Reminiscing About the Future: Chuck Hagel vs. Hillary Clinton

Richard Nixon manipulated Americans into believing he had an honorable exit strategy from Vietnam. Ronald Reagan successfully convinced voters he championed a Norman Rockwell society that valued hard work and neighborhood generosity. In 1988, oilman George Herbert Walker Bush won in part as the “environmentalist” candidate. Twelve years later his son stole the presidency after campaigning as a “plain spoken” truth telling man of the people with a “humble” foreign policy.

Perception usually triumphs reality in politics. That is apparent in Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel’s nascent campaign for president. Hagel is shrewdly positioning himself as the sole antiwar candidate in the Republican Party. Ironically, Republicans just might nominate a candidate running on an anti-war platform in a brazen display of chutzpah and hypocrisy. PsiFigther37 posted an especially trenchant analysis about Hagel in My Left Wing on August 20th. It’s worth reading as he/she catalogued Hagel’s misrepresentations of his own record on various issues. PsiFighter37 concluded that,

“The blogosphere may appreciate what they view as Hagel's truthfulness in addressing our foreign policy. But he is nothing more than your ultraconservative Republican who is scheming for a political run in the future. The man does not deserve praise. He deserves the greatest of scorn for being a politician without principles, someone whose political ambitions are written all over his actions.”

I agree with PsiFighter37 but suspect reality will be dwarfed again. Typically, the GOP’s nomenklatura rallies behind a candidate they consider both a winning horse and reliable steward of their interests. Usually, a GOP nominee is deemed acceptable with varying degrees of enthusiasm by their rank and file after the party establishment gives its’ blessing.

Several months ago the favored candidate of Republican apparatchiks was Virginia Senator George Allen. Allen’s combination of affability and vapid intellect is just the sort of politician Republican elites know can win and be controlled. But Allen’s recent stumbles have wounded his national stature and he may not even prevail against James Webb this November.

Hence, there is a void in the Republican Party with no obvious heir to George W. Bush. GOP elites are flocking to John McCain, who in spite of his recent calculated outburst against the Bush Administration has fully embraced neo-con policies. However, GOP core constituents do not respect McCain and his continued support for the Iraq War will undermine his national stature. In 2008 the strongest Republican candidate will likely be the one with the most rhetorical daylight from the Bush Administration’s national security policies. That is not John McCain who has actively courted Bush’s supporters.

Hagel has carved a niche as a traditional Republican realist on foreign policy. Other candidates may attempt to break with the Administration in 2008 but will appear opportunistic in doing so. Chris Shays for example is vulnerable to ridicule because he conveniently flip-flopped on Iraq three months prior to facing the wrath of disgruntled Connecticut voters. It’s an obvious deathbed conversion with no credibility.

Hagel is different because he rhetorically challenged the rationale of Bush’s policies in Iraq even more than some Democrats in recent years. Furthermore, Hagel has rhetorically challenged Bush for portraying dissent as unpatriotic. His record as PSI37 points out suggests support for neo-con imperialism as well as corporatist greed. There is also Hagel’s unsavory relationship with Diebold. Nonetheless, it’s perception that counts and the press appears eager to anoint the former Vietnam veteran as a sensible and tough centrist who is up to the job.

It’s not hard to see Hagel prevailing in the 2008 Iowa caucuses. Even conservative Iowans are far less enthusiastic about Bush’s foreign policy. Disenchantment with the Iraq war will only increase nationwide the next two years and probably more so in Iowa. Meanwhile, Hagel can shamelessly pander to the state’s religious fundamentalists, preach the virtues of lower taxes and smaller government and appeal to Iowans as a regional son from Nebraska. For good measure he might also be able to say, “I’m the only candidate who can appeal to Democrats and independents in a general election.”

Republicans rejected McCain’s in 2000 when he attempted to promote his general election appeal. However, Republicans may feel even more endangered in 2008 then they do today. If Democrats retake congress this November then Hagel can easily appeal to their instinct for survival. Should Democrats fall short this November the GOP will remain accountable for all that is wrong in 2008. That also works to Hagel’s advantage because on foreign policy he’s positioned himself as the only agent of change in the Republican Party.

McCain prevailed in the 2000 New Hampshire primary because of cross over independent voters. Those independent voters in New Hampshire may rally to Hagel’s banner after a victory in the Iowa caucuses and the momentum that goes with it. Hagel would then be on a roll and national polls would further reinforce his stature as the GOP’s strongest candidate in November.

After New Hampshire in 2000, McCain was overwhelmed by a vicious counterattack from the Republican establishment. Does McCain sanction the sort of counter attack against Hagel that Bush waged against him in South Carolina? Hagel stood up for McCain then. Such a counterattack on McCain’s behalf would only backfire. There’s no way he can. And rhetorically Hagel will appear more in step with the majority of voters that decide general elections than McCain because of Iraq – even though they’re records are indistinguishable.

Perhaps the other candidates such as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback might get traction but they haven’t established their own bona fides on national security separate from Bush. Hagel is the one Republican with rhetorical daylight from the Bush years. Yet Hagel can also combine his rhetorical daylight from Bush with appeals to cultural conservatives far easier than McCain. Brownback has the cultural appeal but comes up short on Iraqi policy and Romney is a flip flopper on abortion. I can’t see Republicans nominating Mike Huckabee and for damn sure they’re not nominating Rudolph Guilani no matter what the polls say.

So two years from now the headlines may read, “Republican nominee Chuck Hagel declared he’s the one to get America out of Iraq.” There will be the necessary platitudes about prudence, coordination with allies, and a methodical withdrawal that preserves our strategic interests. But the message that will stick is only the sensible conservative and military veteran Chuck Hagel can get us out of Iraq. That is powerful.

Is the Democrats best answer to this challenge Hillary Clinton? Personally, I’m partial to Senator Russ Feingold and would also be enthusiastic about Al Gore’s candidacy. Perhaps John Edwards could prevail in Iowa and stop her. Wesley Clark also appeals to me. But what if the Hillary juggernaut can’t be stopped and her institutional advantages sweep her to the Democratic Party’s nomination?

If Democrats fail to coalesce around an alternative early on Hillary prevails whether we like it or not. Furthermore, there may also be consequences to Hillary winning too easily. If the anti-war Left does not mount an effective challenge, Hillary will straddle the political fifty yard line on Iraq and foreign policy generally. She’ll take the usual partisan pot shots (perhaps Rumsfeld will still be there!) but not renounce her initial support for the war or propose any timelines to withdraw.

Hillary is boxed in. Unlike Edwards, Hillary can’t apologize for her vote to authorize the war without appearing insincere. As a woman she’s confronted with the stereotype about toughness and doesn’t want to appear soft. And she’s rhetorically advocated for more troops in Iraq. Her partisan criticisms of how Bush has prosecuted the war will fail against a nominee such as Hagel telling voters he will get us out. How can Hillary criticize Republicans for diverting resources from the war on terror to Iraq when she’s advocated for more troop deployments?

An office colleague I respect is a good bellwether for how independent voters think. He describes himself as a political “agnostic” when it comes to Democrats and Republicans. A veteran who served in Vietnam he despises Bush’s record on national security and voted for Kerry in 2004. When I asked him about a hypothetical match up between Hillary and Hagel he immediately said he would vote for Hagel because, “he can get us out of Iraq. Only Nixon could go to China. Maybe it takes a Republican to get us out of Iraq.” His visceral reaction disturbed me. It’s the Republicans who got us into Iraq and Hagel is just as guilty as the rest of them! Perception triumphs reality again.

As PsiFighter37’s August 20th diary illustrates, Hagel has many contradictions and should be held accountable for them. Hillary is the wrong messenger for Democrats to defeat him. She’s too mealy mouthed, too corporatist and too insincere. True strength stems from authenticity combined with a record of clarity and sound judgment. Hillary Clinton embodies none of those virtues. Preposterous as it sounds, a Hagel vs. Clinton race means Republicans prevail on a platform to exit from Iraq. We can’t let them get away with it.
*********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: I cross posted the above topic on Daily Kos and the comments, critical and favorable make for interesting reading. Click here to review them.

Power, Politics, Principle and Overpriced Latex Gloves

It was autumn 1992 and I was out of college for a year. Like many undergraduates from liberal art schools I was well educated but didn’t possess any skills for the “real world.” So I telemarketed for a hideous company that sold overpriced latex gloves to nursing homes while living in the East Village.

The market value for these gloves was approximately $30 per case (10 boxes per case) and we sold them for $400. I earned either $8 an hour or 5% per sale if commissions exceeded my base salary. The company provided us with names of nursing homes nationwide on index cards and we read from a script.

The script was useless and typically anyone we called wasn’t seduced by our offer of a free coffee maker with a purchase. Once price was mentioned the conversation usually ended abruptly. Sales were not being made and management wasn’t interested in our excuses about selling a grotesquely overpriced product.

With no jobs on the horizon and George Herbert Walker Bush waging class warfare against working people from the White House, I was desperate. So, I improvised and deviated from the script.

I used fear mongering and told the purchasing managers diseases where everywhere! AIDS! You had to be careful. Our gloves cost more because they met OSHA requirements and prevented the transmission of blood borne pathogens! Most gloves didn’t and nursing homes owed it to their staffs to use our gloves instead.

All lies that I just pulled out of my ass to make sales. It worked. For nearly three weeks I was making sales and others adopted my methods. The company even changed our script and utilized my words. I was ashamed but needed money and rationalized I had no choice.

However, after three weeks the company wasn’t providing new leads anymore. Instead they redistributed the same index cards listing nursing homes we called previously. The second time around our solicitation calls provoked hostility. Several threatened lawsuits. One woman in Colorado even threatened to send her brother Luke to New York and beat me up. She noted that our gloves were identical to any she purchased previously from her regular suppliers at $30 and the free coffee maker didn’t work either.

I stopped making sales. Others stopped making sales. The company blamed me and I moved on to another job. Such was my life back then. It wasn’t until the Clinton years that I had steadier pay and more respectable work. Fourteen years later the memories remain fresh.

It took those nursing homes three weeks to realize they were paying through the nose for lies and scare tactics. Americans are finally waking up from their coma after five plus years of Republican propaganda and fear mongering. I hope the public is not simply fed up with the Bush era but having an epiphany about the legacy of modern conservatism. Sadly, a generation of conservative hateful manipulation and the American public’s gullibility produced brutal repercussions.

Stateless and decentralized thugs threaten civilization in the name of God. Global warming is eroding the world’s water supply while America’s governing party denies that human behavior is the cause. Christian radicals in America contest the teaching of evolution and assault the human rights of women and gays. We’re currently engaged in two wars going badly and right wing ideologues are hungry for more. Obviously, a coalition of corporate militarism and Christian radicals is ill equipped to govern with tolerance and good sense.

The forces of religious extremism in the Islamic world are ascending. Meanwhile, the neo-cons in Washington perceive America as a modern Rome and Islamic radicals as 21st century Visigoths poised to undermine our birthright of hegemony. Corporations such as Blackwater USA continue to make money hand over fist while blood spills and the religious right cheers for the “end of days.” Approximately one year ago we failed to look after our own during a hurricane while nation building in Iraq.

America’s unique blending of corporate militarism and Christian radicalism has resulted in a dysfunctional culture of plutocracy and Puritanism. As the mega rich avoid paying taxes and playing by the same rules as everyone else, the middle class and working poor can’t earn a living wage or afford healthcare. A corporation such as Kaiser Permanente is not accountable for their misdeeds but there are women who can’t buy morning after pills from their local pharmacies.

This duality of maximum autonomy for corporations and plutocrats while eroding civil liberties and prosperity for individuals is producing an era of entropy. Entropy at home and abroad is the legacy of modern conservatism and our collective susceptibility to their assault on truth. Meanwhile, the so-called libertarians and “moderates” dismiss their culpability for empowering a reign of indecency and decay.

What is the antidote to this condition? We need more than a “new direction” or change from Republican rule to Democrats. America needs a progressive reformation that detoxifies our culture from corporate militarism and Christian theocrats. The time has come for a modern enlightenment.

The world is crying for America to lead as the guiding light of enlightenment instead of pouring more kerosene on the world’s fire of disorder and facilitating greed based globalization. In this instance leading means becoming better global citizens and nurturing a culture of community values at home. The time has come to jettison the failed ethos of hyper individualism in our country as well as the hubris of imperialism abroad.

This may become possible because American conservatism is discredited and sucking wind. All that remains is defining the terms of their surrender and what comes next. That is what the next two election cycles are truly about. The struggle for what replaces conservatism is underway. Republicans may survive if they adapt in coming years. Democrats may prevail in the short term. Regardless, the center of political gravity is poised to change.

If we truly want a progressive reformation based upon truth, merit and social justice to prevail then we must never surrender integrity for expediency. As a progressive pragmatist I don’t want to lose this opportunity to establish a governing philosophy based upon social justice and realism. It is incumbent upon progressive activists and the netroots community to remain vigilant and committed to our principles after victory. Strange as it seems, in the coming years we may become the establishment.

Once upon a time conservatives championed some worthy principles such as fiscal responsibility, values and individual responsibility. They squandered them in favor of expediency and patronage. They forgot where they came from and lied as if truth were an endless supply of counterfeit money. I hope we never forget where we come from and abandon our principles at the first taste of power. To do so would be catastrophic. My personal reality check is remembering the gloves.
***********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: My thanks to "Suan G." for once again rescuing my cross posting on Daily Kos. I estimate she's done this for me at least six times this year and it's highly appreciated.

At Long Last Have You No Decency David Brooks?

David Brooks is a lightweight whom I typically ignore. Other progressive bloggers critique his sophomoric punditry and infantile analysis with enthusiasm. Until Friday, I considered attacking Brooks akin to abusing the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

Standing on an overcrowded A-Train with malfunctioning air conditioning, I read Brooks’ column "Bye-Bye Bootstraps" while commuting to Manhattan from Brooklyn. Brooks had the temerity to suggest that a “Wal-Mart leisure class” was emerging in America. One wonders how my fellow passengers suffering from the heat as we commuted to our jobs would’ve responded to this soft minded propagandist of America’s plutocracy.

The New York Times recently did a piece about how some people out of work were taking advantage of their free time. Brooks cleverly exploited quotes from these individuals to suggest that today’s work ethic belongs to the hard working wealthy. Even worse, Brooks’ perverts the word “dignity” to claim it as the property of elites:

“Once upon a time, middle-class men would have defined their dignity by their ability to work hard, provide for their family and live as self-reliant members of society. But these fellows, to judge by their quotations, define their dignity the same way the subjects of Thorstein Veblen’s ‘The Theory of the Leisure Class’ defined theirs.

They define their dignity by the loftiness of their thinking. They define their dignity not by their achievement, but by their personal enlightenment, their autonomy, by their distance from anything dishonorably menial or compulsory.”

You see what he’s doing? Brooks is hijacking the egalitarian concept of dignity. Dignity is a virtue that no single economic class, race, religion or nationality can lay claim to as his or her own. Dignity belongs to all of us. As Robert Fuller has written so persuasively, dignity is a universal right. Brooks has twisted dignity into a virtue belonging to the wealthy.

Obviously he hopes to justify the status of today’s mega wealthy by implying elites possess superior dignity. The wealthy are hard working souls driven to achievement while those lazy people working at Wal-Mart just don’t have the same dignity of ambition. This man is a jerk.

I immediately thought of my good friend known by some in the blogosphere as ”Breaking Ranks.” She is a driven person down on her luck professionally without steady work. I could think of no one more qualified to refute the garbage inside David Brooks’ column.

She did not disappoint. My friend is a gentle soul but Brooks’ column provoked her into posting a diary on Daily Kos entitled, "F*** YOU DAVID BROOKS AND NYT." Her title made me laugh. In nearly twenty years of friendship from our days as undergraduate classmates, I don’t recall her ever dropping an F-bomb. For her to even have “F” followed by three asterisks was a big deal. Brooks may be a mediocre scribe but he managed to provoke the most gentle and civil of souls.

Her post was a tour de force and a must read. It should’ve made the recommended list at Daily Kos but didn’t. A talented writer she got to the point quickly:

“I've been limping around in agony for three weeks. An ingrown toenail got seriously infected, and the only thing Neosporin seems to be doing is preventing it from getting worse. Why haven't I gone to a podiatrist? I don't have any health insurance. Thus this NYT article by David Brooks makes me want to scream with rage.

I haven't worked regularly since 2003. Nothing is going into Social Security for me, and it's likely that I will be a renter (or possibly a homeless person) until the day I die. I've never held a full-time job that made use of my education and talents, much less enabled me to pursue my dreams. I haven't been to the movies in over three years, and I don't conspicuously consume at Wal-Mart or anywhere else. I handwash all my clothes, and I'm down to one pair of pants.

Yep, I'm sooo sure this is what Veblen had in mind when he described the Leisure Class. My take on the dignity of my condition diverges considerably from Brooks' mean-spirited screed as well.

So forgive the INAPPROPRIATE CAPS - I'm officially PISSED THE HELL OFF!”

Alas, David Brooks enjoys a veneer of respectability. The New York Times is discredited from the Judith Miller fiasco and other transgressions. However, the gray lady remains a powerful forum and Brooks is a frequent commentator on the inside the beltway talking circuit. Consequently, he has the ability to shape the terms of debate and discussion that influences political discourse. Those who control the terms of debate rule the day in politics.

Since Barry Goldwater’s landslide defeat in 1964, conservatives have managed to define the social safety net as evil and taxes on wealth as immoral. With ruthless skill conservatives have promoted an ethos in America that rewards wealth over work and hyper individualism over community values.

These people realize their reign of indecency may be coming to an end if the terms of debate are not altered before November. Enter David Brooks at stage right with his mean spirited diatribe sullying the dignity and virtues of hard working people. Our corporatist policies that reward wealth over work can be justified because in Brooks’ view the wealthy are the only people who are truly working.

During his weekly appearance with Mark Shields on the PBS News Hour, Brooks even criticized the attempt to raise the minimum wage because it would only help “teenagers.” Mark Shields promptly corrected him and noted that minimum wage earners are the primary earners in forty percent of households.

Sadly, abstract columns by David Brooks and others that justify class warfare from the top are not effectively refuted. Media Matters is terrific at exposing disinformation and falsehoods but this sort of diatribe often survives and eventually becomes an accepted part of the lexicon. It sounds absurd yet given Republican success at manipulating language it’s not hard to imagine liberals soon having to defend that regular working people have dignity too.

My friend did a beautiful job in responding to Brooks. More is needed however. I urge anyone reading this posting to write to the New York Times and demand that Brooks recant and apologize to millions of working Americans. This should be done in a respectful tone without profanity. Blogosphere etiquette will be ineffective. Instead, please utilize civil assertiveness to persuade the New York Times editorial board that David Brooks has created a firestorm with his indecency.

One aspect of the New York Times I always appreciated is the diversity of their columnists. Columnists for the Wall Street Journal are nothing but a total echo chamber for corporate fascism. At least the New York Times tries to promote a diversity of views with their columnists. Nevertheless, David Brooks’ column on Friday requires a heavy volume response from the working people of this country. I can think of no better place to start then the netroots.

To submit a letter to the New York Times click here.
*********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: I'm thrilled to report this posting was linked on The Nation's website in their important articles and newsfeeds section from the afternoon of Sunday, August 6th until late afternoon on Monday, August 7th. Why this happened I don't know but I'm gratified by the recognition and hope it results in many letters to the New York Times editorial board.

Also, I cross posted this topic on Daily Kos and the comments both favorable and otherwise make for interesting reading. Click here to review them.

Wanted: A Twenty First Century George Kennan

In July 1947, George F. Kennan published an article in the quarterly edition of Foreign Affairs entitled “Sources of Soviet Conduct." Kennan originally drafted the article as a paper for Defense Secretary James Forrestal. When he submitted it to Foreign Affairs, Kennan used the moniker “Mr. X.” The piece was known as “containment” and is credited with guiding American foreign policy under presidents of both parties during the cold war.

America was an exhausted nation in 1947 and Kennan’s ideas helped President Harry Truman mobilize a war weary population for long-term struggle against Soviet expansionism. Ostensibly, Kennan wanted to firm America’s resolve against the Soviets but the greatest legacy of “containment” is that almost sixty years later the world is still spinning.

Today, civilized nations of order desperately need a credible strategy that firmly stands up to the challenge posed by radical Islam without igniting another world war. As Bob Herbert sagely wrote in the New York Times yesterday,

“There is no grand solution to the centuries-old problems of the Middle East. As with the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union, you try to keep things as cool as possible, step by sometimes agonizing step. It may not be pretty, and it will surely be frustrating. But if the conflict, however aggravating, can be kept cold as opposed to hot, you’re ahead of the game.”

The lynchpin to any containment policy against radical Islam is a rapprochement between Israel and the international community. Hezbollah’s aggression inside Lebanon and Israel’s heavy-handed response illustrates that a long-term rapprochement must be initiated forthwith. Unless the schism between Israel and the civilized world that includes the Western Alliance and hopefully emerging moderate voices in the mid-east is healed, there will be more conflicts like Lebanon that can spin out of control.

Tactically, Israel was responding to incursions inside their borders and the kidnapping of their soldiers. When viewed in that context Israel’s response is morally reprehensible and strategically stupid.

“War is politics by other means” as the brilliant Prussian General Claus Von Klauswitz once postulated. Hezbollah appears to be achieving their political aims even as Israel overwhelms them militarily. Hezbollah is a political idea that simply can't be wiped out or “degraded” militarily.

Their enemies understand that Israel is a first class military power, which can’t be defeated in conventional warfare. So instead Hezbollah has successfully provoked Israel into a conflict that undermines their moral standing in the world. Innocents are dying on both sides with nothing good being accomplished. The cause of peace has not been advanced. Only more innocent blood has been spilled.

But Israel is not an evil country in spite of vile Anti-Semitic diatribes on the blogosphere or the international community. Israel is also not stupid. I am opposed to how Israel handled this crisis and disgusted by the loss of innocent life in Lebanon. But I can also understand why Israel was compelled to respond as they did.

This was not about their two kidnapped soldiers. Israel’s response was due to radical Islam on their doorstep. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are proxies for a lunatic regime in Iran on record for supporting Israel’s destruction. Iran is a formidable adversary that has gained substantially from the Iraq War. Israel’s number one ally, the United States is overextended and their influence in the region severely diminished.

Meanwhile, under Iranian direction Hezbollah and Hamas have demonstrated the ability to penetrate Israeli territory, commit acts of terrorism and they now possess sophisticated missiles that target Israel’s cities. In that context what is a disproportionate response? The United States responded to 9/11 by knocking off two governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!

Too many of Israel’s critics dismiss their loss of life as simply not comparable to the blood spilled in Palestine or Lebanon. Fair enough but Israel is a small population and a few deaths are keenly felt and any democratically elected government is compelled to demonstrate resolve when their citizens are murdered.

So Israel is encircled and from their perspective the international community is hostile to their existence and indifferent to their loss of life. Israel regards the international community as largely Anti-Semitic and unsympathetic to its struggle of preserving their democracy in a despotic and hostile neighborhood. The Europeans for example are distrusted by Israel for their historic Anti-Semitism and feckless pattern of portraying Israel as morally equivalent to terrorists.

Hence, when Israel is confronted with radical Islam at their doorstep they’re convinced that other than a weakened United States they have no friends. There is no coherent international effort to isolate radical Islam. They see no alternative other than to crush those dedicated to their destruction with overwhelming force. In the Israeli mindset, it’s them or us and we’re on our own. In fairness to Israel their perspective is not without merit. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently condemned Israel and only grudgingly acknowledged Hezbollah’s culpability.

To the world at large Israel is an inflexible nation that pours kerosene on fire. As far as much of the world is concerned Israel sets impossible conditions for peace with Palestinians. Israel claims it wants to do business with a moderate civilized society but makes it impossible for one to emerge as the Palestinians struggle to live under a humiliating and oppressive occupation. Israel claims it prefers moderate elected governments in the Arab world but undermines Abbas in Palestine and with military power brings the democratically elected government in Lebanon to its knees. Israel drops leaflets warning the Lebanese of bombings to come but destroys the infrastructure required for them to safely escape violent death.

Hence, Israel is viewed by much of the world as an obstacle to peace. I consider myself a friend of Israel. I’m Jewish and proud of my heritage. But even friends of Israel must be intellectually honest and acknowledge that a legitimate critique of their policy is in order. Their heavy- handed treatment of the Palestinians as well as their killing of innocent life in Lebanon has strengthened Islamic fascism. It may not be fair given my country’s transgressions and ill-advised military ventures in recent years but I expect more of Israel anyway.

Either way the civilized world and Israel are disappointed in each other and have let each other down. So how do we move forward? The first step is for the civilized world to accept that Israel shares their humane values and objective for stability. The world and Israel both lose if they’re working at cross purposes against radical Islam. Meanwhile, Israel must adjust their strategic posture from unilateralism to coordination with the international community against radical Islam. Otherwise, their divisions will continue to be exploited by Islamic fundamentalists and eventually an act of terrorism will engulf the world in unremitting conflict.

There may be an opportunity to salvage something positive from the horrific loss of life these past two weeks. Israel has signaled their willingness to accept an international peacekeeping force serving as a buffer on the Lebanese border. That is a major leap for Israel given their suspicion of the international community. The international community should seize this opportunity to earn Israel’s confidence and in return enlist their cooperation to coordinate their policies instead of Israel's historic unilaterism that can be disproportionate.

Sadly, the New York Times reports that while numerous nations favor an international force in theory there is reluctance to commit:

“The United States has ruled out its soldiers’ participating, NATO says it is overstretched, Britain feels its troops are over committed and Germany says it is willing to participate only if Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that it would police, agrees to it, a highly unlikely development.”

Obviously the world today does not have statesmen such as Churchill and FDR. The real obstacle is weak leadership from Washington. America is still haunted by its participation in a multinational force after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Furthermore, President Bush has no political capital with an international community he’s disrespected for five years and an American public he lied to about Iraq. His administration is incapable of persuading a weary and increasingly isolationist American public to participate in such a force or to heal the breach between Israel and the international community.

This is unfortunate. An Israel that is convinced there is an international community that has its back against radical Islam will be less inclined to respond to every provocation with overwhelming force. An international peacekeeping force that even includes Arab nations can preserve stability, build political bridges between Israel and the world and further isolate the Jihadists.

It might also be something to build upon and utilize in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian Authority is not capable of policing against terrorism and the presence of the Israeli military only serves to poison the atmosphere. A multinational force in the territories that earns both the confidence of Israel and the Palestinian population may allow the Palestinians to better develop a civil society that facilitates a two state solution.

Most importantly, the flame of radical Islam won’t be continuously fed and better contained. Part of the price for this is that Israel will have to accept that when terrorist incidents take place they can’t simply respond unilaterally and inflame matters. Israel will have to compromise and accept that they’re part of an international effort.

As for the international community there must be an understanding that stability and order come with a price as well. That price is resources and people put in harms way to prevent a wider conflict from engulfing the planet. If the world doesn’t want Israel to act against terrorism then an alternative mechanism of enforcement must be in place. There will setbacks and miscalculations. The learning curve will be steep.

No country can undertake this alone but America will have to take the lead. The contradictions of interests among nations as diverse as Russia, Egypt and Israel are immense. Integrating such a coalition into a containment policy against radical Islam will require tremendous skill, persuasion, patience and resolve.

All fires burn out eventually if they’re contained and not fed. It may take decades but a global strategy of containment is far better than a “global war on terror” which might result in Armageddon. Hopefully, the next American president will have strategic thinkers such as George Kennan in 1947 who has given the matter some thought.
***********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: I cross posted this topic on the European Tribune community blog and their comments are interesting and provocative. One person even compared me to Joe McCarthy! They also went off on all sorts of tangents. Click here to review their comments. European Tribune is a terrific community blog and excellent information source regarding European politics. But only there could I be compared to Joe McCarthy!

Brooklyn's Progressive Conscience: A Podcast Interview With Congressional Candidate Chris Owens

The 11th Congressional District in Brooklyn, New York is a human mosaic of 654,000: 60 percent blacks, 20 percent whites, 12 percent Hispanics, 4 percent Asians and 4 percent other ethnicities. The minorities, mostly Caribbean Americans and other immigrants, comprise 80 percent of the district.

This district is historically significant because it was created pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. In 1968, the 11th elected the first black woman to Congress – Shirley Chisholm. Since then the predominantly black population has been represented in Washington by one of their own. The incumbent, Major R. Owens is retiring after serving in Congress since 1984. An African-American, Representative Owens is highly regarded among progressives for his commitment to strengthening public education.

Ironically, it is the candidacy of a white politician named David Yassky who has generated controversy in the 11th. Yassky is the only white politician among four candidates vying for the Democratic Party’s nomination. There is virtually no doubt the seat will remain in Democratic hands this November.

Yassky is a city councilman who originally planned to run for Brooklyn District Attorney. He abandoned that race, changed his residence to the 11th district and quickly raised $1 million for the campaign. Some regard him as an accomplished public servant with much to offer. Others believe that Yassky calculated he couldn’t win the race for District Attorney and preferred to campaign for an office in which the black vote would be split three-ways. Yassky contends he entered the fray after “soul searching.”

Al Sharpton among others has advocated that two of the black candidates withdraw from the race to unify the black vote against Yassky. To this point none of the three black candidates are inclined to sacrifice their ambitions and each believes they have a viable chance of prevailing in the September 12th primary.

City Councilwoman Yvette D. Clarke currently represents part of the 11th District and challenged Representative Owens in a three way primary two years ago and came in second.

State Senator Carl Andrews is favored by the Democratic Party’s New York establishment and was recently endorsed by gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer and former Mayor David Dinkins. Even as Andrews enjoys their support he is also attempting to distance himself from the Democratic organization, where he was close to Clarence Norman Jr., the former Brooklyn Democratic leader who was convicted on corruption charges in 2005.

Chris Owens, the son of Representative Owens, is among the three black candidates competing in the Democratic primary (click here to review his website and here to make a donation to his campaign).

Chris Owens was an elected Community School Board member and president. His government experience includes working with former City Council President Andrew Stein as well as over a decade in the private sector in the health care industry.

He’s promoted himself as “The Real Progressive” in the race. Owens supports our immediate withdrawal from Iraq, President Bush’s impeachment, single payer health care and opposes the Atlantic Yards development project to provide a Brooklyn home for the New Jersey Nets basketball team.

Among others, Representatives Dennis Kucinich (OH), John Conyers (MI), John Lewis (GA), Maxine Waters (CA), Bernie Sanders (VT) as well as former Democratic mayoral nominees Ruth Messinger and Fernando Ferrer have endorsed Owens. Maryscott O'Connor, the proprietor of My Left Wing championed his cause on June 20th and wrote:

“A Democratic primary in Brooklyn needs your URGENT attention!

In Brooklyn's 11th Congressional District, a progressive candidate, Chris Owens, faces an opponent who is Democratic in name, but is no progressive when it comes to core values and capital.

This opponent only recently moved into the district, just in time to run for office. Practically overnight, he raised almost $1 million – more money than any other Democratic candidate for an open seat anywhere in the entire country. And this outrageous sum was raised in a district where a quarter of the residents live well below the Federal Poverty Line.

This opponent's war chest is primarily funded by – guess who? The developers and corporate concerns whose interests he represents. Let's be clear about what is going on. As a true progressive, Chris Owens has been a clear voice – and often a lone voice – on some of the most important issues of our time.”

I have a temporary home for this podcast. I hope to soon have a better host site. For the time being, please scroll to the bottom of the page, wait about 35 seconds and download the MP3 file after clicking here.

The Politics of War: Then and Now

An unpopular war raged but the president refused to acknowledge error or change course. A talented and ambitious congressman continued to support his president in spite of private doubts and even misgivings from his own children. He largely supported the president’s domestic agenda and as a Washington insider received many briefings from the Pentagon, State Department and CIA.

They all told him the administration’s policies were working and a premature withdrawal was tantamount to weakness. The war was of course Vietnam. LBJ was in the White House. And a Massachusetts congressman named Tip O’Neill was on a collision course with President Johnson after years of steadfast support.

As I followed the recent deliberations in the Senate, I felt compelled to reread Man of the House: The Life and Political Memoirs of Speaker Tip O’Neill, published by Random House in 1987. His Vietnam anecdotes were especially poignant and haunting. This passage in particular is especially relevant after listening to Republican drones unleash their stay the course and don’t cut and run propaganda:

“One Friday, I was invited to speak at Boston College, where Susan and Tommy were both undergraduates. I gave my usual talk on the war, which was followed, as usual, by a dialogue with the students. As always, they took issue with both my information and my views.

‘You know,’ I told a young man who had challenged me, ‘I think I know more about this situation than you do. I’ve been briefed forty-three times. I’ve been briefed by Robert McNamara. I’ve been briefed by the CIA. I’ve been briefed by Dean Rusk. And I’ve been briefed by the president of the United States.'

‘That’s a lot of briefings,’ said the student, whose name was Pat McCarthy. ‘But how many times have you been briefed by the other side?’

The question came as a complete shock. Nobody had ever asked that one before.

That night, as I was lying in bed, thinking over the events of the day, I kept coming back to Pat McCarthy’s question. And I had to acknowledge that I hadn’t ever taken a good look at the other side of the issue. Before I fell asleep, I resolved to do just that.”

It was 1967 and for Tip O’Neill an epiphany. O’Neill had been on the rise in the House and enjoyed a good relationship with Johnson. He was also personally close to Speaker John McCormack an avowed hawk.

It was McCormack who persuaded O’Neill not to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution three years earlier:

“’If you vote against this resolution,’” he said, “’you’ll be seen as a traitor to your country. It will be the worst vote you ever make. I urge you in the strongest possible terms not to do it.’

I decided to go along with his advice. But I don’t want to blame John McCormack, because I was free to vote my conscience. I just didn’t have the courage.”

After the Boston College encounter, O’Neill found his voice and sent his constituents a newsletter declaring his opposition to the Vietnam War:

“For a mainstream Democratic congressman like myself, the newsletter represented a radical departure – not only from the views of my colleagues, but also from those of my constituents. For despite all the colleges in my district, the students who were old enough to vote did so in their home communities. Of my regular constituents, only 15 percent opposed the war. The day I sent out the letter I told my son Tommy that I had just signed my political death warrant.

But I knew it was the right thing to do.”

There was an initial backlash from his district and inside the Democratic Party leadership. Johnson feared that as a member of the Democratic establishment, O’Neill could become a rallying point for other restless members of his party and he summoned the congressman to the White House. Johnson managed to persuade O’Neill to mitigate his opposition and “give me time” to straighten Vietnam out.

Vietnam wasn’t straightened out and in another year O’Neill’s opposition was dwarfed. Eugene McCarthy launched an insurgent campaign for the presidency followed by Robert Kennedy. Johnson opted not to seek another term. Vice President Humphrey carried the Democratic banner honorably but his association with Johnson denied him the presidency. More blood was shed on both sides under Nixon.

Tip O’Neill was a good man. But he didn’t have the courage to stand up to LBJ in 1964. Not many did. When he was finally ready to dissent, O’Neill was willing to sacrifice his congressional seat for the greater good but it was too late.

Today’s politicians are cut from different cloth than Tip O’Neill. However, contrary to the media’s focus on division among the Democrats, the party is finally finding its’ voice. Not everyone supports a fixed date of withdrawal but the Democrats are deliberating over real alternatives to Bush’s moronic stay the course policies.

Understandably, as a minority congressional party the Democrats are institutionally incapable of rallying behind a single position or leader on the issue – especially with several of them jostling for 2008. Nonetheless, we are hearing some creativity from John Murtha, Russ Feingold and even Joe Biden. Even more remarkably, General Casey's plans for troop reductions strongly resemble the recent Senate resolution offered by Feingold and Kerry!

But that is not enough. The country must have principled courageous dissent within the GOP ranks on the Iraq war. Republicans rebelled against Bush on Social Security, immigration and Dubai ports. Yet on the Iraq War they remain mindless drones concerned more with political advantage than our national interest.

Occasionally, John McCain expresses no confidence in Rumsfeld and Chuck Hagel rebukes his party about tone. That is insufficient. Unless Republicans finally make concessions to reality, the ripple effect from the Iraq War will be impossible to contain and Afghanistan will be lost too.

Hopefully, the recent leaks about General Casey’s plans will do more than simply embarrass the Republicans and Bush. Perhaps a Bush loyalist within the GOP establishment will have an epiphany the way Tip O’Neill did forty years ago and put the national interest first. A nice thought but I’m not holding my breath.

Broadcasting Humanity: An Interview With Link TV's David Michaelis

Two years ago, David Michaelis, an Israeli citizen and Jamal Dajani, a Palestinian-American traveled to their mutual birthplace in Jerusalem and filmed a groundbreaking documentary called "Occupied Minds". The film originally aired in 2005 and powerfully illustrated the widening gulf between two entangled peoples in pain.

Both men grew up in Jerusalem just a few miles apart but in entirely different universes. Jamal’s roots in Jerusalem can be traced to the 7th century, while Michaelis was born in Jerusalem to parents who left Germany in the 1920’s because of escalating anti-Semitism.

For Michaelis, “Occupied Minds” easily fits into the tapestry of his career. Born in 1945, Michaelis earned a degree in philosophy and sociology at Hebrew University. He has produced and directed documentaries on social-political issues for the BBC Channel 4 in the UK as well as for ARD and ZDF in Germany. Michaelis also served as a news editor in London and Washington for ARD. The primary focus of the documentaries and talk shows he’s worked on is to legitimize the rights of minorities in Israel.

Michaelis is currently on the Board of Directors for Internews and is the Director of Current Affairs for Link TV in San Francisco. Link TV is a network dedicated to presenting global news, issues and culture. Before co-founding Link TV, Michaelis was the producer of “Popolitika,” the most popular news program on Israeli TV.

At Internews, Michaelis created the first satellite two-way link between Tunis and Jerusalem in October 1993. He also helped produce, with the Jerusalem Film Institute, the Palestinian Broadcasting Conference held in Jerusalem in January 1994.

Michaelis and Dajani met at Link TV six years ago. At Link TV in San Francisco, they are the only Palestinian-Israeli team working together in American media. Dajani, as Director of Middle Eastern Programming, produces the 2005 Peabody Award-winning daily newscast— Mosaic: World News from the Middle East. This program highlights daily TV news broadcasts from the Middle East, including, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, Syria the Palestinian Authority, and Iran, among others.

After four years of professional collaboration, Michaelis and Dajani became friends and decided to combine their talents. “Occupied Minds” gives voice to a diverse range of views: a wanted Palestinian gunman, an Israeli soldier who served in the Occupied Territories, an Israeli surgeon who lost his eyesight in a suicide bombing, an Israeli mother who lost her son in the conflict, and a Palestinian activist who lost her cousin are among those interviewed. Their documentary went above and beyond the political leaders to reach the hearts and minds of those existing inside the ongoing conflict.

Michaelis generously agreed to answer questions about his life experience and perspective of the Middle-East:
*********************************************************************************

ILJ: Typically we focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but you’ve dedicated much of your career to minority-rights in Israel. Are minority immigrants from Africa such as the Sudanese or Ethiopian Jews second-class citizens in Israel?

MICHAELIS: Well I think it would be more correct to focus on the Ethiopians because they have the longer history but also to be sure about their capability to integrate into Israel. Because of a long history they’re not really always welcome in every place. It varies from city to city from school to school. The first generation especially doesn’t feel like they are totally equal. The second generation, which already is integrated in the army and schools feel they are much more welcome. So there is a generational difference. But legally of course they are totally equal. The issue is social.

ILJ: Is there a racism problem with Ethiopian Jews in Israel?

MICHAELIS: Be careful not to translate into American terms of black and white relationships. Because that is what immediately any American readers or anyone who studies the black/white relationship here would interpret it in this way. It’s not that kind of … there is no background of exploitation. There are issues of color of skin of course. But it varies again from city to city. And also depending on religious background, I’ll say that secular people are much more open to receive people from outside. People from a more religious background might have doubts about the Jewishness of immigrants from Ethiopia. So, I’ll say there is a difference of attitudes between people with a more traditional religious background and secular people.

ILJ: Why did minority rights in Israel become so important to you? Was there a defining moment during your youth that served as a catalyst?

MICHAELIS: I think it’s more about the education that I got at home. And awareness that once you’re a majority you have to take responsibility. The most important turning point in my awareness has been the awareness that we have been 2000 years in minority and we were always shouting and screaming about our rights. And once we became a majority we didn’t fully internalize the responsibility of a majority to be treating minorities not only on a legal level but also on a social level such as employment and housing as totally equal citizens. It’s very interesting what happens when you’re so many centuries in the minority and you’re still thinking as a minority when you’re fully in control of the country that you’re ruling. So that has been a major issue for the last forty years especially since Arabs and Israel became aware of their rights, foreign workers became aware of their rights, women became aware of their rights. It didn’t always go as it should go - the equal rights perception not only on a religious level but also on the day-to-day level.

ILJ: Would you say that minorities have viable representation in Israeli politics?

MICHAELIS: Yeah, viable in terms of representation in the parliament - yes. But are they planted really in the power center, the financial power center, the political power center? That’s a very different story. When people vote minorities into … the Israeli Knesset as you know has many different parties and many chances for different voices to be heard. But does that translate into equal treatment? That’s another issue.

ILJ: Moving on to another topic. Did your work on “Occupied Minds” make you more or less optimistic for the prospects of peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

MICHAELIS: Well, since the film was actually done during the Intifada when things were in such a situation of regression that it couldn’t of led to any clearer position of optimism. It was so bleak during the first four or five years – 2001 to 2005.

ILJ: Right

MICHAELIS: It was so violent that it made me more pessimistic actually in many ways.

ILJ: Are you still pessimistic or has your optimism increased in the past year?

MICHAELIS: No definitely not. Because I think the leadership on both sides is still not talking to each other and not seriously building bridges. And Hamas victory added another complication on top of the … if it was complicated before, the icing on the cake was the election of Hamas. It’s become really very dicey. Both sides are exhausted from the fighting and that is the only positive thing I can say. It is not as violent as it used to be.

ILJ: How do you think the international community should deal with the newly elected Hamas government? Should they wait until Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist and only talk to President Abbas? Or is it better to engage Hamas now?

MICHAELIS: Better to engage them now. But it depends how. Not to make promises but to try to find political inroads through a Palestinian coalition to encourage them to work as one unity government between Abu Mazen and Hamas. So in this situation you can’t have an easy solution. It was surprised it won – the Hamas I mean. Until they figure out their act, until they will understand the responsibilities of being in government. This will take time. Everyone is counting weeks and months. I think it will take a year for the Palestinians themselves to figure out how they cope with each party inside the Palestinian social structure.

ILJ: Are the Palestinians poised for civil war between Hamas and Fatah? What would the consequences of a civil war between those two factions be?

MICHAELIS: That would be terrible. It would be a very bad outcome for the democratic process inside the Palestinian Authority territories. I think that “poised” is … I’m not sure is the right term. I think there is a power struggle but it will shy away from an open civil war. That is my assessment.

ILJ: Until the Palestinians sort out their political turmoil, what options do the Israelis have beyond unilateral disengagement?

MICHAELIS: What they should’ve done some time ago is to realize that there are leaders such as Abu Mazen and others who are really very keen to talk and avoid unilateral steps. This has not been related too seriously neither by Sharon and not by Olmert. They’re not taking any constructive steps really to talk to them. They’re walling them off. There is no dialogue. Instead of unilateral steps you can start a dialogue with people you can talk to. And it’s not happening.

ILJ: Does Abbas have any political capital in Palestine to be able to deliver peace and be a viable partner for the Israelis to engage with?

MICHAELIS: He has some. I don’t know how much. I don’t know how much capital he has. He definitely has some because people don’t want to starve. People don’t want to be cut off from foreign aid. People realize that it’s best not to be closed behind a Gaza prison and closed behind an Israeli wall. There is some hope that he would be the only sane guy with the only sane group of people who will try to mediate inside Palestine. But I can’t assess how much capital he has.

ILJ: Do you consider yourself a Zionist?

MICHAELIS: Yeah, a minimalist (laughs). I would say I think that Israel should be a land of minimal injustice. Because from the getgo it’s obvious that when you fight for the same piece of land there will be injustice. So try to be more realistic and just about what you’re doing. It took Mr. Olmert almost forty years to say, excuse me I don’t think I can hold all these territories and all these settlements. So, forty years is a very normal pace for the Middle-East. People change very slowly. But if you look at it from a western point of view forty years is a long time to learn lessons. We could have been spared lots of bloodshed if many people gave up their greater land dreams ages ago. But it doesn’t work that way apparently in real life.

ILJ: Golda Meir once said there will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours.

MICHAELIS: Oh my God yeah. It’s part of the demonization. Arab leaders
would say that when Israelis start to understand what a refugee is … it’s sloganeering. It’s demonizing the other side, which has proven to be destructive. So this kind of “they would love” and “they would hate.” It’s simplification and painting black and white colors about everyone and it’s very dangerous and very destructive.

ILJ: Do you have any sources informing you about what is happening inside Iran? Have you heard anything about a viable dissident movement for democracy emerging?

MICHAELIS: First of all I can tell you that my only alternative sources for information that I know there, are bloggers like you (laughs), active in Iran. And they are writing and they are expressing themselves. But I don’t really have any special information of how big this movement is and how serious it is.

ILJ: Regardless of whether you supported President Bush’s war in Iraq or not, is a sovereign democracy truly achievable there as well as a positive ripple effect for the Mid-East? Or has President Bush condemned the Iraqis to decades of sectarian violence and terrorism?

MICHAELIS: Very risky venture because he walked into a society and didn’t understand what their rules are and what their history is. And by walking into something where you’re like an elephant in a china chop you create a whole mess, but I don’t know if he “condemned” them to it. That’s a strong term. But he definitely created a tribal and nationalistic and religious based mess that will take a long time to resolve. You can’t transplant democracy into tribal societies by force or by torture or through the gun. You know there is an old saying, that you can fight with a bayonet, you can’t sit on it. So, basically he’s trying to sit on a bayonet which is really impossible. Not advisable for you to try.

ILJ: What is the most common misconception you encounter about Israel and the Mid-East?

MICHAELIS: Two different kinds of misconceptions. Misconception that is the easiest to point out is that the Israeli-Palestinian fight is a symmetrical conflict -which is totally wrong. I come from a country that has nuclear power. Very well financed armed forces. And science is far ahead. And is fighting a country with a third world economy and third world weapons. And it’s totally a fight between … it’s not equal. So I don’t say who is just or unjust but just in terms of force and power, the misconception I hear many times is “oh this side is this,” “this side is that,” as if the fight is equal. But it’s very unequal.

And about the Mid-East the biggest misconceptions are more in terms of ignorance. Knowing what the Muslim religion is about. What the differences between the Muslim countries are. When I tell people the Iraqi president is actually friendly to Israel they say, why? Why would an Arab be friendly to Israel and I say he’s not an Arab. He’s a Kurd. And the Kurds have a long relationship with Israel. And people don’t realize what it means. The internal divisions in terms of not just tribes but in terms of history of people. The Kurdish people have a long history. They are part of Iraq now because of the British division of making borders on the map. And it’s very unclear if Iraq can function like that. And people just don’t know.

I think many people believe Iran is an Arab country, which it isn’t. It has 5000 years of Persian history. So the misconceptions are more in the direction of ignorance and understanding the cultural, political, linguistic and religious differences between the different groups in the Mid-East. It’s not one blob (laughs). It’s not just one big mess. You have to know who’s who. And why.

And I think we Israelis often many times always talk about “the Arabs” It’s not such a simple a thing to talk about the Arab world.

That’s the work I’m doing on television in the Mosiac program. We compare every day for thirty minutes different points of view on the conflicts and the issues as broadcast by secular young women on TV in Lebanon and deeply religious preachers in Saudi Arabia. So it’s the way someone might say the Canadians and Americans and all the North Americans are all the same. It’s ignorance if you don’t’ see the different colors. It’s not all one color.

ILJ: You mention the Mosaic program. It’s fascinating and I’m providing a link for it on this posting (click here). Watching the recent broadcasts about Zarqawi I was struck how Jordanian television almost seemed like Fox News in a way.

MICHAELIS: Yeah. (laughs)

ILJ: The anchor was going out of his way to explicitly say Zarqawi did not represent the principles of Islam. And so forth …

MICHAELIS: Well he was clearly an enemy of the king and the kingdom and the concept of Jordan as it is. He was an enemy of the state. Grew up in Jordan. When someone from your own country turns against you, you become even more hostile than usual. He wasn’t an outside enemy. Someone who knew Jordan very well. Someone released from the prisons a few years ago. So they were definitely very, very hostile to him. So you were struck in the right way. This is more than Egypt but I don’t know who you were comparing it to. But for Jordan, Zarqawi was a major target because he would also encourage the people of Jordan to rebel. And that’s the last thing they wanted.

ILJ: Do you believe there was sympathy for Zarqawi among the people of Jordan?

MICHAELIS: I really don’t know. Basically in it’s tone it’s a very moderate country. Fanaticism is not welcome there. But I’m sure he had some people who sympathized with him either because they don’t like the king or they liked to side against the Americans. So I’m sure he had some followers. But I can’t tell you how big or small.

ILJ: How have your views about Israel’s place in the world changed during your life? And how has your views of the Palestinian people changed during your life?

MICHAELIS: Oh! You have to read my biography. Three volumes! (laughs). I’m joking but it’s a big question. Basically, I don’t know if you saw some of the “Occupied Minds” film … my views have changed mainly after ’67. Because before ’67, I believed all Arabs are the same and they’re our enemies and and there is no one to relate to. And in ’67 they came under our occupation and I was part of the occupying army in the West Bank … I went into the villages and I went into the homes of people. Of course it was in my army service but then also as a journalist and I learned who the Palestinian people are and what their story is.

And that changed me radically in my way … and I thought well I have to coexist with these people. They’re not anonymous people or Jew haters as Gold Meir defined them. They are people on the same land and we have to give them a rising chance to exist. And I with other people, since ’68, immediately like, a year after the war we said if we start settling in this land it means we have ambitions for land and not for peace. And so I have not changed one inch since ’68 to today. I still think and as I said it took Olmert 40 years ... it was one of the biggest mistakes that we’re paying for until now. To not relate to them as equals with rights and settle on their land beyond the ’67 borders. This was a turning point for me in a major way.

*********************************************************************************
The ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians is a flash point for all that is wrong with humanity. Two aggrieved peoples are unable to peacefully co-exist on a small piece of land. As Michaelis pointed out, this conflict is not equal in terms of force. Israel clearly holds the upper hand militarily. Both societies however appear to lack an indispensable ingredient for peace: empathy for the other. Without empathy, a just and peaceful resolution appears beyond the grasp of my lifetime.

Perhaps, one may find hope in the example of David Michaelis himself. As he noted, Michaelis served in the Israeli army in 1967. The experience however did not dehumanize him. Instead, he became an advocate for human rights. As Americans are learning, soldiers of an occupation can be dehumanized very quickly. Also, the example of his partner Jamal Dajani merits respect. Dajani became friends with someone he easily could’ve viewed as an occupier of his people. Both men learned to see the other as more than clichéd abstractions but as individual human beings. They built a visceral bridge, which is far stronger than any diplomatic piece of paper, or agreement could ever be. It is the bridges of individuals such as Michaelis and Dajani that must become the building blocks for peace.
******************************************************************************
SIDEBAR: On May 20th, author Robert Fuller agreed to an interview on this blog about his new book, "All Rise" and the quest to replace "rankism" with a "dignitarian culture." He is also responsible for introducing me to David Michaelis. Mr. Fuller will be attending a publicity event for his book at the KGB Bar in New York City on Tuesday, June 20th. The address is 85 East 4th Street and the event is scheduled between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM.

Bush Yoyos While the U.S. Burns: An Interview With Economist Jared Bernstein

The conservative shift in American politics undermined the economic security of working people. Increasingly, individuals are absorbing more risks, working longer hours and earning less. Meanwhile, corporations and government benefit from less accountability to tax payers, consumers and employees. Renowned economist Jared Bernstein proposes in his new book, All Together Now: Common Sense For A Fair Economy, (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.) that we're ensnared in a "YOYO economy". The acronym YOYO means, "You're On Your Own." Bernstein's book illustrates how the "YOYOists" have schemed to transfer the burden of economic risk onto individuals and their families.

Former Senator John Edwards said that,

"Jared Bernstein provides a smart look at the American economy, one deeply rooted in American values. All Together Now explains the importance of having an economy that puts people first and ensures a fair shake for all."

Bernstein draws on his experience as an economic policy analyst to reveal that the majority of Americans are fed up with the "hyper-individualism" ethos promoted by corporatists and the political class. From health care to globalization, Bernstein maintains that Americans yearn to replace our YOYO economy with a society based on the values of "WITT" (We're All In This Together"). He presents both an economic plan and political strategy to alleviate the burdens of risk from working people and their families.

Bernstein also provides anecdotes from focus groups he helped run in the Midwest and South on the economic challenges confronting middle-income families. His encounters have persuaded Bernstein the public is ready to embrace an agenda that balances the burdens of risk:

"For a beltway wonk like myself, the discussions were revealing and important. Those on the project with more focus group experience warned me to be careful not to over interpret these results. After all, went their caveats, we ultimately spoke with fewer than a hundred people. As an economist with lots of experience crunching data sets with hundreds of thousands of observations, surely I appreciated the risk of extrapolating beyond the sample.

You'd think so. But I'm choosing to ignore their starchy warning and offer this conclusion, because my gut tells me I'm right: people are not nearly as divided along WITT and YOYO lines as you'd think, given partisan rancor, tight election results, and all that blue-state/red-state stuff. They, and by `they' I mean a majority of the electorate, see a role for both dynamics, and they feel the pendulum has swung too far toward YOYOism. They are thus open to a moderate agenda that provides them with the opportunity to get a fair shake. They'll take it from there."

Bernstein has promoted economic fairness on the national scene for over a decade. In 1992, he joined the Economic Policy Institute to direct their research on living standards. He is a widely published author in both the popular press and academic journals. Bernstein is also a frequent commentator for CNN and has been interviewed on PBS and National Public Radio. He earned a Ph.D in social welfare from Columbia University and is the coauthor of The State of Working America (Economic Policy Institute). Kevin Phillips, an esteemed conservative scholar praised the most recent edition:

"The State of Working America is the ultimate authority on what the American economy means to ordinary Americans."

Bernstein generously agreed to respond to questions about his current book, the economy, and politics.

***********************************************************************************

ILJ: Typically our national conversation about deficits refers to the federal budget. Aren't we also confronting a fiscal crisis in state and local governments? In late March, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report that estimates that new tax cuts in Bush's 2007 budget will cause states to lose $38 billion over the next ten years. By the year 2016 they estimated the states will lose $8.1 billion in revenues annually. How significant is the revenue shortfall on the state level for the national economy and what is the potential impact for society? Do we need a federal bail out of state governments along the lines implemented by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in the early days of the republic?

BERNSTEIN: I wouldn't say we need the feds to bail out the states as much as we need some grown ups to take charge of Federal fiscal policy. A key point here is that state fiscal problems are always going to be intimately connected with that of the federal government. For e.g., as the document you link to points out, many states base their tax collections on federal tax policy. It's an important example of how these reckless tax cuts reverberate throughout the country. In fact, I would argue that progressives should carefully follow the money on this one. While federal tax and spend policy probably seem pretty disconnected from people's lives, diminished state and local services do not. If the library has fewer hours, or the quality schools, parks, and roads are diminished by cuts like these, it will be important to tie such developments to the tax cuts.

The trillions of dollars of tax cuts since 2001 seem painless because we've not cut spending. So we're enjoying $400 billion more government per year than we're paying for. Of course, the arithmetic of all this is as simple as it is unforgiving. Unless things change in unforeseen ways (the baby boom finds a new planet to settle for their later years), at some point you either have to cut spending or raise taxes.

And of course, you can already here the chorus by policy makers: "We'd love to pay for all kinds of medical care and programs for disadvantaged folks and so on, but we simply don't have the money." I don't buy it and neither should anyone else. As my colleague Max Sawicky writes, "He who names the constraints controls the debate"

ILJ: Your book doesn't cover the bankruptcy legislation signed into law last year. Under the new rules an entrepreneur now assumes far more risk if his business fails and therefore has less incentive to start a new business and create jobs. Meanwhile, banks and credit card companies are assuming virtually no risk as they solicit cash strapped working people with poor credit history. Shouldn't your WITT program include scrapping the so-called bankruptcy reform passed by Republicans and some Democrats?

BERNSTEIN: Most definitely. It's a classic example of the risk shift that myself and others (Peter Gosselin, Jacob Hacker) are documenting. Like most such legislation passed over the last few years, it's basically structured to reduce the financial exposure of businesses, especially consumer credit providers, and shift that exposure onto borrowers. Look for the nation's private insurers to be up next at the Congressional trough for this kind of package. They're already engaging in a similar risk shift operation re homeowners in coastal areas.

ILJ: Do you believe nationalized healthcare would liberate small business entrepreneurs to create more jobs? Could universal healthcare actually serve as a job stimulus? Have you seen data from other countries that provide universal healthcare to suggest more jobs are created in the private sector when the government assumes the risks and financial burdens of healthcare?

BERNSTEIN: As I stress in the book, seeking a more efficient way to provide health care coverage is as much a competitiveness issue as it is one of social justice. Though I haven't thought enough about the large v. small business differences, there are a few ways in which smaller entrepreneurs would meaningfully benefit. First, compared to larger firms, small firms don't have access to a large risk pool and thus cannot spread costs around more broadly. Under universal coverage, all players access the benefits of large-scale risk pooling and avoid adverse selection. Second, as it is, smaller firms are less likely to provide coverage, and thus suffer a competitive disadvantage in terms of the quality of the jobs they offer. A universal coverage program would level that playing field.

ILJ: Do you agree with the new law passed by the Massachusetts legislature and signed by Governor Romney requiring all citizens to obtain health insurance? Will that lower the cost of healthcare or create additional hardships for the poor?

BERNSTEIN: I do support the new law. There are challenges to be worked out--will premiums be set at a level affordable to low-income families? But even in Massachusetts, in this day and age, it's tremendously complicated to build the political coalition to pass legislation like this.

Regarding the characteristics of the bill, I wouldn't get too hung up on them. Throughout our history, the state's have served as laboratories for what's to come at the national level. In my book, I argue for what I think is a simpler, more efficient approach to solving the growing problem of the uninsured: Medicare for All. But I'm all for an incremental, bottom-up approach for getting there.

ILJ: Where do you stand on the current immigration debate? Are advocates for a guest worker program correct that immigrants perform work most Americans won't do? Or is that merely an excuse so the business community can import cheap labor? How can America improve Mexico's economy so their citizens won't need to cross our borders?

BERNSTEIN: Myself and my colleagues at EPI have written on the topic on the Viewpoints section of our website, epi.org. I think `guest workers' are a mistake. I just can't see a rationale for creating a new, clearly inferior status for people who are living here and working and paying taxes. To the contrary, it sound like a great way to preclude economic and social intergration. No, there is no relation between where you were born and the type of job you might do--that's just political nonsense. True, if you degrade the quality of a job down to the point where only the most desperate person will accept the job, then by definition, only someone in dire straights do the job. Needless to say, that's not a basis for crafting useful policy. Re reducing the push from Mexico, read Jeff Faux's oped on our website.

ILJ: Is the immigration issue a potential wedge for your WITT coalition?

BERNSTEIN: To the contrary, it fits right in. The WITT agenda argues that we use the breadth and scope of federal government to might the challenges we face, and immigration is no different. It's important not to view this issue in a vacuum. One of the points I stress in my book is the importance of a full employment economy. We had very large immigrant flows in the latter 1990s yet wages were rising in the low wage sector at the rate of productivity growth for the first time in decades (click here for an op-ed Bernstein wrote about this topic).

So here's my program. A path to citizenship for those who are here already and are willing to work, pay taxes, etc. No guest workers, and we wrest control of the border by getting serious about employer sanctions.

Sounds easy, right?

ILJ: Are the doomsayers correct that the eminent retirement of the baby boom generation has put the future of Social Security and Medicare in jeopardy? Or is that merely propaganda? What needs to be done to insure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare for Generation X?

BERNSTEIN: First of all, in the spirit of my response to question 1, I want to be very clear that this is a YOYO framing of the question (I know--them's fighting words...let me explain).

Why don't you ask me if the future of the defense build-up is jeopardized by the need to provide a comprehensive, equitable, and efficient system to deal with the challenge of the baby boomers' retirement and health care needs?

How about, "Does meeting future health care needs mean that we won't be able to spend $280 billion making the estate tax cut permanent?"

If the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, they will cost three times as much as the Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years. Just the value of the cuts to the top 1%--about 0.5%--would be enough to offset most of the Social Security shortfall.

To address your points, I'd say Social Security is not in jeopardy in a fiscal sense in that some well-considered and worthwhile policy changes could ensure the programs fiscal health over the long-term. For example, raising the salary cap on payroll taxes would go a long way, as would embedding more realistic assumptions into the actuarial forecasts. (Click here and here to read two pieces about this topic as recommened by Bernstein.)

Health care spending, however, is on an unsustainable track, but it's not just Medicare: private sector health care is on the same path, and given the Promethean inefficiencies in that system, as I articulate in the book, it's even more scary. Since unsustainable trends are just that, something's gotta give. The YOYOs have a plan: Health Savings Accounts, designed to make us all better `health care consumers.' But as every other advanced economy on the planet has realized, market solutions alone simply won't cut it.

Here's an excerpt on this from the book:

"...the YOYOs think individual savings accounts and more head-to-head competition will solve the [health care] problem. That approach works wonderfully for millions of commodities in our economy, from pork belly futures to toothpaste at the drugstore. But access to health care is not a commodity; it's a basic human right in an advanced society like ours. So we need to take it out of the market and ensure that it's delivered equitably and efficiently. At least in this regard, we are simply not that different from every other industrialized economy that figured this one out long ago."

ILJ: What if the federal government funded a program to underwrite 401K pension plans for small businesses so all levels of employees from low skilled labor to high skilled workers could benefit? Is that plausible? Could we establish a system in which even workers earning minimum wage might have wealth generated for their future retirement? Why not combine the insurance provided by Social Security with a wealth generating initiative for the entire workforce?

BERNSTEIN: It's a fine idea, especially in combination with a strengthened Social Security system. The key word in your question is "combination." Savings, pensions, and Social Security are the three legs of the retirement stool, and all need strengthening. As a guaranteed pension system, Social Security is particularly important, but as you suggest, we ought to have a universal system along side to encourage wealth accumulation. There's tons of good work on this. Google "Individual Development Accounts" or look for the work of Ray Boshara at the New America Foundation regarding such programs for low-income persons.

Also, see the work of the Hamilton Project, a DC based policy group, on this point.

ILJ: Are there any policies or issues on economics that upon reflection you no longer hold? How has your views evolved and changed over time? Or has your philosophy remained consistent?

BERNSTEIN: I think my views have evolved over time. I certainly hope so! For example, early in my career, I think I initially had less of an understanding and appreciation for the importance of a well-functioning macro-economy. Like many in my field, I pretty much assumed that was "taken care of elsewhere" and that, except for recessions, we were always generating enough growth to meet society's needs.

I've come to recognize that over the last 30 years, we've often been underutilizing our human resources. Plainly put, we simply have not invested enough in quality jobs and quality skills to create the necessary opportunities for all our fellow citizens to realize their potential.

YOYO economics, as I stress in Chapter Two of the book, is a big reason. Here's an excerpt from that chapter:

"Today's economics also has two goals: (1) getting rid of the policy set associated with the old economics and (2) making sure that individuals are offered the optimal incentives, the ones that should lead them to behave in ways that, according to the mathematical models, bring about the most efficient results.

When the goal of economic policy makers shifted from full employment for the society to the optimal incentives for the individual, YOYO was born. Today, we're seeing the outcomes: greater inequality, a fiscally bankrupt government, the shifting of risk from the government and the firm to the individual, and the loss of the systems and institutions--like pension coverage, minimum wages, overtime rules, and a durable safety net--that insulated workers from market failures and inequities.

With this change in the thrust of economic thinking, the central question of economic policy went from, What can government do to be sure that everyone can contribute to and benefit from the available resources? to, What can government do to get out of the way? The former question considers the challenges inherent in national economies since Adam (Smith, of course) and points to collaborative solutions; the latter, especially when mixed with our unique brand of heavily lobbied government, ignores workers except to tell them, 'You're on your own. Here's a tax cut. Now go out there and optimize.'

It is extremely unlikely that we as a society will be able to implement WITT policies under the current economic regime. What's needed is a shift in the way we talk, think, and plan for dealing with the risks and opportunities in today's economy. The first step to building an All Together Now movement requires exposing the class biases inherent in YOYO economics and stressing the advantages of a different approach to government, economic policy, and risk sharing. A brief history of how we got to the present state of affairs should help set the stage."

***********************************************************************************
For too long conservatives dominated the market place of ideas by controlling the terms of the debate. Their communications infrastructure of think tanks, corporatist media collaborators and special interests machine has successfully shifted the center of gravity to the far right. However, five and half years of GOP hegemony have thoroughly discredited conservative ideology. Bernstein's book presents a viable alternative because it is based upon decency and common sense. What ultimately replaces the conservative era will evolve over time. Decency and common sense is a good place to start.