um, colorful – language, are not exactly news. Last February, Jonathan Martin of Politico reported that Biden called Netanyahu “a bad fucking guy.” Nor are they particularly newsworthy. American presidents dating back to George Washington have been known for voicing strong opinions in private.

A Rolling Stone article of a few year back recounts that President Obama referred to Mitt Romney as “a bullshitter” and Kanye West as “a jackass.” Vice President Dick Cheney advised Senator Patrick Leahy to “go fuck himself” after the two engaged in an argument over Cheney’s ties to Halliburton.  President Truman called General Douglas MacArthur a “dumb son of a bitch,” and he called Richard Nixon a “shifty-eyed goddamned liar.”  A recounting of President Nixon’s [expletive deleted] characterizations of his enemies would fill an encyclopedia.

What makes these recent Biden disclosures significant is the fact that, when judged in context, the remarks remind us of the incredibly poor judgment he has demonstrated throughout his career.

Continue reading

3 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy

A NEW PAGE(R) IN HISTORY

By the brutal nature of war, urban battles always cause disproportionate civilian death tolls. When Rome suppressed the Great Jewish Revolt in 70 CE, they faced an army in Jerusalem of about 21,000 men. The civilian death toll has been estimated as between 600,000  (Tacitus) and over one million (Josephus). When the Red Army conquered Berlin in 1945, it faced a German force of about 45,000 soldiers.  Over 300,000 civilians died in the battle.

Since October 7, it has become almost routine in fashionable circles to accuse Israel of “genocide.” But the events of the past 48  hours show the opposite. In conducting its war against Hezbollah, a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction, Israel has accomplished a feat virtually unimaginable in the annals of military history. It has disabled or killed thousands of enemy combatants, in urban settings, deeply embedded within the local civilian population, with almost no civilian casualties.

On Tuesday, thousands of pagers exploded in Beirut and other locations in Lebanon and Syria, wounding about 2,800 people. Almost exactly 24 hours later, dozens of walkie-talkies exploded, injuring an additional 450 people.

Nearly every single victim was a soldier or member of Hezbollah. Well, not every victim. Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon was also wounded. He is not employed by Hezbollah. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that Hezbollah is employed by the ambassador. The fact that the Iranian ambassador was using a Hezbollah pager reveals much about Hezbollah’s status as an Iranian puppet.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy

WHY NOT ESCALATE?

Since October 7, American policy toward Israel has been muddled and variable. But on one point, American policy has been remarkably consistent. No matter what is going on, no matter who is involved, the U.S. habitually insists that Israel avoid “escalation.”

On April 15, 2024, after Iran directly attacked Israel by launching over 350 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, Secretary of State Antony Blinken publicly advised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “to resist the temptation to make a foolish display of strength,” but to choose instead to “prevent escalation.”

On July 17, after Israel endured a barrage of missiles launched by Hezbollah in Lebanon, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said: “We don’t want to see escalation at all in the North. We’ve made that clear to the government of Israel directly.”

On July 28, after a rocket attack on a Druze village soccer field killed 12 children and wounded 40 other civilians, Secretary of State Blinken said: “I emphasize Israel’s right to defend its citizens… But we also don’t want to see the conflict escalate.”

On August 20, speaking in Tel Aviv during his ninth trip to the region. Blinken summed up America’s policy, noting that it was designed to “send the message strongly to every concerned party not to take any steps that would escalate tensions ….” In case any doubt remained, he added that escalation avoidance had been U.S. policy “from day one, since October 7th.” 

Repetition does not make a policy rational. Is escalation avoidance a policy worth keeping?

Continue reading

4 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy

SHOULD WE “TURN DOWN THE TEMPERATURE”?

In the aftermath of the attempted killing of Donald Trump, leaders from both sides of the political spectrum have urged Americans to “turn down the temperature.”

President Biden asserted that political rhetoric had become “over-heated” and urged all Americans to “cool it down.” On the same day, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson complained that Biden’s attacks on Trump had contributed to a “heated political environment,” adding: “We’ve got to turn the temperature down in this country.”

It’s easy to see the appeal of pleas for reason over passion, especially in the wake of an assassination attempt. But let’s not go too far. Passion has a proper place in politics. And while some calls to turn down the temperature may be sincere, others may be cynical attempts to deflect legitimate criticism.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Filed under Politics

ISRAEL AT WAR: FAILURE AND FORTITUDE

Nine months into its war with Hamas, Israel is a nation in a state of paradox.

On the one hand, there is a deep-seated sense of failure.  Hamas, though badly mauled, still exists. Its senior leaders, Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif, are alive and issuing orders. The organization operates as a statelet, issuing defiant declarations while pretending to negotiate, through intermediaries, with the United States and Israel. It still holds 116 hostages, living or dead.

In the North, 60,000 Israelis remain refugees in their own country, as Hezbollah launches daily rocket attacks, rendering much of the region uninhabitable.

Beyond Israel’s borders, Houthi rebels attack Red Sea shipping.  And of uppermost concern, Iran, the chief sponsor of all this terror, moves ever closer to acquiring weapon-grade fissile material for nuclear weapons. Israel seems unable, and its main ally the United States seems unwilling, to stop Iran.

And yet, in the midst of this overarching sense of failure, something else is going on in Israel, something subtle but evident to visitors.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, Politics

ELECTION NIGHTMARES

In case you are sleeping too well and need something to keep you awake at night, try thinking about the presidential election process.  Not the age or moral character of the candidates. Not their positions on the issues.

Think about the Electoral College, where current polling numbers portend a coming crisis. Then bid farewell to sleep.

For months, we have heard that the popular vote for president is likely to be close. Polls aggregated by the Real Clear Politics website, which has been called the “Dow Jones of campaign coverage,” have shown that the gap between President Biden and former President Trump has not exceeded two percentage points since February. During much of that time period, the gap has been less than one point.

But there’s little reason to worry about the closeness of the popular vote because we don’t choose our presidents based on such votes. Instead, of course, we select our presidents based on who gets a majority of the Electoral College votes. And if prospects for a very close popular vote scare you, you should find the prospects for a close Electoral College contest downright terrifying.

There is a realistic possibility that come November the Electoral College tally could be decided by only two votes. There is even a possibility that the Electoral College could end up in a tie. That latter scenario may be less realistic, but it is not at all far-fetched.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Politics

MUNICH ON THE CHARLES

It is tempting to overuse the “Munich analogy” but something about the way Harvard University proudly announced the negotiated settlement of the Harvard Yard encampment problem brought to mind the image of Neville Chamberlain waving a piece of paper and proclaiming “Peace in our time.” For his role as a peacemaker, interim President Alan Garber was immediately lauded in progressive quarters for having achieved a “peaceful outcome …  that had eluded some other colleges and universities where officials have resorted to calling the police to clear demonstrators.”

But calling the police to deal with unlawful conduct is proper. That is why we have police. What is not proper is capitulation. Even worse is ignominious capitulation. That is what just happened on the Charles River.

Three weeks ago, protesters styling themselves “Harvard Out Of Palestine” (HOOP)  set up an encampment in Harvard Yard to protest Harvard’s supposed connection to the war in Gaza. No one questions their right to protest. But trespassing is another matter. After tolerating the tent city for 12 days, President Garber issued a statement that declared, in essence, “Enough.”

He noted that the encampment was causing numerous disruptions to the University. Exams had to be moved to other locations. Safety concerns over students sleeping outdoors required limiting access to the Yard. Students complained that the campers’ noise made it impossible for them to sleep, and the congestion made it impossible to move freely about the campus. President Garber cited reports that non-protesting students were being “intimidated and harassed,” and that passers-by were being “confronted, surveilled, and followed.”

President Garber concluded his statement with a stern warning:

I write today with this simple message: The continuation of the encampment presents a significant risk to the educational environment of the University. Those who participate in or perpetuate its continuation will be referred for involuntary leave from their Schools. Among other implications, students placed on involuntary leave may not be able to sit for exams, may not continue to reside in Harvard housing, and must cease to be present on campus until reinstated. (emphasis in original)

That was then.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Filed under Culture, Foreign Policy

SHOULD JEWS ABANDON THE IVIES?

Long before the Israeli armed forces moved into Gaza to destroy Hamas, in fact even while the Hamas murderers and rapists were still holding out in Israeli homes along the Gaza Envelope, top-tier American universities were the scenes of pro-Hamas protests, speeches, and encampments. Such deep-seated hostility toward Israel has caused many American Jews to ask: “Should Jews Abandon Ivy League Schools?” – as phrased in the headline of a Jerusalem Post interview of William Daroff, CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations.

The fear that our most prestigious universities are hostile environments, not only for Israel, but for Jews in general, was reinforced by the disastrous congressional hearings last December, where the Presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn were unable to say whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate their schools’ conduct policies.

Is it time for American Jews to abandon elite universities and to look elsewhere for educational opportunities?  Several arguments have been advanced for doing just that.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under Culture

THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE AGAINST ISRAEL

Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas rampage has led to an unprecedented increase in public hostility. This hostility has been directed not only toward Israel’s military strategy of urban warfare, which, like any such strategy, has led inevitably to widespread death and destruction, but also toward the Jewish State itself. Much of this hostility can be attributed to plain old antisemitism.

At Princeton, the Near Eastern studies department offers a course whose reading list includes a book that claims that Israelis systematically maim Palestinians to harvest their organs.

At the University of Michigan, benches in front of the Hillel House have been defaced with the Star of David, followed by the equal sign, followed by the swastika.

At Harvard, visibly Jewish students have been jeered at and physically assaulted walking to class.

There have been countless other incidents of such run-of-the-mill antisemitism. Still, it would be a mistake to conclude that antisemitism alone undergirds the current hostility toward Israel. After all, some of this hostility comes from Jews themselves.

One of the most visible organizations criticizing Israel has been Jewish Voice for Peace. Commentary Magazine’s Eli Lake has even identified what he calls the “AsAJew” phenomenon, to describe the many Jewish anti-Israel activists who cite their religion to legitimize their tactics. Some of these activists may be fairly described as “self-hating” Jews – but they are Jews nonetheless.

To those who would stand up for Israel, it is important to look beyond antisemitism, and to recognize that hostility toward the Jewish State is also based on something different: the settler-colonial paradigm. According to this conceptual framework, the State of Israel is an illegitimate entity designed and populated by Europeans colonizers who invaded a foreign territory to exploit the indigenous people, and to impose their culture and religion on them. This paradigm views Israelis as comparable to the British settlers in Kenya or the French in Senegal or the Belgians in the Congo.

Continue reading

3 Comments

Filed under Culture, Foreign Policy