Author, Lecturer, Ethicist

Of Politics, Pauses and Penguins

Yesterday, one of my "All Politics All the Time" students at Florida International University emailed me a link to a New York Times article by Lesley Alderman entitled "Talking to Your Therapist About Election Anxiety." In her piece, Ms. Alderman who, in addition to being a journalist is a practicing social worker, reported onthe unprecedented amount of mental and emotional angst the presidential election is causing.  Ms. Alderman noted that "Therapists say that some of the issues that have emerged in this election — national security, terrorism, hacking threats, gun rights and sexual assault — play into some of our deepest fears and anxieties. Issues of secrecy — Mrs. Clinton’s emails and Mr. Trump’s tax returns — and allegations of conspiracies and a rigged election, have compounded some patients’ feelings of distrust." One of the therapists she interviewed, noting an alarming a growth in what he termed "hypervigilance," (checking polls every hour; staying glued to MSNBC or Fox) prescribed a sort of emotional "time-out," suggesting that people confine their campaign obsessions to, say,  an hour a day.  Many suggested watching comedies, reading novels or taking a walk as ways of minimizing the anger, the pressure and the fear . . .

And so, heeding their advice, I will take a brief pause and write about something else . . . a wonderful bit of feel-good news which has received scarcely a whisper in the media.  And, come to think about it, this story does have two political aspects to it: 

  1. The good that politicians and diplomats can do when they keep their eyes on the big picture and,
  2. How devilishly difficult it is to keep politics out of anything these days.

And so, without further ado, a pause in the politics . . . sort of:

This past Friday, New Zealand and the United States pulled off a major diplomatic coup by securing the support of 25 countries - including an initially reluctant Russia and China - to create the world's largest marine sanctuary. This Marine Protected Area (MPA), located in the Ross Sea, north of Antarctica, will cover 1.55 million square kilometers (600,000 square miles) of prized ocean.  More than twice the size of France or Texas, it will now become the world's largest marine reserve. Long a pet project of President Obama and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, the two, working in tandem along with their top-ranking foreign diplomats (Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry and Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully), it took more than six years of political and diplomatic wrangling to get all 25 countries that share governance of Antarctica to agree to the proposal.  In today's world of constant crisis and gridlock, this isa truly exceptional accomplishment; one, as mentioned above, which has gone virtually unnoticed.

Secretary of State John Kerry referred to the agreement as "extraordinary progress that did not come about overnight."  In explaining the pact, he stated, "It happened thanks to many years of persistent scientific and policy review, intense negotiations, and principled diplomacy. It happened because our nations understood the responsibility we share to protect this unique place for future generations."

So what is so all-fire important about the MPA? Well, to begin with, the Ross Sea is considered the last pristine ecosystem on the planet.  Indeed, it has variously been referred to by ecologists as both "The Last Ocean" and "The Polar Garden of Eden."  It is home to a vast majority of the planet's penguins, whales, seals and countless other marine creatures.  In size, the new MPA surpasses the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM) off the coast of Hawaii, which President Obama expanded to cover more than 582,000 square miles (1.5 million square km) earlier this year.  These two preserves will guarantee that hundreds - if not thousands - of unique marine creatures and water birds will no longer face extinction.  The MPA will also go a long way towards helping with global warming.  For if the creatures who live in, on, under and over the Ross Sea can survive and even prosper, it will help that fundamental ecosystem maintain its precious balance. 

It is regrettable that the politics of anger, fear, sex and conspiracy theories has pretty much pushed this major development off the pages of our newspapers and evening news.  In an era of extraordinary cynicism and distrust, such a "feel-good" story - regardless of how historic and truly meaningful it is - simply doesn't sell; to the peddlers of news and views, it is as outdated and saccharin as a Frank Capra movie.  

And yes, there are those who are against both the MPA and PMNM, and largely for the same reason: economics.  There certainly are companies and individuals who make their living out of fishing, trawling and exploiting the marine life of both the Southern Ocean and the Hawaiian coast - as well as disrupting the Arctic biome in the pursuit of oil.  To them, the expansion and preservation of these vast tracts represent a clear and present danger to their ability to make money and keep people employed. And, to be sure, there are those who persist in arguing that the "world's "eco-terrorists" care far more about what happens to Spheniscidae (penguins), Cetaceans (whales), Pagodroma nivea  (Snow Petrals - pictured on left) andPleuragramma antarcticum (Antarctic silverfish) than homo sapiens (human beings).  In reality, this is a false dichotomy; for if the thousands of species inhabiting the MPA face extinction, it will eventually and inevitably lead to the debasing of the planet.  And no amount of wealth or position will save humanity from a planet whose ecosystems are on a steady downward spiral.  Put in simple terms, a planet without whales and seals, penguins and krill will eventually become a planet without people.

Ironically, the day after the MPA agreement was announced, Jews all over the world read, studied or heard the opening chapters of the Biblical book of Genesis.  Why ironic?  Because within this reading is a verse (1:28) which contains God's first commandment to humanity:

פְר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ:

 

(Pronounced P'ruur'vu  u'meelu  et  ha-aretzv'khivshua;  ur'dubigdaht  hayamu'vofeha-shamyimu'vkhol  khyaha-romesetahlha aretz).

In translation, this first of all Divine Commandments orders humanity to ". . . be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it; and exercise stewardship over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the sky, and over all the beasts that walk upon the earth."  Now, there has long been a debate over how to translate two words: v'khivshua and ur'du.  The first, generally speaking means "and subdue"; the second either "and conquer" or, as I understand it "and exercise stewardship."  When you stop and think about it, here, in a mere two words is the eternal debate over the value of human life versus that of non-human creatures.  Are we permitted to do whatever we damn well please because we are the "Crown of Creation" (yes, I can hear folks of a certain age thinking about the Jefferson Airplane), or are we commanded to be stewards - benevolent caretakers - of all that God has created before our arrival on Planet Earth?  I firmly believe it is the latter; that agreements like MPA and PNMN are religiously mandated acts designed to preserve, protect and defend life on this planet.

Which inevitably brings us back to politics, that highly charged confluence of commonweal and self-interest.

But before we return to the hurly-burly of politics, why not pause for a few more hours or even minutes, smell the roses and appreciate the penguins.

 Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

There's Going to Be a Morning After

16 days and counting until Election Day. What is - or truly should be - of greater concern than November 8 is the next day, Wednesday November 9.  For as sure as God made little green apples, there's going to be a morning after.  The question is: what will that morning look like?  Will it be "Morning in America" or "America in mourning?" For if, as many suspect, Secretary Clinton is elected President without benefit of a Senate led by Charles Schumer and the Democrats and a far less overwhelmingly Republican-led House, it will be the latter, not the former. 

Already, we are seeing signs that Capitol Hill Republicans are of a mind to do to President Clinton that which they spent much of the past eight years doing to President Obama: erecting legislative barriers and roadblocks which despite being dangerous for the country in general, are no doubt pleasing to their political base in particular.  In other words, they are already preparing fora "Let's put everything on hold until 2020" strategy in the hopes that four years from now, they will once again be able to blame everything on HRC and the Democrats.  This doesn't say much about love of country; it does say a lot about their fear of the alt-right - the paranoid, xenophobic, Islamophobic, sexist concatenation propping up the Trump for President movement.   

Will the morning after find America with a Senate which refuses to hold hearings for anyone President Hillary Clintonmight nominate for the Supreme Court( something which Arizona Senator John McCain has promised) or pass even the most reasonable and necessary legislation without threatening to shut the government down?  Will the morning after see the 435 members of the House still being held in thrall to the will and political threats of the forty-member "Freedom Caucus?" Will the morning after be larded with even more arms, anger and anomie (viz. the lack of the usual social or ethical standards in an individual or group)?

November 8th will go a long way towards providing an answer. For if, on the other hand we, the engaged and thoughtful voters of this nation turn out in droves and provide our incoming 45th President with a Democratic Senate and at least a more manageable House, it will be - to reclothe Ronald Reagan's phrase in garments of progress - "Morning in America." 

For as long as most of us  can remember, it has been de rigueur to declare every presidential election "the most significant," "the most critical," " the most crucial" of all time.  I for one have generally taken the histrionic rhetoric with a grain of historic salt.  For generally speaking, in most presidential elections what we are presented with are not titanic, bipolar disparities of philosophy and world vision, but rather differences in policy, strategy and what, in an ideal world, each candidate would like to accomplish . . . until the morning, after when reality begins rearing its compromising head.  In every presidential election the party candidates do evince differences in policy, politics or philosophy . . . and frequently personality.  However, I am unaware of any presidential election in American history in which a wide, wide swath of the electorate fear - yes, FEAR - that one candidate is so manifestly unqualified, untutored and lacking in even a single nanogram of understanding as to be thoroughly capable of becoming a lethal blot on the American escutcheon . . . and another swath firmly believes that the other candidate is "the most corrupt" person ever to run for POTUS and should be sent to Sing Sing.

I for one refuse to believe we are capable of electing a man who will be an embarrassment on the world stage; who will be, in Lenin's old phrase, "a useful idiot" to our enemies.  On the other side, like her or not, we have a candidate who likely has the greatest governmental experience - in all three branches - of anyone ever to seek our nation's highest office. And if this were not enough to make the 2016 election more critical, more crucial than all others, there are even Americans who are so angry, so disillusioned and filled with fear as to want nothing more than to afflict this country by electing not a President, but a punisher. And, if he should not be elected, have threatened revolution.  Never before have we been faced with electing a president who cares about nothing and no one but himself; whose yardstick measures only in dollars; whose First One Hundred Days will be filled not with getting the wheels of government in motion, but rather in settling scores against all those who have offended him . . . and generally by telling the truth. (For what would he sue them? For Defamation or Definition of Character?)

We have it within our hands to determine if the morning after will be bright, sunny and hopeful or dark, sullen and fearful. It is within our hands as to what kind of country we wish to be; an isolated, fearful, armed-to-the teeth behemoth that trusts no one and thus loses its position of leadership in the world or an inclusive nation who continue trying to fulfill the Founders' strongest wish . . . that we form "a more perfect union."  We have in within our hands to determine if we will continue dreaming dreams of and for the future or demand we solve the "problems of 1984 by a "return to 1776."

Since there is going to be a morning after, we simply must do everything in our power to ensure it's the former, and not the latter.

Please . . . vote . . . and make sure everyone you know votes.  Do not answer their anger with a closed fist, but rather with an open hand.  Do whatever you can to help them understand that there will be a morning after - one which has room for all of us.

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Donald Trump & the Rise of the Idiotarians

With just a little over three weeks left until the election, it is crystal clear to any and everyone with a clear eye and a grasp on reality that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President of the United States. 

I know it. 

You know it. 

Speaker Paul Ryan - the highest ranking Republican in the land - knows it.

Mega-donors like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers know it.

Even Donald Trump knows it. 

And just like you or I, Donald Trump can breath much easier possessing that knowledge. For truth to tell, Mr. Trump never, wanted - much less expected - to become the nation's 45th Chief Executive. What he did want, and does expect, is the creation of a movement, a non-theistic empire in which he plays a role combining the beneficence of a savior, the omnipotence of a Caesar, the selfless tragedy of a martyr and a global reach which makes William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg, Charles Foster Kane and Tomorrow Never Dies' Elliot Carver [played by Jonathan Pryce - above at right] pale by comparison.  

Years ago, science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard purportedly said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion." That's just what he did; its called Scientology.  In Mr. Trump's case, his religion has  yet to find a name. I therefore humbly suggest that the religion - or movement -  which he has created should be called Idiotocracy, and his followers Idiotarians.  This would, of course, make Mr. Trump excors maximus, Latin, roughly, for the Supreme Idiot.

Idiotocracy is awitch's brew of anti-intellectualism, racism, xenophobia, shadowy anti-Semitism, sexism, fear-mongering and enough dog whistles to drive a pooch crazy.  While its Mt. Sinai is Trump Tower, its strategizing mentors and creators include:

  • The excors maximus himself;
  • The "Rogers" (Ailes and Stone that is);
  • Breitbart's former head Steve Bannon (who, more than a year before being publicly hired, proclaimed "I'm Trump's campaign manager");
  • Fox News' Sean Hannity, his mass media defensor in principibus (Defender-in-Chief);
  • Alex Jones, his coniurati in principes ("conspirator-in-chief"); 
  • The excors maximus' three his adult children.  

Trump freely admits that he does not read newspapers or books and that when not consulting himself, gets the lion's share of his world view from Fox News, Breitbart News, The Drudge Report, Alex Jones' Infowars and NewsMax. Not surprisingly, these sources allloudly proclaim that:

  • The 2016 election is rigged;
  • That the "mainstream liberal media" are responsible for all those women coming forth to "falsely testify" about Donald Trump's alleged predatory sexual history;
  • That a global cabal of "international bankers, corporate insiders and the Hollywood elite" are the puppet masters behind Bill and Hillary Clinton;
  • That both of them should be serving hard time - he for rape, and she for treason;
  • That Secretary Clinton is either drug-addled, dying or dumber than a bag of hair, and
  • That Donald Trump is all that stands between Western Civilization and its total destruction.

The above would be laughable if u\it weren't for the existence of Trump's beloved Idiotarians - the angry, under-educated nativists and ultra-conservative gun-toting white men and pathological Clinton-haters who thirstily lap up all his dystopian, psychopathic pronouncements, threats and "believe me" lies like alcoholics at an alehouse.  These are the folks that Secretary Clinton termed - somewhat inelegantly it is true - "a basket of deplorables."  Trump's scorched-earth-take-no-prisoners campaign strategy will likely destroy the Republican Party for good . . . which is not good.  Remember, in order for a representative Democracy to work, there must be a minimum of two effective, competing political parties. To only have one major, mostly united party standing alongside a handful of smaller religious and ideological "I-hate-the-government-let's-bring-it-down-and-start-all-over-again" factions, is highly dangerous, and does not bode well at all for the future of the nation. What Trump and his unholy disciples have so blithely and assiduously created is an America peopled with Idiotarians: a permanent cadre of angry, hateful, paranoiac populists who really, truly believe that Muslims and Jews, Hollywood and Wall Street, feminists and abortionists are coming to take away their guns, their Bible, their freedom, their country . . . even their lives.  It will now be up to the Ryan-led Republicans to figure out what to do; what issues will shape their post-election party and whether or not they will continue being obstructionists waiting patiently for 2020 instead of sucking it up and becoming willing collaborators and compromisers.  In short, will they be able to put patriotism ahead of partisanship - especially when their political label has become all but indefinable, not to mention indefensible? 

Trump and the other leaders of the Idiotocracy have set the stage for a permanent revolution of the disgruntled and credulous Idiotarians by convincing them that should their messiah go down to defeat on November 8, it will only be because the election was rigged by the forces of darkness. They can already perceive the devil's own sulfurous stench emanating from the likes of the Clintons, Sidney and Max Blumenthal, George Soros and the unholy Hollywood elite. (I wonder how many can give even a one-sentence i.d. of Soros or the Blumenthals, let alone state what makes them so "terribly powerful and malevolent.")

The rise of the Idiotarians will make the next four years as difficult and politically contentious - if notmore so - than the previous eight.  For just as Barack Obama entered the White House bearing a label marked "illegitimate," so too will Hillary Clinton.  In Obama's case, it dealt with the question of citizenship; of whether he was a native-born American and thus Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.  In Clinton's it will be - from day one - whether she was legally elected; whether her ascension was only made possible by the machinations of a Satanic conspiracy.  And Donald Trump - who to a great degree was the father of "Birtherism," will likewise be the father of this next paranoiac bit of insanity.   While a majority of Americans will likely reject the notion of Hillary Clinton's illegitimacy, there will be the excors maximus' creation - the Idiotarians - who will continue the revolution against reality.  Likely, they will get their news and views from a yet unbornmedia empire that will proudly brandish the Trump label.

As for the Republicans, they will be left with the shards and slivers of a party which until recently proudly proclaimed itself to be "the party of Lincoln."  And to some extent, these shards and slivers are their own damned fault.  For they are the ones who - either through political cowardice or moral timidity - refused to clearly state that Donald Trump was a fraud, a megalomaniac and definitely not worthy of anyone's vote, let alone serious consideration.  But aside from the detritus which was once called the G.O.P., there is the far greater worry about all the committed Idiotarians who have seen their savior, their messiah, Trump trounced by what they "know" are theforces of absolute evil.  Already, there are dire warnings of "pitchforks and torches," of revolution and even assassination, of essentially tacking an enormous bull's-eye on the back of the next POTUS.  And if, God forbid, anything happens to Hillary Clinton or any member of her administration or party, Donald Trump will be culpable.  For it is he and his henchmen who have provided the explosive rhetoric and handed over both the detonators and the matches . . .

Will this be Donald Trump's gift to the future . . . his lasting legacy?

Beware the Idiotarians and the Idiotocracy, for with or without their excors maximus (again, "supreme idiot"), they are going to be with us for the foreseeable future.   

May Donald Trump's name be included in the pantheon of the worst, most nefarious con artists of all time: Canada Bill Jones (King of the 3-card monte men) Charles Ponzi, Ivar Kreuger (the "Match King"), and Bernard Madoff.    

Compared to them, Donald Trump is not only the worst; he is the most dangerous. 

And in his own words: "Believe me!"

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Awaiting Matthew

As I compose this piece, the sky is beginning to darken and the wind is picking up.  Hurricane Matthew is inexorably building and getting ever closer to South Florida.  Precisely where it makes landfall and what devastation it will wreak is anyone's guess.  In the back of my mind I have this recurring image of Rick, Ilsa and Sam upstairs at La Belle Aurore, nervously awaiting the Nazi march into Paris.  At one point, listening to the pounding of "the new German 77s," Rick pulls at his earlobe and opines that from the sound, they are about 30 miles away.  Sam, pouring three glasses of champagne says "this will take the sting out of being occupied."  Rick clinks glasses with Ilsa, offering filmdom's most famous toast, "Here's looking at you, kid."  And they await the inevitable . . .

That's the way it feels here in South Florida; we are awaiting the inevitable.  Whether or not Matthew makes land in Key West, Ft. Lauderdale or north of Palm Beach is of little importance; the entire coast is going to take a hit.  Annie and I have done what we can to prepare: we have lots of water, a small "safe room," two dozen cans of tuna, kibble for Fred, canned treats for Shlomo, batteries for our flashlights, and a prayerful attitude.  That's about all we can do.  Having been through a couple of catastrophic hurricanes, we are veterans; weary, worried, and realistic.   

In Washington, President Obama has announced that Florida will be receiving all the post-hurricane aid it needs; Governor Scott has declared the entire state a disaster area.  I wonder if the Trump campaign staff is debating how they can blame whatever happens on Obama, Clinton and the Democrats. 

The rain is picking up.

As a native Californian, I have lived through a handful of devastating earthquakes.  As a nearly 35-year resident of Florida, I have also experienced more hurricane watches and actualities than I care to remember.  But you know something?  I will take an earthquake over a hurricane any day.  Why?  Well, despite the fact that both can and do cause catastrophic damage and there is somewhere between little and nothing one can do to fend off the inevitable, at least with earthquakes there isn't the added angst of counting down the days, hours or minutes until touchdown.  Earthquakes just happen . . .

The rain has let up just a tad, even as the winds are picking up.

Hurricanes and earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and wintry blizzards all serve to remind people just how ineffably awesome and powerful the forces of nature truly are; and of how infinitesimally puny we homo sapiens are.  For me, they also serve as a warning about tampering with the forces of nature, whether through fracking, polluting or a thousand-and-one other ways we assert our so-called dominion over the works of creation.

For the nonce, the rain has stopped and there is an eerie breathlessness hanging about the palm trees.

I'm going to sign off in a sentence or two and start putting towels against the interior walls of the sun room, taking Fred out for a brisk walk, taking a hot shower and a shampoo, and praying.

If you get a chance, and it's not against your sensibilities, you might utter a silent prayer or two for all those living on the Eastern Seaboard. And whether you pray from left-to-right or right-to-left; in English, German, French or Creole, in Hebrew, Arabic or Amharic is of little consequence.  We need it . . .

The wind is once again picking up.  The Germans are getting ever closer to Paris and unlike Rick, Ilsa and Sam, we don't have a drop of champagne to our name. 

What we do have are prayer and hope . . . as well as a dusty bottle of Courvoisier.

Be safe, be good to yourselves, and don't take any unnecessary chances.

KFS  

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Cramming For the First Presidential Debate

As I write this piece, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both likely tucked away with staff and advisors somewhere, preparing for the first presidential debate, which begins in less than 48 hours.  One can reasonably assume that owing to major differences in temperament, experience and what the preeminent sociologist Erving Goffman called The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life that the two are likely preparing in vastly different ways.  And although their goals going into this debate are no doubt the same- coming out on top - the challenges they face are really quite different. 

For Secretary Clinton - the ultimate policy wonk who has long been "the smartest person in the room" -  her challenges are to attack without overwhelming, to show a softer, more human side, and to somehow goad Mr. Trump into going off-message. It is all but universally understood that in comparison to Donald Trump, Secretary Clinton knows far, far more about policy and procedure. The question, however, is whether independent and undecided voters see this as a plus.  For Donald Trump - the ultimate political outsider whose penchant for bloviating and telling untruths is legion - the challenges are quite different: to present himself as one who is informed, reasonable and "presidential" without tripping on his own tongue, reverting to type, and thus losing or confusing those who support him because of his brash, hard-edged "just-one-of-the-guys" plain outspokenness.  

Expectations for the two are quite different; without question, the two will be "graded" on different scales.  Should Secretary Clinton receive an overall grade of, say,  B+, many in the press will consider that a defeat.  On the other hand, should Mr. Trump eke out, say, a C-, hecould easily be considered the victor.  Much will depend on debate moderator Lester Holt who, despite Donald Trump's pre-debate accusation to the contrary, is a registered Republican. The challenges for Holt will be even-handedness in asking questions, not being afraid to ask follow-up questions, keeping the candidates on point, and, to the best of his ability, separating fact from fable. Sadly, as with most presidential debates, victory will depend more on optics than facts; more on one-liners than pointed explanations. Then too, one can debate whether, in the long run, presidential debates really matter all that much . . .

Having said the above, and in preparation for Monday night, let's pose 18 rather simple questions that anyone running for POTUS should be able to answer. (And here, a tip-of-the-cap to Barbara and Alfie Liebman for being the "godparents" of this post.)  Answers will be found below, highlighted in blue.

And away we go . . .

Questions:

  1. What is the approximate amount of our trade deficit?
  2. What is the approximate amount of our national debt?
  3. Name the capital of Australia.
  4. What countries make up the loose confederation of Great Britain?
  5. Name the two bodies that comprise England's legislature.
  6. Name Pakistan's equivalent to our CIA, which played a major role in taking out Osama bin Laden.
  7. Who is the President of Venezuela?
  8. Identify, respectively, Jim Yong Kim and Christine Lagarde.
  9. Is ISIS at war with the Sunni or the Sh'ia?
  10. Where are the Straits of Hormuz?
  11. What year did Israel become a free and independent state?
  12. Who is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?
  13. Who is the President of the Ukraine?
  14. What is the "Nuclear Triad?"
  15. What is the nickname of the plane which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
  16. In what country did the military disaster known as "Blackhawk Down" occur?
  17. What is "Dabiq?"
  18. What is the average price of a gallon of milk in 2016?

Answers:

  1. As of July, 2016, our trade deficit is approximately $39.5 billion.
  2. The most recent accounting places our national debt at $19.2 trillion.
  3. The Capital of Australia is Canberra.
  4. Great Britain is a confederation consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
  5. The House of Commons and the House of Lords.
  6. Pakistan's equivalent of our CIA is the I.S.I. (Inter-Services Intelligence).
  7. Nicolás Maduro is the current President of Venezuela.
  8. Jim Yong Kim is President of The World Bank; Christine Lagarde heads the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
  9. ISIS is at war with (mostly) the Shiites.
  10. The Straits of Hormuz are in The Persian Gulf.
  11. Israel became an independent state in 1948.
  12. al Baghdadi heads ISIS
  13. The Ukrainian President is Petro Poroshenko.
  14. The "Nuclear Triad" is our the air-land-and sea nuclear delivery system, consisting of strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
  15. The Enola Gay dropped the A Bomb on Hiroshima.
  16. "Blackhawk Down" occurred in Somalia.
  17. Dabiq is the name of the slick English language monthly magazine published by ISIS.
  18. Today, a gallon of milk, on average, costs for $3.40.

 So how'd you do?  Did you have to use Google to find answers? That's OK, for although it isn't necessary for everyone to know the answers to these questions, it would be nice;  for this would mean we have a fairly worldly, knowledgeable citizenry.  But again, it is by no means absolutely mandatory.  When it comes to the POTUS however, knowing the answers to these questions - or at least being curious enough to find out the answers - is a given.  And, the state of the world is such that neither America nor planet earth can afford a POTUS who needs on-the-job training. 

Hey Lester Holt: consider asking a few of these questions . . . and don't let either of them go off on tangents . . . OK?

Enquiring minds want to know . . .

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone

"Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor . . ."

Without question, the vast majority of readers of The K.F. Stone Weekly are either the children of, grandchildren of - occasionally the great grandchildren ofor, like myself, the spouses of - immigrants.  Hell, with the exception of Native Americans, we're all immigrants . . . even those who trace their American ancestry back to the Mayflower. And whether your family originally entered these shores via New Amsterdam, the Canadian Border, Castle Garden, Ellis Island, San Francisco or - like my father's family - Baltimore Harbor - is not terribly important. What matters is that generation after generation after generation of the endangered, impoverished, dispossessed and downtrodden have come here with the hope of creating new lives; mostcame seeking a safe harbor, dignity and hope for themselves, their children and the generations yet-to-be born.

Running parallel to our centuries-old history of immigration has, of course, been a centuries-old history of fear; a fear that these newcomers - the "other" - were the dregs of society, coming here riddled with disease and criminal ways, intent upon stealing our jobs and forcing "us" to pay their way.  Times of spasmodic nativism, populism - "America-first-ism" if you will - generally accompanied each new wave of immigrants; especially if the economy was down, elections were near and politicians looking for someone to blame. It really did not matter if these newcomers were Irish-Catholics, Chinese Confucians, Eastern European Jews or today, Haitians and Muslims; they became targets of opprobrium for many, convenient whipping-boys for the masses. 

The more things change, the more they remain the same.  One thing which has rarely changed is that the charges levied against "the other" are frequently painted with such a broad brush as to be ludicrous.  Take the current debate over immigration.  Despite the fact that in recent polls showonly around 8% of all registered voters say that immigration is of "greatest importance in deciding how I will vote in 2016," it has been central to the rise of Donald Trump.  As a result of all his anti-Mexican, anti-Latino, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant-rhetoric-in-general, we've fallen into the age-old trap of believing - like people in the 1840's, 1880's, and early 20th century - that, as mentioned above these newcomers are flocking here with the express purpose of taking all they can get and plotting to do us permanent harm, all the while refusing to become "real Americans" or learn to speak English.

There are so many myths about immigrants nowadays:

  1. "Anchor Babies" keep their parents in the United States.
  2.  Anyone who illegally enters the U.S. is a criminal.
  3.  Illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes but still get benefits including free education for their children. 
  4.  There are more illegal immigrants here now than ever before.
  5.  Illegal immigrants bring crime.
  6.  Immigrants take good jobs from Americans.
  7.  Today’s immigrants don’t want to blend in and become “Americanized” and refuse to learn English.
  8.  There’s a way to enter the country legally for anyone who wants to get in line.

Regrettably, debunking these eight major myths would put me well over my self-imposed limit of 1,500 words per week.  For those who wish to be armed with answers to these scurrilous - and untrue - charges, check out the Policy.mic website.  The one charge I do wish to answer is number seven: that "Today's immigrants don't want to blend in and become 'Americanized' and refuse to learn English."

Those who claim this are, in the words of Grannie Annie, "full of canal water."

Most of us don't spend much time hanging out with newcomers.  Then too, most of us don't know too many ardent supporters of the Second Amendment - or people who are stridently pro-life (I prefer to call them "pro-birth"), or those who believe that building a wall at the Mexican border (and forcing them to pay for it) makes for sound foreign policy . . . and on and on.  In other words, people have a tendency to spend more time with those who pretty much share the same opinions and more often than not vote the same way.

As George Harrison wrote nearly half a century ago, "Isn't it a pity we've never met before?"

My wife Annie, who, along with her parents left Peron's dictatorial Argentina for America in 1969, has spent much of her professional career teaching English and "giving birth" to new American citizens through a program called "Project RENEW" -  Refugees Entering New Enterprises and Workforce. This program, which receives funding from a combination of local, state and federal resources, teaches English to adult refugees, asylees and victims of human trafficking.  More importantly, it teaches students basic life skills and civics, and prepares them for the day when they can become American citizens.  Over the years - depending on what is happening in the world - the majority of her students come from Haiti . . . or Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  In any class she might have an immigrant who was a skilled surgeon in their native country sitting alongside a student who cannot spell their own name because they have never attended a single day of school.  Many of her students enter her classes having come straight from the 15th century; they leave as full-fledged residents of the 21st.

These are people who work one, two, sometimes three minimum-wage jobs a day, who take one, two, even three buses to class, often arriving just in time for their 3-4 hour session with Annie, and then get back on the bus to reach their nighttime job. They are starving to learn; to become citizens; to make a contribution to the country which is providing them and their families a safe harbor.  They have little if anything in common with the stereotypical "illegal alien" who is here to steal our jobs, infect us with diseases rob, rape or blow us up in an act of terror . . .

September 16-25 happens to be "Welcoming Week," a joyous and hopeful time that I doubt Donald Trump has ever heard of.  It is sponsored by Welcoming America, an organization which ". . . inspires people to build a different kind of community — one that embraces immigrants and fosters opportunity for all." You've never seen a more joyous gathering than those times of the year when Annie's students, standing erect, tears in their eyes, take their oaths and become citizens of the United States of America.  And then, certificates in hand, they leave the auditorium where they are met by people who will register them to vote.

America needs immigrants; we always have and always will.  They are the ones who are going to provide a new generation of workers who will pay to keep Social Security going; they are the ones who will continue adding the one thing which has always made America exceptional and great: diversity.  We are not a "melting pot"; what we are - and always have been - is a salad bowl: an entity which is singular, healthy and delicious -- and in which one can still see all the unique ingredients which make it up. 

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone

The Calendric Hall of Fame

Depending on one's passion, ethnicity, nationality or field - assuming they possess one - certain calendric years crackle with thunder and lightning where the overwhelming majority barely twinkle with weak starlight.  For an example, to most people the years 323 BCE, 632 CE and 1215 signify little if anything.  Ah, but to a polymath - a cross-disciplinary scholar - these three years are among the most important in world history, for they are, in chronological order, the years in which Alexander the Great and Mohammad died - thereby forever changing the course of world history - and the year in which the English King John agreed to accept the Magna Carta at Runnymede, which forever changed Western jurisprudence. To a baseball fan, 1927 looms large for this was the year Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs while playing on what many aficionados consider the greatest team of all time.  But to those of different passions,  1927 was either the year made famous for Charles Lindbergh's solo flight across the Atlantic (thereby making the planet a smaller place), or Warner Brothers' release of The Jazz Singer, which ushered in the "talkie revolution" in motion pictures, thereby forever changing communications. 

For Jewish people, 1948 is the year the modern State of Israel came into existence. (As an ironic footnote, 1948 on the Jewish calendar - which is less than a month away from entering 5777, and was thus 3,829 years ago - this 1948 was the year in which the first Hebrew, Abraham the son of Terach - was born). Then there are years which can be all but universally identified in a word or two or three: - like 1492 (Columbus, Exploration):  1776 (Jefferson, Madison, Independence); 1969 (Woodstock, Neil Armstrong, the deaths of the 3 27-year old "J's" - Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison); and 1984 (Orwell, Dystopia, Big Brother).  The latter, of course, is not a real year on the calendar, but rather the title of a novel portraying an eerie surrealism which to this day is referred to as "Orwellian." 

What the years listed share is the fact that each one profoundly changed the course of human history: whether it be in terms of dispersion and conquest (332 BCE and 632 CE); freedom and human rights (1215 and 1776), the compression of planet earth (1927, and 1969) or totalitarianism (1984). Then too, there are a couple of days which draw an immediate response, such as the Ides of March (44 BCE) December 7 (1941) and today, 9/11 (2001).  

All of which brings us to a question about 2016: namely, will it eventually be added to the roster of watershed years which, as stated above, profoundly and irrevocably changed the course of human history?  


There are still 58 days left until America goes to the polls and elects its next president, as well as House, Senate, Governors and state legislatures.  Without question, this presidential cycle has been the most cynical, childish, churlish, derisive - and least edifying - in American history. Ironically, it is a race between perhaps the most and - unquestionably least - qualified candidates since 1790.  It has been so filled with lies and quarter truths, distortions and fear-for-fear's sake strategies as to make even the most gnarled, wizened politico wince in pain. What makes the 2016 race and its potential for "enshrinement" in the Calendric Hall of Fame, isn't so much who the candidates were and who eventually won, but the very weltanschauung of the people and the nation which went to the polls.  For clearly, there is a growing faction in this country that is becoming increasingly unrecognizable.

We have reached a point in American politics where personality has outpaced platform and the spotlight so glaring, so omnipresent, as to turn every misstep, every misstatement into a screaming 80-point headline.  (n.b.: With regards to platforms, the Associated Press recently reported “Trump’s campaign has posted just seven policy proposals on his website, totaling just over 9,000 words. There are 38 on [Democratic candidate Hillary] Clinton’s “issues” page, ranging from efforts to cure Alzheimer’s disease to Wall Street and criminal justice reform, and her campaign boasts that it has now released 65 policy fact sheets, totaling 112,735 words.”)  It is likely that no future presidential (or congressional or gubernatorial) candidate will ever again enjoy high favorability ratings.  Instead of being received as human beings who succeed and fail, have strengths and weaknesses and can run on their record, they will be perceived as either the embodiment of good or the paradigm of evil.   

For nearly a century - since the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918 - most of the world has looked to America for leadership in times of chaos, steadfastness in times of international anomie, and defense in days of destruction. Indeed, for nearly a century, the United States of America has been, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "the last best hope of earth."  But today, in 2016, there is a haunting, daunting, creeping super-nationalism pervading many of our people.  At the same time, we are witness to a growing cadre of so-called leaders who stand mute to the largely unschooled, untutored voices screaming out in favor of blood, spoil, oil and old-fashioned "America First" nationalism as the only "solution" to the admittedly challenging reality of globalism. Indeed, an unnerving number of our fellow Americans have reverted to an eerie 1840's-style "Know Nothingism" which, like their mid-19th century forebears, feasts on a diet of xenophobia, racism, outrageous conspiracy theories and religious fundamentalism.   The gap between those who are fully engaged in the political process and those who are enticed to "drop in for a visit" every couple of years continues to grow with every passing election cycle. Much of the world stands aghast at an America which, to a great extent, they no longer recognize; an America which might actually elect a president who has made positive comments about tyrants like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un; who has suggested that an illegal "To the victors go the spoils" type of imperialism is part of his international playbook; and who claims to have a plan for everything from destroying ISIS to getting Mexico to pay for the construction of an American Maginot Line.  But to make matters even worse, there are factions all over the world who see this candidate as a "useful idiot"; one who can be bought by a cynical compliment or a dollop of sugar for his gargantuan ego.  All over Europe and South America, we see the rise of hard-right political factions likewise undergirded by nationalism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and FEAR. 

In the early nineteenth century, the Austrian statesman/politician Klemens von Metternich, in summing up the post-Napoleonic spate of revolutions, famously stated "When France sneezes, Europe catches cold." The 2016 version of this homely metaphor could easily be "When the Donald bellows, the world belly laughs." 

Whether or not 2016 joins our Calendric Hall of Fame only time will tell.  And if it does, what will the reason be?  What aspect of world history will it have changed?  While no one can know, make no mistake about it: both history and the world are watching and waiting . . .

Copyright© 2016 Kurt F. Stone 

Sundowning

Over the past week, the national media has aimed a laser pointer at two seemingly non-related issues concerning Donald Trump:  first, the rather bizarre December 2015 letter written by his long-time gastroenterologist Dr. Harold Bornstein, attesting to his illustrious patient's "extraordinary health"; and second, the "nice and nasty" bipolarity of the Republican presidential nominee's long "immigration Wednesday," which began with a rather subdued, almost diplomatically correct  afternoon meeting/joint press conference with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico City, and ended with a fiery nighttime "10-point policy speech" before a frenzied, deliriously partisan throng in Phoenix, Arizona. 

With regards to Dr. Bornstein's hastily drafted letter, medical professionals and media mavens parsed and vetted every word, every syllable of his four-paragraph epistle as if it were a long-lost Shakespearean sonnet. In the end, the letter raised far more questions than it answered; not so much about Mr. Trump's overall health - which by any professional measure the letter did not truly address - but rather about the circumstances under which it was composed. Historically, presidential candidates' medical records are longer, more detailed and clinical than a mere four chatty anecdotal paragraphs, and typically are released not by a specialist, but by one's PCP - their "primary care physician." The letter, which Dr. Bornstein admitted was written in less than five minutes while Mr. Trump's limo waited downstairs, used some distinctly non-standard language.  As an example, he said there were no "significant medical problems" in Trump's history and that a recent examination "showed only positive results."  Anyone with even a smattering of medical awareness knows that "testing positive" is, generally speaking, not a good thing - like testing positive for anemia, cancer or Psoriatic Arthritis.  And while Dr. Bornstein's letter “state[s] unequivocally” that if elected, Donald Trump “will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,” it in no way offers a shred of diagnostic evidence for this assertion. I personally would love to see Mr. Trump engage in a one-on-one basketball game with Barack Obama, or challenge Theodore Roosevelt to a speed-climb up the Matterhorn.  Then too, one wonders why this letter has suddenly become an issue, seeing that it was first released nearly nine months ago . . . 

Then there was the matter of Trump's unprecedented "Immigration Wednesday," where he came in like a lamb down in Mexico City and went out like a lion in Phoenix, Arizona.  No one is sure why President Nieto even invited Mr. Trump in the first place.  It makes little sense for a man with a 23% approval rating - such as President Nieto has with his own people - that he should play host to a man whose public approval rating down south stands at a minuscule 2%.  Sounds like a classic "lose-lose" proposition to me. After meeting together privately, the two held a press conference, where Mr. Trump was effusive in his praise of our neighbors to the south and quietly - almost humbly - averred that immigration is as much a humanitarian, as an economic or security issue for both countries.  Not once did he bring up the issue of Mexico paying for the wall - a campaign bullet point he has loudly trumpeted over the past year. Later that day, President Nieto tweeted that under no circumstances would Mexico pay for Trump's wall.

That night, returning to Phoenix, Mr. Trump was back to being his aggressive, hostile, nativist self, blaming "illegal Mexican aliens" for everything from urban crime and low-paying jobs to a spike in drug addiction and the dangerous growth of inner-city gangs.  Speaking from a teleprompter - which until recently he asserted should ". . . be outlawed for anyone running for president" - Trump swore to his cultists  that he would deport "criminal illegal aliens" within the first hour of his presidency. (This, by the way, is already federal policy.) One can see the fingerprints - if indeed, not the hands and feet - of newly-minted campaign CEO Steve "the most dangerous political operative in America" Bannon in all this. For it has been Bannon and the folks at Breitbart who have been most responsible for the nativist "America First" ideology that pervades both the Trump campaign and much of under-educated white male America. In thinking back, this "nice-to-nasty" bipolarity is nothing new; Mr. Trump has been that way ever since he got into the presidential race more than a year ago.

In attempting to figure out what goes on in the mind of Donald Trump - of how he can be relatively lucid, engaging, even presidential in Mexico City during the day, and then so blusteringly bovine in Phoenix, Arizona at night, it dawned on me that perhaps that other laser-pointed issue - about his health - might provide aclue.  And here, I know I am wading into a bacteria-infected cesspool.  For while I am certainly not a medical doctor, I have nonetheless, over the past quarter century in my role as a medical ethicist, vetted more than a thousand medical research protocols and informed consent documents on everything from Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Ankylosing Spondylitis to Axillary Hyperhidrosis and Alzheimer's Brain Plaques. Again, I repeat: I am neither an MD nor a trained diagnostician.  However, I have worked alongside some galaxy-class professionals over the years, and have learned much.  All of which leads me to wonder if perhaps what is inexplicable about Donald Trump might not be caused by that which is referred to as either Sundowning or the Sundown Syndrome.  This syndrome has long been noted in people in the early stages of pre-senile dementia.  It is characterized by the emergence or increment of neuropsychiatric symptoms such as agitation, confusion, anxiety, and aggressiveness in the late afternoon, in the evening, or at night. In lay terms, the later it gets, the less lucid one becomes.

A bit of research into Donald Trump's year on the campaign trail reveals that many of his zaniest, darkest comments and accusations generally occur long after teatime . . . i.e. after sundown. Some of his most infamous post-sundown explosions include his repeating a long discredited rumor that Senator Ted Cruz's father, Pastor Rafael Cruz, was somehow involved in the assassination of JFK; tweeting that"Obama is, without question, the WORST EVER president. I predict he will now do something really bad and totally stupid to show manhood!" And then there is the ongoing puerile name-calling, which again, occurs in the evening.  In perhaps his most notorious tweet, Trump reposted a photo meanly comparing his wife Melania with Senator Cruz's wife Heidi.  The time? 11:35 p.m.

If indeed, Donald Trump is sundowning - is in the throes of early dementia - that would help explain his recent noticeable swings between daytime lucidity and control and his evening-time aggressiveness, bullishness and otherwise pathological behavior.  In writing this, I am in no way seeking to be smug or snarky.  Rather, I am concerned . . . terribly concerned.  We've already had one president - Ronald Reagan - who may well have been  in the early stages Alzheimer's Disease while serving as president.  Luckily, Reagan was a professional actor who knew how to work with a cast; a leading man who had a long history of relying on others to make him look his best.  To a great extent, this "cast" was able to cover for him even as he began moving from twilight to sundown.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, far from being a member of a cast, considers himself to be the producer, director, star, hairstylist and lighting designer all rolled into one.  Who will be there for him should sundown begin arriving earlier with each passing day?

Ironically, September is Alzheimer's Awareness Month.  And just as ironically, this is the month in which Donald Trump and his crew are hinting that something is wrong - terribly wrong - with Secretary Clinton's health, stamina and judgment.  Just as America has been demanding to see all of Secretary Clinton's emails and copies of the handful of speeches she gave before barons of Wall Street, so too should America demand to see Donald Trump's medical records and tax returns.  At such a crucial time in American history, we simply cannot afford to have a president who becomes nastier, more aggressive, craven and combative as the day goes on. 

Sundown should be a time of restful beauty . . . not fearful ugliness. 

Copyright© 2016 Kurt F. Stone

Got Chutzpah?

One of the chief joys - and supreme challenges - of writing a weekly blog devoted mostly to progressive politics, is going through the various comments sent in by readers. I must admit that for the first 12 to 24 hours after posting an essay, I am a wee bit apprehensive; like most people, I do not particularly relish being raked over the coals.  Most positive, thoughtful comments come with a screen name and email address; the most scathing and hateful are, generally speaking, anonymous and therefore not included on the blog's right-hand margin.  Over the course of a dozen-plus years, I have received enough "thumbs-up" email to give me the sense that what I write is not totally without merit. Then too, I have been attacked and vilified for being everything from a traitor and mental pigmy to a deluded, self-hating Jew and Communist.  One of the "favorites" is the anonymous soul who informed me that I - and "people of your ilk" - "represent a far, far greater threat to America than ISIS." 

Talk about chutzpah!   

As a blogger who has long made it clear which candidates I support and where I stand on any number of political issues, I am frequently challenged to respond to a comment, action or "fact" which may or may not be true . . . and occasionally are either fabricated or "trumped up" - pun intended.  Over the years, I have been asked to explain Barack Obama's having "bowed down" to the then Saudi King (Abdullah) or "apologizing" for America before a huge crowd at Cairo University; to respond to the "fact" that the president is a "white-hating racist"; to deny that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is "the most anti-Semitic, Israel-hating" presidential candidate in history. (n.b. All of these charges - among many, many others -  have been puffed and pumped by Brietbart.com, whose executive chair, Stephen Bannon, was recently appointed C.E.O. of the Trump for President Campaign.)

Normally, I don't respond to these requests-cum-demands . . . and for two basic reasons:

  1. A lack of time, and
  2. No desire to become a modern incarnation of Sisyphus, the cunning King of Ephrya who, according to Homer, the gods had condemned to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, only to have it fall back of its own weight. Historically, this is perhaps the most dreadful punishment of all: futile and hopeless labor. 

Having said this however, I will respond to one of these requests-cum-demands; not to change the mind of the political foe - which would be overtly Sisyphean- but rather to provide ammunition and bullet points for my political allies who may also be challenged.  The subject of the challenge?  Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and who's best for Israel.  The challenge began with an email I received the other day bearing the legend THE DONALD TRUMP VIDEO EVERY JEW MUST WATCH!!  The sender appended a message which said in part, Dear Prof:  I need a rebuttal (disagreement) on this piece before I send it to all the Jews in my data base. I at this time think Jews who love Israel, are better off with a loose cannon then Clinton. . . . I can never forgive her for Bengazi (sic) . . . Why would I ever think of voting for Clinton.  The email contained a link to the following video, "starring" the controversial Canadian media pundit Ezra Levant,  founder of the online The Rebel Media.  (For those who do not wish to watch the entire You Tube video (which runs 13:35), there will be a brief summary below):

 

 

 In a nutshell, Levant asserts that "real Jews" - those who practice the faith of our ancestors all support Donald Trump for president.  Those Jews whose connection to the religion ended with their bar mitzvah and are at best "only culturally connected" Jews,' are typical Democratic liberals who don't really care about Israel or real Jewish issues and will most likely vote for Hillary Clinton.  To Levant, when it comes to Israel, Jewish voters have only one choice: Donald Trump.  He backs up this claim by informing us that:

  1. All of Trump's children (save son Barron, who is only 10) are either married to or dating Jews. (Actually, Donald Jr.'s wife, Vanessa Haydon is the daughter of a Jewish father and a Danish mother .  .  .);
  2. That all 8 Trump grandchildren are Jewish (except for Vanessa's three kids);
  3. That most high-ranking members of the Trump business empire are Jewish;
  4. That The Donald was Grand Marshal of Manhattan's "Salute to Israel" parade in 2004;
  5. That he knows more about ISIS and how to defeat it than anyone in the world; and
  6. That unlike President Obama and Hillary Clinton he - and he alone - is willing to say the words "radical Islamic terrorists."

On the other hand, Levant continues, Hillary Clinton is an obvious anti-Semite who hates Israel.  As proof he asserts that:

  1. The former Secretary of State is largely - if not solely - responsible for the creation of ISIS, the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi (which he sees as a bad thing), and both the election AND the overthrow of Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi (both of which he sees as bad, which makes little sense).
  2. That her closest associate, the Kalamazoo, Michigan-born Huma Abedin is, in reality, a not-so-secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a protector of Islamic terrorists;
  3. That as a United States Senator, Hillary Clinton didn't lift a finger to support Israel;
  4. That as Secretary of State, she accepted money for "her" foundation from the Kings of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar and worked to make the Iran nuclear deal a reality;
  5. That she is "the most anti-Israel candidate ever to run for President of the United States," and
  6. That if elected POTUS, Hillary Clinton will be "the absolute death of Israel."

How to respond?

First, Levant, who I repeat is a Canadian and therefore cannot vote in an American election, firmly believes that Israel should and must be the central - if not the only - issue which should concern Jews in November.   Moreover, he declares that any Jew who chooses to support and vote for Secretary Clinton isn't an authentic Jew - about as obnoxious a bit of chutzpah as ever came out of the mouth of a supposedly sentient being. In the most recent poll conducted by GBA Strategies, a highly respected Washington progressive think tank and polling firm, Israel isn't the top concern of Jewish voters.  It actually ranked ninth out of 13 potential issues.  The economy, ISIS and terrorism and the Supreme Court were at the top of the list. 

Unlike Donald Trump, whose support and knowledge of Israel and the Middle East is far more rhetorical than real, Hillary Clinton has a track record going back more than 40 years:

  • In the days when she was the wife of the Arkansas' Attorney General, she introduced the Israeli-conceived "HIPPY" (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) educational program into "The Natural State." Today, this imaginative and highly effective curriculum is used in 137 sites and 22 states plus the District of Columbus.  
  • As United States Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton was one of the earliest supporters of Israel's right to build a security barrier.
  • Senator Clinton joined Palestinian Media Watch in exposing anti Israel and anti-Semitic biases in Palestinian schools.
  • In 2006, she cosponsored thePalestinian Anti-Terrorism Act to block foreign assistance to Hamas. 
  • She supported virtually every aid package for funding Israel, and was a vocal supporter for a two-state solution.

As Secretary of State, she

  • Helped avert all-out war in Gaza by negotiating a cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians.
  • Built and maintained a coalition to enact the toughest sanctions in Iran’s history. These sanctions were largely responsible for bringing Iran to the negotiating table, thus making it possible for the 6-state nuclear deal to be signed and enacted.  Despite the certain knowledge expressed by most Republicans - and more conservative Jews - that this brokered deal has been a failure, the reality is that in international relations, the efficacy of pacts of such complexity cannot be known for years.  In the meantime, Secretary Clinton has pushed for a "distrust and verify" modus operandi.    
  • Benghazi remains a difficult challenge for Secretary Clinton. Especially among her many conservative detractors.  And yet, despite the fact that 10 congressional committees have held more than 22 hearings (as compared to only 21 for 9/11), testimony from more than 250 witnesses, 13 published reports at a cost of more than $7 million for the Benghazi Select Committee alone, no one has found any culpability on her part.
  • Like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton also has a Jewish son-in-law.  Unlike Donald Trump, she had a Jewish step-grandfather, from whom, as a little girl, she learned about the Holocaust.

The above, of course does not venture into such areas as maturity, temperament, the ability to listen, basic knowledge and the ability to hit the ground running day one.  Yes, yes, I know: there are issues of trustworthiness and the possibility of indictments . . . for both candidates. 

But in sum, those who insist that a Clinton presidency would be the death of the Jewish State, or that those Jews who support her - as well as any progressive program or candidate  - are either inauthentic or Judaically  insensitive, are alas, giving new meaning to the word chutzpah.

Do I believe this essay will change the mind or position of those who believe Hillary Clinton is an Israel-hater? 

Sadly - and undoubtedly - the answer is "no."  I am neither that deluded nor have got that much chutzpah within me.

And yet, hope springs eternal . . .

Copyright© 2016 Kurt F. Stone

Taking the Time to Interview Our Brains

Annie and I just returned from several days up in North Carolina's Blue Ridge Mountains, where I gave a series of lectures at the Wildacres Conference Center and Retreat.  We had a marvelous time; the people - including the other lecturers - were both intellectually stimulating and enormously gracious; the food simple, kosher and plentiful; the temperature quite moderate, and the landscape (see photo) morebreathtaking than anything ever painted by Corot, Turner or Claude Monet. About the only fly in the ointment was that WiFi and cellular connections were all but nonexistent. It took about 48 hours to quit feeling guilty about whatever calls or emails we were missing, and begin to see in the "loss," a significant "gain."

What gain?

To wit, having the time to smell the roses, chill out, and be far more contemplative than our complexly-wired times permit.  Once the chilling-out process got into full swing, I found myself wondering precisely how to best describe in words (to myself or indeed, anyone else) what the value of this non-internet, non-cellphone interregnum really was.  During my spare time between lectures and meals, I read a couple of books:  Theodore Rex (the second in Edmund Morris' biographic trilogy of Theodore Roosevelt), David Lodge's novel A Man of Parts (a brilliant fictional biography of the writer H.G. Wells) and a collection of Raymond Chandler stories entitled The Simple Art of Murder. And there, in one of Chandler's short stories - Goldfish - I found the description I was looking for; a cloud-clearing explanation of the value of being mostly disconnected from the rest of the world. 

At one point in Chandler's intricate tale of murder, mayhem and missing pearls, detective Phillip Marlowe informs us "It was a quarter to five when I got back to the office. I had a couple of short drinks and stuffed a pipe and sat down to interview my brains."  Again . . . "I sat down to interview my brains."

There it was: a simple description of a complex. . . well . . . complex.  What our high-speed, interconnected cyber world has given with one hand - instantaneous communication, access to both the accumulated knowledge, wisdom and folly of humankind and the entirety of reality within 140 keystrokes - it has also taken away in terms of time to contemplate, cogitate, and consider what we think and believe before opening our mouths or putting our fingers to the keyboard.  Because we have, to a great extent, lost the ability - even the desire - to "interview our brains." As a result, we find ourselves getting involved in far too many arguments and disagreements.  Where once there was a dollop of civility about our debates and differing points of view, today we frequently, due to the necessity of rapid response, find ourselves getting angry, defensive and filled with animosity towards those who do not share our point of view. 

In ages past, anger and hostility grew at a far slower pace than today; the time it took to have an exchange of facts, ideas or opinions could be measured in days, weeks or even months.  Imagine sending a missive from say, Boston to Paris in the days before Morse's telegraph; the response could take months.  Then too, a charge or accusation delivered in a campaign speech delivered in one part of the country in say, 1932, might not be answered for several days.  Today, on the other hand, Hillary Clinton makes a comment at 6:05 pm in Cleveland, and by 6:06 pm, a thousand-and-one respond, claiming that she doesn't know what she's talking about.  It's crazy; no one has the time to interview their brains. 

During the week up at Wildacres, I spoke on two political topics - slightly shorter, more partisan versions of which have already run on this blog (ISIS 101 and Israel, the Middle East and the 2016 Election).  I also performed my one-man "An Evening with Sholem Aleichem." The two other lecturers also spoke on various political topics - all guaranteed to stimulate debate and discussion. At one point during the week, a woman came up to me as we were heading back to the lodge and wanted to speak to me about something that wasobviously troubling her.  She began by telling me that she was going to vote for Donald Trump because, "like him, I'm in the real estate business, though on a far, far smaller scale."  With both sadness and curiosity she told me that upon discovering she was supporting Mr. Trump, several people she thought of as friends,  got downright nasty with her and more or less ended their friendship.  "How in the world can you support such a #@%!! like Trump?" they would ask, further demanding that she justify her support right then and there. "How can otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people be so cruel and petty?" she asked. 

"The first rule of political debate or discussion," I told her "is to avoid beating your head against a wall . . . unless you're really in love with concussions.  Generally speaking, there's no case either side can present that will wind up changing minds or positions."  

"But why do people get so angry just because we don't agree on a presidential candidate?" she asked.  I told her that while ahl regel echat (Hebrew for "standing on one leg"), I really didn't know the answer, I certainly would think about it.  And I meant it; after all, didn't I, like Chandler's sleuth Phillip Marlowe, now have the time and freedom to "interview" whatever brains the good Lord gave me? After a bit of solitude and reflection - all the while reading a couple dozen pages of Theodore Rex, I concluded that it is our age of instantaneous response and its attendant "intellectual gratification" which, in large measure, is responsible for this unsettling impasse. Nowadays, the need to be "right" is paramount; expressing our beliefs and opinions as if they were facts from The Mount has largely replaced the free and leisurely exchange of ideas.  What I avow as "fact" you know is "fiction"; likewise, what you tell me is fact, I may well throw back in your face and call it fable . . . or even worse. In a time when search engines like Yahoo, Google, Ask.com and DuckDuckGo can pack more knowledge and information into a mere click than the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian and the British Museum can in one hundred years of painstaking research, is it any wonder that "interviewing our brains" has become as quaintly fossilized as teatime or the cross-country train trip?

Back in 1969, legendary writer Norman Mailer ran a quixotic - though highly imaginative and entertaining - race for Mayor of New York City.  Mailer's “left-conservative” platform called for a monorail, a ban on private cars in Manhattan and a monthly “Sweet Sunday” on which vehicles would be barred from city streets, rails or airspace altogether.  In that way, he said, New Yorkers would be forced to walk, bicycle or stay at home at relax.  And while Mailer did come in dead last (John Lindsay was the victor), he made a good point; that people should, slow down, take a walk and perhaps even "interview their brains." (It should be noted that toward the end of the campaign Mailer's running mate, fellow writer/journalist/dipsomaniac Jimmy Breslin told a friend, “I found out I was running with Ezra Pound.” Mr. Breslin was referring not to Pound’s poetry, but to his insanity.)

My suggestion is that we take a page from Marlowe and Mailer, and from time to time we all brew a cuppa tea (or like Marlowe and Mailer, pour ourselves a stiff drink) take a break, and interview our brains.  Or, one could take a trip to a place like Wildacres, where WiFi and cellular connections are as rare as hen's teeth, and as infrequent as Halley's Comet.

It couldn't hurt.

Who would ever have imagined that Raymond Chandler and Phillip Marlowe could be so profound?

Copyright© 2016 Kurt F. Stone 

Israel, the Middle East and the 2016 Election

Precisely 100 years ago – in the election of 1916 - Jewish voters, for the first time in American history, cast a majority of their votes for the Democratic presidential candidate – in this instance, New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson, who defeated the former New York Governor Charles Evans Hughes (who had resigned his seat on the U.S. Supreme Court in order to run) by the close margin of 49%-46%. Wilson did even better with Jewish voters, who cast a full 55% of their votes for the former Princeton College President. Ever since then, Jews have been voting for Democratic presidential candidates in overwhelming numbers. Over the past 100 years, Jewish support for Democratic presidential candidates has ranged from a high of 90% in the elections of 1944 (FDR vs. Thomas Dewey) and 1964 (LBJ vs. Barry Goldwater) to a low of 46% in 1980 (Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan). For the most part, Jewish voters have defied the accepted socio-historic understanding that as a group advances and becomes more economically successful and socially integrated, its members tend to vote more for Republican candidates than for Democrats. Not so for Jews; this aberration was perhaps best summed up by the late sociographer Milton Himmelfarb, who noted in his famous but nowadays politically incorrect aphorism, that “Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans.”

Over the past 17 election cycles (going back to the four-way 1948 race between the incumbentPresident Harry Truman, New York Governor Thomas Dewey (R) Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond and former Vice President Henry Wallace who ran as a member of the Progressive Party – one of the most important – if indeed, not the most important - issues for Jewish voters was the candidates’ and parties’ positions with respect to Israel and the Middle East.  In a normal election cycle, Israel – along with a host of other issues both foreign and domestic – would not only be well-known, well discussed and perhaps even well-debated – but would form a major determinant of how an individual would cast his or her vote. And up until recently, as already noted, the vast majority of Jewish voters have found greater comfort and security in casting votes for Democrats rather than Republicans: Mondale over Reagan; Dukakis and Bill Clinton over George Bush, Sr.; Clinton over Dole; Gore over George Bush the younger, and Barack Obama over both John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Over the past generation, with the emergence of Evangelical Christians as a conservative political force, the Republican Party has become more stridently and vocally pro-Israel than ever before. Indeed, in 2016, the largest pro-Israel group in the United States is Christian, not Jewish. As a partial result, the percentage of Jews voting for Republican presidential candidates – although still a decided minority – has risen: from 16% for Bob Dole in 1992 to 24% for George W. Bush in 2004 to a full 30% for Mitt Romney in 2012. Much of this increase has come from the Orthodox community which tends to be more socially conservative than Conservative, Reform and non-affiliated American Jews.  (In a wry twist on Himmelfarb's aphorism, writer Ari Goldman noted "Orthodox Jews live like Puerto Ricans and vote like Billionaires.") And due to the fact that America’s posture and position with regards to Israel and the Middle East has become of increasing interest and importance to non-Jewish voters – for reasons which may or may not be the same as for Jews – the debates, speeches and position statements have been more widely disseminated then during presidential campaigns in the past. In other words, comments and promises about Israel – the broadcasting of one’s Jewish State bona fides – are no longer brought up just before Jewish groups. Instead they have become a staple for both parties’ candidates in speeches and appearances from Bangor to Bakersfield, and from Sarasota to Seattle. This has become more or less de rigueur in a normal presidential election year.

But as everyone reading this essay understands, 2016 is not a normal presidential election year. Going as far back as a year ago, it was obvious that this election would be different – that we would be going where no national election had ever gone before. Consider that:

  • This would be the first time in American history that the American people would be voting to replace an African-American president -  and one whom a narrow majority of one party still considered to be illegitimate.
  • The Democrats would be making history by likely nominating either the first woman or first Jew to ever run for President on a major party ticket.
  • The Republicans would also likely be making history by nominating either the first Hispanic, first physician, first woman or first candidate without any prior political, governmental or military experience to be their standard-bearer.

Add to all this, the incredible growth in the 24-hour news cycle and the 140keystroke tweets which have shaped so much of modern society, and it was obvious that 2016 was going to be different.  

And now that we have the two major parties' nominees on board, we still have several firsts: besides the first woman candidate and first individual who is, from a political/governmental point of view virgo intacta (Latin for "anuntouched virgin"), we have two candidates who both have Jewish sons-in-law.  

Where in previous presidential elections, candidates would present their vision, worldview and the specifics of how they would, in an ideal world, deal with the economy, create jobs, protect the nation and exercise leadership, this campaign has, far more than any in American history, devolved into a food fight. Much of the political oxygen which heretofore provided the atmosphere for lively debate and the presentation of platform and position, has been all but been sucked up; this election has turned into the political version of a ten-car pile-up on the interstate – something ghastly and horrendous which holds our attention even as it nauseates our soul. Instead of intelligent discussions on jobs and the economy, war and peace, jobs and the environment we have, up to the middle of August, been fed a steady stream of charges and counter charges, of questions of mental stability, honesty, temperament and patriotism, and whether one – if not both – of the candidates should be headed for a penitentiary rather than the presidency.

As a result of all this, the issue of Israel and the Middle East has rarely, if ever been given a coherent airing. As a result, the best we can do at this point is review what the candidates – Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton and the parties they lead - have said and written about this crucial set of issues. Let’s review, in brief, what the candidates have said in their most recent speeches before AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee), what they said in their speeches accepting their party’s presidential nomination, and how their respective party’s national platforms address issues dealing with Israel, the Middle East and America’s role in the world. We begin with the speeches Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton delivered before AIPAC on March 21 of this year.

First, a sampling of what Mr. Trump told the overflow gathering:

  • My number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.The problem here is fundamental. We’ve rewarded the world’s leading state sponsor of terror with $150 billion, and we received absolutely nothing in return. I’ve studied this issue in great detail, I would say actually greater by far than anybody else. Iran is a very big problem and will continue to be. But if I’m not elected president, I know how to deal with trouble. And believe me, that’s why I’m going to be elected president, folks.
  • We will totally dismantle Iran’s global terror network which is big and powerful, but not powerful like us.
  • When I’m president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the U.N. to impose its will on the Jewish state. It will be vetoed 100 percent. You see, I know about deal-making. That’s what I do. I wrote “The Art of the Deal." When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one.

It should also be noted that earlier, in an address before members of the Jewish Republican Coalition, Mr. Trump caused quite a stir when he opened his remarks by informing the group “You’re not gonna support me because I don’t want your money” and then referred to everyone in the room as fellow “negotiators,” which some thought came dangerously close to brandishing a Jewish stereotype.  He then said he planned to be “sort of a neutral guy” on peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.  And, in an interview with the Associated Press,  he placed the burden of a peace deal firmly with Israel. “A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal – whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things.”

Next, a sampling of what Secretary Clinton said at the same AIPAC gathering:

  • As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever. The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values.
  • I believe we must take our alliance to the next level. I hope a new 10-year defense memorandum of understanding is concluded as soon as possible to meet Israel’s security needs far into the future. I will send a delegation from the Pentagon and the joint chiefs to Israel for early consultations. Let’s also expand our collaboration beyond security. Together, we can build an even more vibrant culture of innovation that tightens the links between Silicon Valley and Israeli tech companies and entrepreneurs.
  • We need steady hands, not a president who says he’s neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything’s negotiable. I feel so strongly that America can’t ever be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival. We can’t be neutral when rockets rain down on residential neighborhoods, when civilians are stabbed in the street, when suicide bombers target the innocent. Some things aren’t negotiable.
  • With regards to the Iran Nuclear Deal, It’s not good enough to trust and verify. Our approach must be distrust and verify. This deal must come with vigorous enforcement, strong monitoring, clear consequences for any violations and a broader strategy to confront Iran’s aggression across the region. We cannot forget that Tehran's fingerprints are on nearly every conflict across the Middle East, from Syria to Lebanon to Yemen. We must work closely with Israel and other partners to cut off the flow of money and arms from Iran to Hezbollah. If the Arab League can designate all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, surely it is time for our friends in Europe and the rest of the international community to do so as well and to do that now.

One can also glean a bit of knowledge as to what kind of role Israel and the Middle East is playing in the 2016 election by taking a brief look at the relevant section of each party’s Platform, adopted at their recently concluded national conventions.

First from the Republican Platform:

  • Like the United States of America, the modern state of Israel is a country born from the aspira­tion for freedom and stands out among the nations as a beacon of democracy and humanity. Beyond our mutual strategic interests, Israel is likewise an exceptional country that shares our most essen­tial values. It is the only country in the Middle East where freedom of speech and freedom of religion are found. Therefore, support for Israel is an expres­sion of Americanism, and it is the responsibility of our government to advance policies that reflect Americans’ strong desire for a relationship with no daylight between America and Israel. We recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and call for the American embassy to be moved there in fulfillment of U.S. law.
  • We reaffirm America’s commitment to Israel’s security and will ensure that Israel main­tains a qualitative military edge over any and all adversaries. We support Israel’s right and obli­gation to defend itself against terror attacks upon its people and against alternative forms of warfare being waged upon it legally, economically, cultur­ally, and otherwise. We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier and specifically recog­nize that the Boycott, Divest­ment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) is anti-Semitic in nature and seeks to destroy Israel. Therefore, we call for effective legislation to thwart actions that are intended to limit commer­cial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories, in a discriminatory manner.
  • The United States seeks to assist in the estab­lishment of comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, to be negotiated among those living in the region. We oppose any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms, and we call for the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so. Our party is proud to stand with Israel now and always.
  • It is the responsibility of our government to advance policies that reflect Americans’ strong desire for a relationship with no daylight between America and Israel.

Next, statements in the Democrat’s national platform:

  • Democrats will also address the detrimental role Iran plays in the region and will robustly enforce and, if necessary, strengthen non-nuclear sanctions. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. It violates the human rights of its population, denies the Holocaust, vows to eliminate Israel, and has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East. Democrats will push back against Iran’s destabilizing activities including its support for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, counter Iran’s ballistic missile program, bolster the capabilities of our Gulf partners, and ensure that Israel always has the ability to defend itself. Finally, Democrats recognize that the Iranian people seek a brighter future for their country and greater engagement with the international community. We will embrace opportunities for cultural, academic and other exchanges with the Iranian people.
  • In the Middle East, Democrats will push for more inclusive governance in Iraq and Syria that respects the equal rights of all citizens; provide support and security for Lebanon and Jordan, two countries that are hosting a disproportionate number of refugees; maintain our robust security cooperation with Gulf countries; and stand by the people of the region as they seek greater economic opportunity and freedom. A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism. That is why we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself, including by retaining its qualitative military edge, and oppose any effort to delegitimize Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement.
  • We will continue to work toward a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict negotiated directly by the parties that guarantees Israel’s future as a secure and democratic Jewish state with recognized borders and provides the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity. While Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations, it should remain the capital of Israel, an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths. Israelis deserve security, recognition, and a normal life free from terror and incitement. Palestinians should be free to govern themselves in their own viable state, in peace and dignity.

In reality, none of the above provide that much insight into how much the issues of Israel, ISIS, terrorism, the Middle East and shifting global alignments will play in the remaining 88 days of the presidential campaign. Candidates and their surrogates, TV spots, Twitter blasts and printed broadsides provide little more than what Plato long ago referred to as “shadows on the cave wall” - diaphanous images purporting to be reality. Those who live, breath, eat and sleep international issues and shifting alliances in the Middle East know that it’s an extraordinarily complex puzzle consisting of incongruous pieces, historic antipathies and mind-numbing economic, sectarian and religious issues.

So, which candidate is best for Israel?  A sampling of campaign speeches cannot provide the answer; generally speaking, they are little more oratorical dross disguised to sound like diamonds; trinkets costumed to look like treasures.  Likewise, party platforms provide little evidence; they are like classic movie-era screenplays where everything is peachy, children eat their vegetables, God's in his heaven and all's right with the world . . . just so long as you vote for us.

No, the place to look is in the column right next door to "Promises" - the one marked "Past Actions."

Where Donald Trump believes that it will be best for the next POTUS to be neutral in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, Hillary Clinton has, from the time she was First Lady of Arkansas, taken the best that Israel has to offer in terms of programs, ideas and dreams, and imported them to the United States.  She was an eye-witness to negotiations between Arafat and Rabin; she tirelessly fought for stringent sanctions against Iran - sanctions which eventually brought them to the negotiating table.  Donald Trump, meanwhile, perpetuated an age-old anti-Semitic myth when he superimposed a magen David, a Star of David, over a pile of dollars, a photo of Secretary Clinton and the words "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"  Secretary Clinton has earned the respect of leaders from Berlin to Baghdad; they know she understands their history, their worries and challenges, their animosities and dreams.  They also know she is a good listener.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, scares them to death; they have no idea how much or how little he knows about the Middle East, how engaged he may or may not be; whether or not he really, truly exists outside of the limelight.

Republicans are quick to remind the voters of the mess that resulted when President Obama drew a line in the sand regarding Syrian chemical weapons and then allowed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to cross it. Our allies relied on us, our adversaries (i.e. Russia) made their calculations — and Obama balked. The result has been a strengthening of Russia, a defeat of our allies in Syria, and, of course, the most horrifying humanitarian disaster of our current moment. 

This was a likely a mistake. 

Imagine, if you will, the impact of Trump’s wild, uninformed and contradictory statements on the Middle East. They would destabilize an already unstable region, destroy trust in the United States and further isolate Israel.

For example, Trump has said the United States should declare war on ISIS. Would that include ground troops in Syria and Iraq? “Very few,” he said in a recent “60 Minutes” appearance. “We’re going to get neighboring countries involved.” How? By threatening to end oil purchases from Saudi Arabia and other allies, which would create an immediate recession and alienate our allies in the region.

More broadly, Trump has wildly oscillated between extreme interventionism — putting troops on the ground in Syria, for example — and extreme isolationism, ending decades-long alliances in NATO and elsewhere. As Jeffrey Goldberg has said, “He has no understanding of the post-war international order that was created by the United States.” More uncertainty, instability and isolation — with Israel paying the price.

Supporters like that Trump “tells it like it is,” but the Middle East doesn’t need a bull in a china shop. It needs calm, careful leadership — whatever one’s ideological preferences may be. Will Trump insult the leaders of Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, destabilizing American interests in the Middle East? Will his bellicose rhetoric incite violence on the Arab street?

Who knows what Mr. Trump might say tomorrow?

Even if Donald Trump’s isolationism were to make America great again, it would do so at the expense of America’s allies overseas — especially Israel. Trump’s foreign policy would leave Israel stranded in an anthill that Trump himself has stirred up. Israel will be the primary victim of this instability, extremism, volatility and isolationism.

Israel will be the first target for reprisals — not just from a few Palestinian terrorists, but also from Arab armies and rockets. Egypt and Syria will soon resemble Hamas and Hezbollah: extremist, Islamist and violent. And for what? This isn’t a case of risking war because of some important objective or principle. This is risking war for no reason at all, other than the childish psychology of an American despot.

Will the Jewish community continue a now century-old tradition of giving overwhelming electoral support to the Democrat in the race? The answer is a resounding YES, for in a contest between Clinton and Trump, there is, when all is said and done, no contest at all.    

Copyright ©201 Kurt F. Stone

ISIS 101

An introductory note: In a few days Anna I will be traveling out of state where I will be delivering several lectures in a bucolic mountain setting.  In order to make best use of my time, I've turned one of the lectures - "The rise of ISIS" - into this week's blog essay.  If things work out as planned, next week's essay will be based on one of the other lectures - "Israel, the Middle East and the 2016 Presidential Election."

ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, stunned the global community in 2014 when it poured over the Syrian border into Iraq. Born amid the chaos of the Syrian Civil War, and post-invasion Iraq, ISIS represents an enormous challenge to the U.S. and world powers who seek to stop the spread of its virulent, terrifying and homicidal form of Islamic extremism. As America and its allies have begun tightening the noose on areas that ISIS controls, it has begun exporting terrorists and terrorism to Europe and by proxy, even to America. But even if America and its allies could defeat ISIS militarily, it would not, in all likelihood end the phenomenon of jihadism. Its rampage has been marked by war crimes which include the summary execution of battlefield prisoners including Muslims deemed unholy, the wholesale slaughter of civilians and genocidal policies towards ethnic minorities. Combating ISIS will be a focal point for the U.S. and its allies for years to come.

Like most contemporary jihadi groups, ISIS has its roots in Afghanistan. In the late 1980s, thousands of young Arab men – with the backing of countries like the U.S. and Saudi Arabia – flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. These men, who became known as “Afghan Arabs,” did not play much of a role in defeating the Soviet Union, but they did foster a myth, and in time, that myth would change the world.  A Jordanian thug, Musab al-Zarqawi (the bearded fellow in the photo), also known as “al-Garhib” – the stranger –was one of those who went to Afghanistan. Upon returning to Jordan in 1992, he was arrested. While serving time in a Jordanian prison he came in contact with the Islamic scholar Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, who would do much to shape his views and theology. Zarqawi became more religious under Maqdisi’s guidance, praying and memorizing the Quran. He also started to attract other prisoners, and fellow inmates started referring to him and his companions as the takfirisi - those who excommunicate - for the way they almost reflexively excommunicated anyone who disagreed with them.

When he was pardoned along with several other prisoners in 1999, he left the country, returning to Afghanistan, where he quickly came into contact with a growing al-Qaeda franchise. Initially, al-Qaeda was mistrustful of Zarqawi. He seemed overly focused on fighting Shi’a instead of the corrupt Sunni regimes and the U.S., which were al-Qaeda’s two primary targets. Eventually, al-Qaeda agreed to support a separate training camp for Zarqawi in Afghanistan that would recruit Palestinians and Jordanians. But it did not invite him to join the organization, and Zarqawi did not ask.  After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi fled first to Iran, eventually making his way to Iraq. In less than two weeks, Zarqawi had all but driven the UN out of Iraq and sparked a civil war between the country’s Shi’a and Sunni populations. In February 2004, Zarqawi officially applied to join al-Qaeda. In October, al-Qaeda accepted his request. But almost immediately, issues arose. Bin Laden and his deputy, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri wanted Zarqawi to tone down the violence, particularly when it came to the videos showing beheadings of so-called heretics. Fighting U.S. soldiers was one thing – killing Iraqi Shi’a was another. On June 7, 2006, a pair of U.S. jets flattened the house where Zarqawi was holding a meeting, killing him and five others.

In October 2006, Zarqawi’s group announced the establishment of an Islamic state, proclaiming that a man by the name of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was now the Amir al-mu-minin - the "Commander of the Faithful" - the caliph or absolute leader of the Islamic state.  Zarqawi’s successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri was convinced that the Mahdi - the Messiah - was about to return and he wanted a state in place for the apocalyptic battle that some believe will happen at the end of time. In his rush to prepare for the impending apocalypse, Masri announced the state and its commander – Abu Omar al-Baghdadi – before he had either. There was not a state, just al-Qaeda’s old organization in Iraq, and no one by the name of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. By late 2009, it looked as though the group had all but disappeared. The difference between al-Qaeda and ISIS can be clearly seen in this putting of the cart before the horse.

Then came the Arab Spring. Many of the same issues that animated those protesters would help fuel recruiting for the Islamic state in 2012 and 2013. Five years after the uprisings of 2011, little seems to have improved across the Arab world. There is still high unemployment and a great deal of hopelessness. If anything, it is even worse now, as the Arab Spring's artificially raised people’s expectations, implicitly promising that, if they could only get rid of their corrupt leaders, their daily lives would change for the better. But that has not happened, and the comedown has been difficult.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi issued his first public statement as the head of the Islamic state in early May 2011. At the time, little was known about him. Only 38 years old when elected to head the Islamic state, Abu Bakr’s real name was Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim al-Badri. Baghdadi (at left) earned a degree in Quranic studies, graduating from the University of Baghdad in 1996. Three years later, he finished a master’s degree and decided to pursue doctoral studies. But in February 2004, less than a year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Baghdadi was arrested and placed in the U.S.-run Camp Bucca in southern Iraq where he was held for ten months as a “civilian detainee.” (Many scholars refer to Camp Bucca as “the incubator” from which many ISIS leaders and fighters were hatched. In 2007, Baghdadi successfully defended his doctoral dissertation, and began to move up the ranks of what was now being called, at least internally, the Islamic State. When Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri were killed in April 2010, the Islamic state needed to find a new leader. The Islamic state’s consultative council was made up of 11 members. Because they were being hunted by the U.S. military, they could not meet in person. Instead, they relied on a clandestine network of couriers to deliver messages to one another. One member of the council, a former colonel in the Iraqi army, used this to his advantage, writing to each of the members of the council to tell them that everyone else had already agreed to support Baghdadi as the new leader. When the votes were counted, Baghdadi had been elected by a 9-2 margin.

By the end of 2011 as fighting in Syria between Assad’s troops and protesters worsened, al Baghdadi sent a small contingent of fighters across the border. This group, which he called Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front, was commanded by one of his deputies named Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani.   But, much in the same way Baghdadi in Iraq had quietly defied al-Qaeda’s orders from Pakistan and Afghanistan, Jawlani began ignoring his boss. Part of the conflict was the revenue from oil that was being smuggled out of Syria. But there was also a strategic gulf between the two former allies. Jawlani, siding more with the local fighters in Syria, wanted to prioritize popular support in a way that the Islamic state never had in Iraq. Baghdadi disagreed and throughout 2012 and early 2013, the two leaders conducted a slow-moving argument on the best way forward. Finally, in April 2013, fed up with Jawlani’s reluctance to overtly recognize Baghdadi as his commander and the Nusra Front as part of the Islamic state, Baghdadi went public.

On April 9, 2013, Baghdadi released an audio message announcing the formation of a new entity, which he called the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham. In his message Baghdadi explained that both Jawlani and the Nusra Front were part of the Islamic State, but that in the future only the name ISIS would be used. Jawlani strongly disagreed and pledged his loyalty to Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s successor as head of al-Qaeda. The split was now out in the open.

Baghdadi’s next move was to send more ISIS fighters into Syria, this time to fight both Assad’s government as well as their former allies in the Nusra Front.

Throughout the summer of 2014 Baghdadi continued to direct fighters to Syria, making good on his public claim of creating an Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham.

ISIS has, at times, in its past, been affiliated with al-Qaeda. But, since its inception, the group has had this different approach with different priorities. Where al-Qaeda focused on defeating the West and corrupt Arab regimes as a way to establish a caliphate, ISIS has concentrated its energies on killing Shi’a Muslims, whom it considers heretics. Al-Qaeda preferred a bottom-up approach, attempting to build popular support before announcing its rule, while ISIS has gone the other direction, relying on a top-down approach: as mentioned in the paragraph above, it announced the caliphate as a way of attracting followers.

Another way in which al-Qaeda and ISIS differ is in their interpretation and implementation of the Islamic concept of al-wala’ wa-l-bara, or "association and disassociation." This is the idea of associating with true Muslims and disassociating with everyone else. Both ISIS and al-Qaeda see this as a key concept, but they differ in their interpretation.

Isis takes a hard line view, disassociating from everyone who is not a “true” believer. This is one of the reasons, along with Zarqawi’s continued influence on ISIS thinking, for the emphasis on attacking Shi’a Muslims. Al-Qaeda, meanwhile, practices a more situational approach to al-wala’ wa-l-bara, disassociating from non-believing Muslims in ideal circumstances but otherwise trying to play down potential divisions within the Islamic community in order to focus on attacking the U.S. and what it sees as corrupt Arab governments.

On February 2, 2014, al-Qaeda renounced any connection with ISIS, saying it could not be held responsible for any of ISIS’ actions.

On June 9, 2014, ISIS made a major push on the battlefield – taking Mosul in northern Iraq. Two days later and nearly 125 miles away it took Saddam Hussein’s home-town of Tikrit. ISIS continued its expansion, pushing toward the border with Syria, taking over large chunks of territory as the Iraqi army seemed to disintegrate in its path. ISIS even made a concentrated push for the small village of Dabiq, just north of Aleppo in Syria.

Dabiq was more of a theological target than a military one. According to an Islamic prophecy, the Day of Judgment is supposed to come after Muslims defeat a Western army at Dabiq. For ISIS, taking the town was a way to hurry on the apocalypse.

As of June 29, 2014, ISIS announced a caliphate that would be known as the Islamic State. This was the first time in nearly 100 years, since Ataturk abolished the Ottoman caliphate in 1924, that there had been this form of Islamic government. ISIS, of course, was not modeling itself after this more contemporary version, which it considered decadent and un-Islamic. In calling itself a caliphate, ISIS was hearkening back to the beginning of Islam and the rule of Muhammad’s first four successors, who are known collectively as the rashidun, or the rightly guided caliphs.  In the immediate aftermath of ISIS’ declaration of a caliphate, its online fan base cheered and expanded. ISIS’ broader message of associating with true Muslims and disassociating from everyone else has been part of the group's driving ideology since the days of Zarqawi.

What of ISIS's spot within the Muslim catechism?

 ISIS and its members adhere to a strict literalist interpretation of the texts of the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. ISIS is a jihadi* group because it believes in using violence to achieve its means. It is a salafi** group because it believes the Muslim community has lost its way and grown weak and divided. The only way to correct this drift is a return to the “pious forefathers,” hence the emphasis on a literal reading of the Quran and the sayings of the prophet Muhamad.

(*Meaning "struggle" or "to strive," Jihad denotes a Muslim's duty toward religious practice amid struggle. The term can refer to both spiritual and religious struggle. **Derived from salaf, meaning "predecessors," Salifis are an ultraconservative branch of Sunni Islam aimed at returning to the ancient “orthodox” teachings of Islam. Although the term salaf has appeared in Islamic religious scholarship for centuries, Salafism started as a reform-oriented movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, and was particularly Egypt-centric. It should be noted that not all salafi groups believe in violence as a means to an end, only jihadi-salafi groups do. What differentiates al-Qaeda from ISIS is the latter’s hard line approach. Both read the same texts and use the same means of Jihad to achieve their goals and yet they are two separate groups with two different styles.

ISIS has both a slick English language magazine called Dabiq, and an impressive online presence that allows it to reach recruits that al-Qaeda never had. Al-Qaeda relied on a personal link, someone to connect an individual in the West with a franchise in the Middle East or Southeast Asia. When not primarily addressing a Western audience, ISIS has shown itself quite skilled in using poetry and jihadi anthems to attract recruits from around the Arab world. It is in verse that militants most clearly articulate the fantasy of jihad.

In early July 2014, ISIS seized one of the largest oilfields in Syria near the town of Homs, and later that month it overran a Syrian military base in Raqqa. In August, ISIS fighters massacred thousands of Yazidi men, taking the women as slaves, in and around Sinjar in northern Iraq.

On August 8, 2014, President Obama authorized air strikes against ISIS targets. Weeks later, the UK and France followed suit by launching their first air strikes against ISIS targets. Despite the number of air strikes since the U.S. and its allies began bombing in 2014, ISIS seems largely unfazed. They continue to receive money from oil that they are able to smuggle out of Iraq and Syria as well as from kidnappings, thefts and the contributions of a sizeable number of oil billionaires from places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.  

In addition to the caliphate in Iraq and Syria, ISIS has also announced other affiliate groups through the Middle East:

In Egypt a group calling itself Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis pledged loyalty to Baghdadi in late 2014.

A similar dynamic has played out in Libya.  The pattern is repeating itself in Yemen, and to a lesser extent, in Saudi Arabia.  In Yemen, as in Iraq, and elsewhere, many of these attacks have targeted Shi’a mosques in Sanaa.

Boko Haram in Nigeria has also pledged allegiance to ISIS. Isis has also announced provinces in Algeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The goals appears to be to establish these provinces as outposts, and then build them to make the reality match the rhetoric.

The rise of ISIS has presented the U.S. and the international community with a number of security challenges. Chief among these has been the flood of refugees who have fled the war in Syria as well as ISIS’ military advances in the region. Since the start of the conflict, Turkey has hosted nearly 2 million refugees and another 1.5 million have crossed into Jordan and Lebanon.

As a result, in the last year-and-a-half, more than half a million-and-a-quarter refugees crossed the Mediterranean on their way to Europe, often paying smugglers to ferry them to Europe.

ISIS has responded to the refugee crisis by releasing several videos designed to encourage refugees to return to ISIS-controlled territory. There have also been reports, although largely unconfirmed, that ISIS has attempted to smuggle fighters into Europe along with the wave of refugees. Although not an impossible scenario, this is not a tactic ISIS has prioritized up to this point. In a sense, they don't need to smuggle fighters into Europe. According to a New York Times data-basis, ISIS has either inspired or directed attacks in 11 Western countries, including the U.S., the UK, Canada, Australia, France and Germany. ISIS is eager for its supporters to self-radicalize.   This is a relatively new phenomenon and ISIS has utilized both traditional offerings such as magazines and videos as well as social media to reach supporters in Western countries. What remains unclear is how monolithic of a group ISIS is, and how much command-and-control, the group has over various plots in different countries.

ISIS has also seemed determined to destroy any historical artifact it deems idolatrous. In early October 2015, ISIS destroyed the iconic nearly 2,000 year-old Arch of Triumph in Palmyra, Syria. UNESCO, the UN heritage agency, and others, have described ISIS’ destructive actions as “war crimes.” But, as with other challenges, Western governments have been unable to do much to reduce the threat to historic sites under ISIS’ control.

What policy options are available to the U.S. and its allies - both Muslim and non-Muslim - in the fight against ISIS?

Several factors contributed to ISIS gaining a foothold in Iraq and Syria, but two stand out: The first was the weakness of the Iraqi military – which the U.S. funded and equipped for years – in the face of ISIS assaults. The second contributing factor was U.S. reluctance to return to Iraq. In 2013 and much of 2014, as ISIS was making gains and taking territory, the U.S. watched and waited. Some of the usual methods for dealing with Jihadist statelets might have worked early on in Syria and Iraq, but ISIS is now too entrenched for quick solutions.

The U.S. is unwilling to commit ground troops to Iraq. Instead, the Obama administration has opted for air strikes and training rebel groups, which it hopes will be able “to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIS.” But both of these approaches have serious drawbacks. Air strikes can weaken ISIS targets, but on their own, they cannot defeat ISIS. The same is true for U.S.-trained rebel groups. They may be able to erode some of ISIS’ hold on territory, but ultimately they will be unable to decisively roll ISIS back.

There are serious problems with using proxies in the fight against ISIS. The U.S. might be able to train and equip them, but it cannot control them. Once these groups enter the battlefield, they will pursue their own objectives.

The U.S. has also backed Kurdish fighters who, in November 2015, pushed on the Iraqi town of Sinjar in an attempt to split ISIS’ territory in two by taking the city and cutting off the supply line that ran through it. The U.S., however, is constrained here as well in that it does not want the Kurds to become so strong that they can form an independent state. Current U.S. policy seeks to ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq – even as the Kurds have set up a de facto state – which makes support of the Kurds against ISIS a delicate balancing act.

The U.S. is also struggling to limit ISIS’ finances, partly by working with Turkey and others to prevent oil smuggling. So far, this initiative’s impact has been limited.

There is no silver bullet to the problem that ISIS presents. The group did not arise overnight and it will not be defeated overnight. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bombing for over a year and while it is true that ISIS now controls considerably less territory than it did when the bombing campaign began, the reach of its terrorist activities has grown.  Conquering ISIS - and whatever comes next - is not as simple as " . . . bombing the sh***t out of 'em," as more than one presidential candidate has suggested.  Unlike the Germans, Italians and Japanese of old, ISIS does not have a capitol, a legislature, a mint or a stationary military headquarters.  It is a fluid, moveable army; here today and gone tomorrow.  Much of its organizational structure - such as it is -  exists in the cyber cloud . . . which is not susceptible to the kinds of military assaults which have been employed in past generations.

Air strikes and support for various groups on the ground are, at best, a holding strategy, designed to prevent ISIS from further growing. But even this modest goal may be too much for the current policy. Still, there appears to be few other appealing options on the table.

It is politics, economics and diplomacy which will eventually put ISIS into a coma, not military might.

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone

We Can All Trust Donald Trump . . . Really!

If we all had aquarter for every time the words "trust" or "likeable" were used with regards to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in but a single news cycle, we would probably all have enough cash to purchase a brand new Prius. For make no mistake about it: whether or not we like or dislike, trust or do not trust either of these presidential candidates is of great moment . . . at least as talking points.  We've all heard ad nauseam the five word phrase "I just don't trust her" applied to Secretary Clinton or the other five-word phrase "I really don't like him" said with regards to Mr. Trump. Indeed, their negatives are stratospheric.

I'm not sure when likeability first entered American politics as a major criterion for victory.  I mean, think about it: how many people actually knew all that much about the personal habits, likes or dislikes let alone height, weight, demeanor or rhetorical cadences of say, George Washington, Andrew Jackson or Woodrow Wilson other than whatever myths or iconography their campaigns shared with the public? 

Indeed, it wasn't until the mid 20th century that a presidential candidate - General Dwight Eisenhower - would have the great good fortune to be a national hero, and have a nickname that rhymed with the word "like." (Remember "I like Ike?") It would seem that from that point on the so-called "L factor" has come to play an increasingly important role in our politics.  It reached its apex (or nadir, depending on who you are) in the 2004 election when the question became "Who would you rather have a beer with . . . George W. Bush or John Kerry?" Personally, I could give a hoot whether Clinton or Trump are abstemious or prefer Miller Lite, Dos Equis or King Snedley.

I want to know how they will handle a three-hour National Security Council briefing, interrupted by a photo op with the National Spelling Bee champ, an emergency meeting with the head of FEMA about a devastating flood in the Midwest or an earthquake in California and then on to a state dinner with, say, German Chancellor Angela Merkel or British P.M. Theresa May.  To my way of thinking, that's one whole heck of a lot more critical then whether we can see ourselves downing an icy Rolling Rock with one, more than the other.

So much for likeability.  As for trust, that is, as we used to say, "a whole 'nother smoke."

Throughout her nearly 40 years in the public eye - first in Arkansas and then in the world - Hillary Clinton has been knocked, pilloried and lambasted for everything from her early refusal to use her married name, to her lack of style, her "shrill aggressiveness" and her mendacity, duplicity and untrustworthiness.  The last knock - that she cannot be trusted - is the major complaint one hears about her in public opinion samplings.  When asked to put  meat on the bones of this complaint or observation, most demur . . . it is more ephemeral or visceral than corporeal or factual.  Yes, there are those who will cite "Benghazi," "emails," and occasionally even "White Water," "Morgan Guaranty" and "Vince Foster." I've also heard that she is too close to Wall Street, has changed her position on numerous issues, and "she stands for nothing." On occasion, I've asked people to tell me about "White Water" or who Vince Foster was and how he fits into her history of corruption and mendacity.  Frequently what I get in response is a " . . . well, you know, she just can't be trusted."  OK, I get it; she's made a lot of mistakes, gotten away with some and rarely issued public apologies or explanations. Then too, she has changed - or modified or "walked back" -  positions on several issues . . . like marriage equality and the Trans Pacific Partnership (T.P.P.)  But rarely have I heard her accused of being incompetent, unprepared, blustering, lacking intelligence or incapable of making hard decisions.   Just that many people do not trust her.

Now, in Donald Trump, we find a man, a presidential candidate who everyone can and should trust.

How so? 

Donald Trump can be trusted to lie about almost anything. A brief handful of examples:

  •  On November 10, 2015, Mr. Trump, in speaking of Vladimir Putin, said "I got to know him very well because we were both on '60 Minutes,' we were stablemates, and we did very well that night." He has repeated this on innumerable occasions while campaigning.  And yet, just this morning, Trump told George Stephanopoulos "I have no relationship with him. I don’t– I’ve never met him . . ."
  • In a February 28, 2016 interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, the issue of David Duke came up.  Trump flatly stated "I don’t know anything about David Duke.” The truth of the matter is that Trump not only has mentioned Duke in the past but actually repudiated him during a Bloomberg interview in August 2015. Fifteen years ago, when Trump was considering running for president as a Reform Party candidate, he named Duke a cause for concern. “Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a big racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party,” he said. 
  • In today's interview with Stephanopoulos, Trump, speaking about the upcoming debate schedule flatly stated "I'll tell you what I don't like. It's against two NFL games. I got a letter from the NFL saying, 'This is ridiculous.'" And the lie? Responding to Trump's claim, a spokesperson for the NFL said "While we'd obviously wish the debate commission could find another night, we did not send a letter to Trump."
  • In a May 3, 2016 interview with Fox News, Trump flatly stated that Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s ". . . father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald being, you know, shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right, prior to his being shot? And nobody even brings it up . . . What was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It’s horrible."

Donald Trump can be trusted to be both insulting and insensitive as well as blustering and boorish.  A few examples:

  • Trump has repeatedly stated "I know more about ISIS than the generals," and that with him as POTUS, he would quickly solve the problem by " . . . bombing the sh.t out of them."
  • In speaking about foreign policy, Trump has frequently said he has "a good instinct" and thus consults with himself first on these matters.
  • Responding to Khizr and Ghazala Khan's contention that unlike their son, who was killed in action in 2004, Mr. Trump knows nothing about sacrifice, Trump said "“I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard . . . I've created thousands and thousands of jobs."  He also chastised Ghazala Khan, saying she looked “ . . . like she had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”
  • Just the other day, Trump - who has been repeatedly stirring up crowds by telling them that Hillary Clinton should be behind bars because of the email scandal, had the consummate temerity to say "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing . . . . I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” While I may not be as smart as Donald Trump, this strikes me as an open invitation for Russia - which is definitely not an ally - to invade American cyberspace
  • Then there are Trump's comments about Mexicans ("rapists. . . murderers . . . drug dealers"), women ("pigs") his own daughter ("If she weren't my daughter . . . oh boy!") Senator John McCain ("He's no hero") and the judge in the Trump University case who he claimed was incapable of being unbiased due to his Mexican heritage . . .

Put all this together, plus literally dozens upon dozens of other blustering misstatements, untruths, flat out lies and defamatory nicknames and you have a man you can trust . . . to be spectacularly unqualified to be President of the United States.

Trust me.

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Whatever Became of America?

As of this coming Thursday the candidates for POTUS and VPOTUS will be cast in concrete: Trump/Pence vs. Clinton/Kane.  The Republican National Convention concluded this past Thursday; the Democrats begin their confab tomorrow, July 25, in Philadelphia. At the Republican National Convention (RNC) Donald Trump delivered one of the longest (76 minutes) and darkest acceptance speeches in American political history.  His theme was a mutant strain of panem et circensus ("bread and circuses") . . . utter fear and dread: "America is surrounded by enemies. America is in greater danger than ever before. Murder in America is at an all-time high. ISIS is coming to kill us.  America is being led down the path to doom. Hillary Clinton should be in prison, not running for POTUS. Only I can save America." The lineup of speakers ranged from Speaker Paul Ryan and Texas Senator Ted Cruz (who, despite being gifted with a prime-time slot, refused to endorse Mr. Trump) to former teen heartthrob Scott Baio and "Duck Dynasty" star Willie Robertson. 

Unbelievably, one evening's highlight was New Jersey Governor Chris "Bridgegate" Christie's nightmarish version of a "star chamber," in which he prosecuted Hillary Clinton for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Christie presented a laundry list of Clinton's "illegal" activities including Whitewater, Benghazi and her private email server; his dialogic rhythm was punctuated by the convention crowd screaming "GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!" "LOCK HER UP!"  Ironically, in real life(if indeed there is such a thing) Christie is really rather fond of Secretary Clinton.  (Note: if Christie were ever to become U.S. Attorney General in a Trump Administration, he would have to recuse himself from any investigation of Hillary Clinton.)

One Trump advisor, New Hampshire state representative Al Baldasaro went so far as to publicly state that “Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason.”  Within 24 hours, the Secret Service began investigating Baldasaro; it seems that issuing death threats against a candidate for POTUS is a federal crime.  Not to be outdone, during his speaking slot, former Republican presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson so much as accused Secretary Clinton of being in league with the devil. And whether or not the assembled crowd believed that she was a tool of Lucifer - or believe that Donald Trump will actually build a wall between America and Mexico and get the Mexicans to pay for it - they belted out a noxious, pestiferous cadence which could be heard all the way from Cleveland to Rancho Cucamonga.

In the words of Garcia, Weir Lesh, and Hunter: "What a long, strange trip it's been."   

Whatever happened to maturity and civility?  Granted: all national conventions involve a large dollop of theater - especially in the age of multi- and social-media. But when theatricality and out and out bloviating are the most important ingredients, politics devolves into a danse macabre. The debacle in Cleveland was far more vicious, venomous and verbally pugnacious than any political convention I've ever experienced or studied . . . and that includes the storied RNC of 1884 - quite likely the filthiest in American history. And although the Democrats won't gather for their national convention in Philadelphia until tomorrow, Monday August 25,  I'd bet everything in the cookie jar (which as kids we lovingly referred to as "General Fatso Cookie-Belly") that it won't be nearly so visceral, divisive or downright nasty.  Sure, there will be jabs and taunts about Donald Trump, his ego, his hair-trigger and lack of preparedness.  It is more than likely that more than one speaker will bring up a recent New York Times article which revealed that The Donald had actually offered his potential running mates the chance to run the entire executive office - both domestically and internationally. . . "those things which really don't interest him." When asked what in the world Trump would be in charge of, son Eric responded "Making America great again."  But aside from these jabs and jests - and yes, yesterday'sWikiLeaks revelation that the DNC may well have tilted the scales in favor of Clinton over Sanders -  I bet that there will be far more time devoted to precisely what we can do together as a nation to make for a brighter future; more forward positioning, less fearful pandering.  And I would also wager that the name "Hillary Clinton" will be mentioned far, far more often than that of "Donald Trump" - the reverse of what happened in Cleveland. (n.b. Word has just come in that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be tendering her resignation at the end of the Philadelphia convention, and that for the nonce, DNC Vice Chair Donna Brazile will serve in her stead.) 

But you want to know something? Regardless of who wins - and I am personally doing everything I can to ensure a Clinton/Kane victory as well as a retaking of the Senate if not indeed the House and various state legislatures by Democrats - regardless of who wins, there will still be a nagging, overarching challenge: of uniting a highly angry, fearful and fractionated nation that has replaced optimism with dread and a sense of shared humanity with unadorned hate. The great challenge is in giving a sense of common purpose to both those longing to return to the days of Ozzie and Harriet and those having a blast with Pokémon GO; of those who desperately desire to see God in the classroom and evolution out on its rear and those who firmly believe that freedom of speech and religion includes ideas that challenge and freedom from religion; of those who do not believe that the Second Amendment demands unfettered access to any and all weaponry as opposed to those who "know for a fact" that they must arm themselves against a government coming to take their guns away; of those whose vision is monochromatic versus those who find beauty in the rainbow; of those who have no problem discriminating against those who are different as opposed to those who find great joy in being inclusionary; of those who believe that to compromise is to give in to the forces of Satanic darkness and those who think that compromise is the essence of democracy . . . and a hundred other rifts, cleavages and diversions.  Hell, we are at such unbelievable loggerheads that the United States Congress can't even get together to appropriate a measly $1.9 billion for Zika research - a pandemic in the making that won't care if you are rich or poor, Christian or Muslim, conservative or progressive.

None of these can be either solved or cured by a change of president or political party. And anyone who believes that either Secretary Clinton or Mr. Trump can fix everything which ails us is living in a fool's paradise. For the America that one individual, one group or one region cherishes or remembers with great fondness is not necessarily the same America that others cherish or remember.  Just as morality always plays a catch-up game with technology, so too do national dreams and aspirations lag way behind the fast-paced charge of modernity. One would suggest the greatest need is not a change of President or party; it is the need for a serious national dialogue . . . if it were only possible for us to speak to - and not over or through - one another.  For too long, there have been far too many groups and interests roiling the waters for their own purposes and self-interest.  For too long, disunity has been cynically foisted upon a nation which used to be a beacon of light. How - indeed, if - we respond to the challenge of disunity will determine what our future will be.

Does this challenge require leadership?  Unquestionably it does.  The ability to lead with vision, intelligence and purpose is of great importance.  However, what is also needed - and in great abundance - is the ability for all citizens to listen to one another, to engage in civil dialogue and decide once and for all whether we wish to live in one strong and enlightened country or a devolving land mass that is being torn apart by self-interest, pettiness and the ability to "communicate" in 140 keystrokes or less.

Whatever became of America?         

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

A Challenge to All Those Considering Voting For Donald Trump

I was originally intending to entitle this piece "A Challenge to All Potential Trump Supporters Who Can Read Above a Third-Grade Level." After giving the matter some thought - and an affable chewing out by my wife - I decided that it was more than a bit too snarky and elitist.  And so, a change of title, but not of message.  Precisely what is the challenge?  Before answering, a bit of background:  As a longtime political writer, blogger and university lecturer,  people are forever seeking to engage me in political discussion; some friendly and civil, some contentious and downright hostile. Some want to know what I think, ask me for a bit of background on someone or give insight into a process or issue; others seemingly have no purpose other than proving - at least to themselves - that I haven't the slightest idea what I'm talking about; that I am nothing but a treasonous drone. 

(n.b. When I started drafting this essay, the "Trump/Pence" logo was au currant.  Now, less than 24 hours later, it has been modified.  Seems there were too many tweets pointing out the unintended same-sex nature of the logo . . .) 

Over the course of many months, I have noticed that the lion's share of those supporting - or at least leaning toward - Donald Trump, expend the lion' share of their political angst in endlessly listing the sins and shortcomings of Hillary Clinton; of how totally untrustworthy, mendacious and left-wing she is. Rarely do these folks utter a single positive reason for why they are supporting - or considering supporting - Donald of Orange.  Nothing about what he would bring to the White House; nothing positive about his policies, personality, vision or knowledge.  It seems that the best - if not only - reason to vote for him is that for all his shortcomings, at least he's not Hillary Clinton.  Many - without actually saying it - are suggesting that electing Donald Trump POTUS would shake up a system, country and world, that just doesn't work; something tantamount to a last-gasp addition of a new cast member to a television show that's been falling off the ratings' cliff. 

Sorry, but that simply doesn't cut it. This is not The Apprentice'; its a presidential election.  And those whose primary - if not sole - reason for supporting Donald Trump is that he is not Hillary Clinton are showing themselves to have an appalling lack of real world knowledge. They spew phrases they cannot parse and repeat gutter innuendoes as if they the God's honest truth.  But then again, these are precisely the kind of folks Trump - now Trump/Pence - cater to.  After all this is the guy who proudly proclaimed "I love the poorly educated. We're the smartest people, we're the most loyal people."  What's he going to do to "Make America Great Again?"  How's can the man who manufactures virtually everything with his name on it - including his cockamamie hats - outside the U.S. of A. - say with a straight face that he's the guy who's going to bring back jobs to America?  How can anyone who claims he reveres the Constitution not know that it doesn't have an article XII and blithely "disinvite" major news organizations fromattending his press conferences because he doesn't like the way they cover him?  Are you comfortable with this obnoxious sideshow?

And herein comes the challenge: To express in positive terms precisely why you support Donald Trump for POTUS - without once mentioning Hillary Clinton.  Heck, I endorsed Secretary Clinton a couple of weeks ago without once referring to Mr. Trump. It's not that difficult when one is supporting a candidate who actually has a record to run on.  Yes, she has had more than her share of bad press - and occasionally for good reason.  Then again, anyone who has been in the media cross-hairs for more than 4 decades will have a lot of crapola sticking to them . . . 

So what is it about Donald Trump guys?

Is it that he is a billionaire?  Do you guys really believe that because he is - or at least claims to be - so terribly, unimaginably ungeshtupt (Yiddish for "overstuffed," meaning incredibly rich) that he must be the best-credentialed candidate when it comes to the economy, creating jobs, issues of war and peace, the challenge of globalization, the environment (including global warming), guns, unifying and healing an increasingly fragmented and injured country, and being the face of the United States of America?   Do you really, truly believe this?  Or, are you willing to overlook so many of his most glaring shortcomings - like being a narcissistic, tactless bully who blithely offends Hispanics, Blacks, Women, the disabled and Jews - are you willing to overlook all this simply because Well, at least he's not 'Crooked Hillary'?  Are you willing to overlook the hard-right platform he's running on; one which favors a strict, traditionalist view of the family and child rearing, bars military women from combat, describes coal as a “clean” energy source and declares pornography a “public health crisis?"  This is on top of the typical Republican gobbledygook about lower taxes for the wealthy, a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and overturning both the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade. The platform he's been given to run on refuses to condemn anti-gay discrimination, looks to pass a Constitutional amendment which will once again make same-sex marriage impossible and urges federal funding for so-called "reversion therapy" by which gays are talked out of being gay. And by the way, it also encourages the teaching of the Bible in public schools because, the amendment said, a good understanding of its contents is “indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry.” That's OK by me, so long as the Bible is in Hebrew, and contains the classic Hebrew commentaries of Rashi, Maimonides, Nachmanides, Ibn Ezra, David Kimchi and the rest of the gang . . .

Do you have any idea of what his plan is to "utterly destroy" ISIS?  Has it ever crossed your mind that he doesn't have the slightest idea about how he's going to accomplish it?  Do you really, truly believe him when he says "I know more about ISIS than the generals" . . . this from a man who claims he gets most of his information from television news? Do you really, truly believe he's going to succeed at building a wall down at the Mexican border and then have Mexico pay for it? Not too long ago, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto - who leads one of our strongest allies and trading partners -  said in an interview that Trump’s brand of politicking and his “strident expressions” tended to pose “very easy, simple solutions to problems that, of course, are not so easily solved . . . There have been episodes in human history, unfortunately, where these expressions of this strident rhetoric have only led to very ominous situations in the history of humanity. That’s how Mussolini got in, that's how Hitler got in, they took advantage of a situation, a problem perhaps, which humanity was going through at the time, after an economic crisis.”

Are you comfortable with the fact that the man you want to elect POTUS has publicly praised Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un (the last remaining Stalinist dictator on the planet) and the late Saddam Hussein, while claiming that Senator John McCain is no war hero, Senator Elizabeth Warren is a "loser" (how many "losers" become tenured law professors at Harvard and then get themselves elected to the U.S. Senate?) and columnist George Will as being "wrong almost all the time."  The list of people, institutions and businesses Trump has condemned is legion. And yet, at the same time, he has shown himself to have just about the thinnest skin of anyone in public life. Does this mean nothing to you?  Are you at all concerned that he will sue anyone who disagrees with him at the drop of a hat? (To date, he has been involved in nearly 3,500 lawsuits.)

Then there's the man who would replace him if, God forbid, he became ill, disabled, or simply decided he'd had enough: Indiana Governor Mike Pence.  Pence, who during his stint as a conservative radio talk show host liked to refer to himself as "Rush Limbaugh on decaf," is a lot like another Hoosier, former V.P. Dan Quayle. The only real difference is that Pence has a few more brains and a lot less money.  Pence is likely the most conservative candidate for Vice President in the history of the nation.  As Governor, he signed the “license to discriminate” bill allowing Indiana businesses to deny service to gays, and tried to halt the settlement of Syrian refugees in the state. His position on abortion is so extreme that, as a member of congress, he voted for legislation that would give “personhood” rights to embryos, and defund Planned Parenthood.  And by the way, his first choice for POTUS was Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

Aaaargh!

So go ahead.  Make my day. Try taking the challenge. Tell me what's so great about Donald Trump . . . without mentioning the name Hillary Clinton.

Ready . . . set . . . go!

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Remembering Abner Mikva

Abner Mikva - former Congressman, federal judge and Counsel to President Bill Clinton - passed away the other day.  He was 90 years young, and one of the few people in American history to have served in all three branches of the federal government.  A man of towering intellect and principle, Judge Mikva was also a thorough-going mensch . . . a true gentleman.  What follows is derived from my 2010 book The Jews of Capitol Hill. I had the honor of interviewing Ab Mikva on a number of occasions, the first being nearly 25 years ago. . . 

Although he can trace his ancestry back through five generations, Judge Abner Mikva has never been able to determine precisely when or how his family acquired their rather distinctive name. Mikvah is the Hebrew term for the ritual bath that Orthodox Jewish women are required to visit after each menstrual cycle before resuming sexual relations, and that Jewish men visit in order to purify themselves before the Sabbath or holidays. One might posit that just as Bakers, Coopersmiths, Wacholders and Schneiders are descended respectively, from ancestors who baked, made barrels, distilled gin and were tailors, the Mikvas are likely descended from people who were in charge of the community bath.  It is plausible, but by no means certain. The judge's youngest daughter, Rabbi Rachel Mikva Rosenberg, has another theory: “Mikva comes from a similar Hebrew word; the one meaning hope.” Either theory works well for a politician, especially one from Chicago, for ironically one of The Windy City's best‑known political characters in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had a similar name: “Bathhouse” John Coughlin.

Abner (“Ab”) Joseph Mikva was born not in Democrat Bathhouse John's Chicago, but in Socialist Victor Berger's Milwaukee, on January 21, 1926. His parents, Henry Abraham and Ida (Fishman) Mikva, were both immigrants from Russia. Ab's paternal grandparents, the product of an arranged marriage in the old country, never lived together in America. Grandpa Mikva lived in Monroe, Wisconsin, while his wife resided in Milwaukee. Mikva recalls that his grandfather would come back to Milwaukee for Passover and other major Jewish holidays, and that his grandmother “would throw food at him while she was serving and mutter under her breath.” Apparently, the senior Mikva, throwing off the shackles of the Old World, wanted to sow his wild oats. Grandma Mikva, an old-fashioned woman, could not abide his roguishness and threw him out.

Ab Mikva grew up in a Yiddish‑speaking, left‑wing socialist home. His father, who spent the Depression years working as a clerk for the Works Progress Administration (WPA), was a member of the International Workers Order. Though raised in a strictly Orthodox home, Henry Mikva became an atheist. He sent Ab to kindershul in order to learn to read and write Yiddish, but ordered the boy to “get up and leave the classroom” whenever the instruction turned to Hebrew or Torah. Mindful of his father's admonition, Ab did pick himself up and leave the room whenever the subject matter turned religious. On more than one occasion, the teacher admonished him by saying: “Boychik (young man), come sit down! Don't listen to that meshugeneh (crazy) father of yours!” But Ab, who even at a young age “knew where the power was,” kept on walking. Toward the end of his life, as a tuberculosis patient at Denver's Jewish Consumptive Relief Society, Henry had a change of heart; in his last years, he became the facility's High Holiday chazzan (cantor). Speaking of his “daughter the rabbi,” Judge Mikva quips, “She is a Jewish miracle – that she should grow up in our household.”

Following his graduation from high school in 1944, Ab Mikva joined the Army Air Corps and spent the war as a navigator with the Air Force Training Command. Enlisting as a private, he mustered out a second lieutenant in 1946. Following his discharge, Mikva spent the next two years as a student at the University of Wisconsin and then two more years at Washington University in St. Louis. Despite never having received his undergraduate degree, Mikva was admitted to the law school of the University of Chicago in 1949. Before entering law school, he married Zorita “Zoe” Wise, who became a schoolteacher.

Mikva’s introduction to government – Chicago-style – was “a curt message that it would survive without him.”  It is a story that has become a part of the city’s political lore.

While still a law student, Mikva stopped in the 8th Ward Regular Democratic headquarters looking to volunteer his time.  For some reason, this was “suspect behavior.”

            “Who sent you?” the committeeman asked.

            “Nobody,” Mikva answered.

            “We don’t want nobody nobody sent.  We ain’t got no jobs,” the committeeman told him.

            Mikva told him he wasn’t looking for a job.  This was even more suspect.

            “We don’t want nobody that don’t want a job.  Where you from anyway?”

            “The University of Chicago,” Mikva responded.

            “We don’t want nobody from the University of Chicago in this organization,” he was told.

            Thus ended his career as a cog in the Chicago Democratic machine.

Undeterred, Mikva did find time to volunteer for the campaigns of Governor Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) and United States Senator Paul Douglas (1982-1976).  In 1951, Mikva was awarded a juris doctor. From all indications, he was the shining star of his class: cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, editor‑in chief of the law review, and Order of the Coif. Following his graduation, Mikva went to Washington, where he spent a year clerking for United States Supreme Court Justice Sherman Minton (1890-1965), a former Senator from Indiana.

Upon his return to Chicago in 1952, Ab Mikva entered private law practice, becoming an associate of future Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg (1908-1990). He eventually joined the firm of Devoe, Shadur, Mikva and Plotkin. The firm's practice dealt largely with labor issues. During his sixteen years with the firm (1952-68), Mikva worked extensively with the West Side Organization (WSO), “an early community–civil rights organization engaged in seeking to break down prejudice in employment, housing and schools.” In the mid‑sixties, acting as WSO chief counsel, Mikva became involved in a case that went all the way to the Illinois State Supreme Court, West Side Organization v. Centennial Laundry Company (215 N.E. 2d 443 1966). In this case, rank-and-file members of WSO organized a protest against Centennial Laundry's discriminatory hiring practices. Centennial obtained an injunction prohibiting WSO from publicizing the laundry's said practices. Mikva successfully prosecuted the appeal, which resulted in the “vacating of the injunction, allowing damages to the West Side Organization for the wrongful issuance of the injunction.” This was a landmark case not only in the area of labor law, but within the realm of free speech as well.

In 1956, Mikva ran for the Illinois State Legislature from the Twenty-third district, a traditionally liberal enclave centered in Hyde Park. The Twenty-third also included Woodlawn, the site of the University of Chicago and home of one of Mikva's political mentors, Saul Alinsky (1911-1972). A political organizer of legendary proportions, Alinsky was the author of two seminal, must-read works for organizers: Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Known nationally as “The Father of Pragmatic Radicalism,” Alinsky taught Mikva his organizing techniques. When the young attorney decided to run for the legislature, Alinsky gave him a bit of advice: “You're going to have to develop two separate strategies, because what you've got to sell in Woodlawn won't sell in South Shore and Hyde Park, and what you've got to sell in South Shore and Hyde Park won't sell in Woodlawn.” Running without the endorsement of the powerful Daley machine, Mikva nonetheless rode to victory. Just as Mikva found a mentor in Alinsky, so too would Mikva, many years later become a mentor to another Alinsky devotee and future member of the Illinois legislature - a young Harvard Law student named Barack Obama.

As a member of the state legislature, Mikva was one of the “kosher‑nostra,” a group of like‑minded liberals whose ranks included future United States Senators Adlai E. Stevenson III (1930- ) and Paul Simon (1928-2003). Mikva, a member of the Judiciary Committee, was voted Outstanding Freshman Legislator by the Springfield press corps. During his decade in the Illinois House, Mikva sponsored measures dealing with crime control, mental health, civil rights, credit reform, and educational opportunities. At the end of each of his five terms in the State House, he was voted Best Legislator by the Independent Voters of Illinois.

In 1966, Mikva gave up his safe seat in order to challenge incumbent Democrat Barratt O'Hara for the Second Congressional District seat. O'Hara (1882-1969), had been a figure in Illinois politics for more than half a century. A veteran of the Spanish‑American War, he had been elected Lieutenant Governor of Illinois thirteen years before Abner Mikva was born.  Despite running once again without the endorsement of the Daley machine, Mikva made a creditable showing, losing by less than 4 percentage points. Following what was to be his only political defeat, Mikva continued practicing law and began working on Mayor Richard Daley in the hope of receiving his political blessing for the 1968 race. In 1968, O'Hara was eighty‑six years old and beginning to fail. Daley suggested that he should retire. When O'Hara refused “hizzoner's” recommendation, the Chicago mayor gave Mikva his “reluctant backing.” This time, running on a platform calling for increased foreign aid, a guaranteed annual wage, fair‑housing laws, abolition of the House Un‑American Activities Committee, and recognition of the People's Republic of China, Mikva won the Democratic primary in a landslide. In the November election, he defeated his Republican opponent with 65% of the vote.

Although Mikva was one the new kids on the block in Congress, he was not without some good friends. Ironically, three men representing California districts had all been raised within a half‑mile of Mikva's home back in Milwaukee: two liberals, Phillip Burton and Fortney “Pete” Stark, and the ultra‑conservative John G. Schmitz. The late San Francisco–area Representative Phil Burton (1926-1983), husband of the late Representative Sala Burton, was, during his congressional career, one of the true powers in the House. Pete Stark (1931- ), who made a fortune in banking before entering Congress, spent 40 years in the House, where he was a stalwart liberal with a passion for universal healthcare. Schmitz (1930-2001), who represented an Orange County district and replaced Alabama Governor George Wallace as the American Party's presidential candidate in 1972, was at one time a member of the ultra‑right John Birch Society. When the four got together to share old memories and the impact that growing up in Depression‑era, socialist Milwaukee had on them, Schmitz remarked, “Well, it had an effect on me, but apparently not the same as on you guys.”

Abner Mikva made an immediate impact in the House of Representatives. As one of the Congress's “most determined . . . opponents of the Vietnam war,” he often found himself denounced on the floor by hawks like Representative Wayne L. Hays. Never at a loss for acidic commentary, Hays referred to Mikva as “an emissary from Hanoi . . . a dupe of the Viet Cong” Because of his consistent opposition to increased war appropriations and his efforts to prohibit the bombing of dams and dikes in North Vietnam, Mikva was put under surveillance by army intelligence officers. When he learned of the army's interest in his person, he was outraged; he called for a thorough public investigation. Taking the House floor, he spoke with angry emotion: “There must be a complete purging of every command official who was responsible for establishing and operating this spy network. I, for one, would urge the resignation of every such command officer, in the interests of restoring America's credibility in its own military.” The surveillance was quickly terminated. In his first term, Mikva was also appointed to the Brown Commission, which provided the main impetus for efforts to re-codify the criminal laws of the United States.

Growing up in Milwaukee, Abner Mikva had experienced little anti-Semitism. That was to come later: “. . . the first time I really experienced it (anti‑Semitism) was in Congress. It came in the person of Speaker John McCormack (1891-1980) who, every time I would seek recognition would say, ‘THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YAWK!’ The parliamentarian would have to lean over and remind him that I came from Illinois. It was either my politics or my religion that made him assume that I came from New York. It was probably a little of each, but mostly the latter.”

Although Mikva was an active legislator during his first term, he had serious reservations about Congress. “What have we done for the people?” he asked one reporter after completing his first term. “What has Congress really done about the real, real problems? . . . The quality of life – is it any better for Congress having met two years? Nothing came out of the Congress for the people – nothing like Social Security, nothing like Medicare . . . . Here I am in Congress, and now I find that Congress ain't where it's at.”

After the 1970 census, Mayor Richard Daley directed that Mikva's white, largely Jewish district be reapportioned out of existence. Heeding Daley's directive, the state commission merged Mikva's Hyde Park power base into the predominantly black First Congressional District, represented by the former Olympic gold medal winner (1932 and 1936 games) Ralph Metcalf (1910-1978). Deciding he did not want to deprive Chicago of a “much‑needed Black Congressman,” Mikva moved his family north to Evanston in order to run in the newly-created Tenth District. In announcing his candidacy for the seat, Mikva told the press, "Any decision to end the career of an elected official ought to be made by the people, not by judicial fiat.” Surviving charges of being a “carpetbagger,” Mikva won the Democratic primary, but lost the general election to Samuel Young, who rode to victory on Richard Nixon's coattails.

During the next two years, Mikva practiced law with the Chicago firm of D'Ancona, Pflaum, Whatt & Riskind, accepted an appointment as adjunct professor of law at Northwestern University, and served as vice president of the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. In 1973, he began gearing up for a rematch with Young. The Tenth, a largely Republican district, was certainly not going to be Mikva's for the taking; it would take a lot of money and a lot of organization. Buoyed by a substantial war chest and a finely honed organization, he succeeded in defeating Young by a narrow margin. Two years later, “in one of the most expensive and hard‑fought Congressional races in the country,” Mikva effectively turned back a gerrymandering attempt by Mayor Daley and defeated Young by 201 votes. Uniquely, while Democrat Mikva was squeaking to victory, presidential candidate Gerald Ford was carrying the district by more than 60,000 votes. In his last election, Mikva defeated newcomer John Porter by a slightly larger margin of 1,200 votes. When Mikva left Congress to accept a seat on the United States Court of Appeals, he was replaced by the Republican Porter (1935- ), who would hold the seat until 2000.

Ab Mikva was considered the darling of the liberals. As head of the Democratic Study Group, he was the acknowledged leader of the liberal faction in the House. This group was responsible for “keeping Democrats and other coalitions abreast of weekly legislative action.” They published a weekly study guide concerning the current week's legislation that would be reaching the House floor. Among Ab Mivka's most important accomplishments was acting as floor‑manager in the debate about giving eighteen‑year-olds the right to vote – an effort that resulted in the passage and ratification of the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution in June 1971.

Mikva led the fight for a stronger code of ethics for members of Congress. By means of the law he enacted – since revised and strengthened – outside income for members of Congress was limited to 15 percent of their congressional salaries. The bill also eliminated office slush-fund accounts and, for the first time, required members to disclose their financial holdings. Mikva also proposed a measure for partial public financing of congressional elections by which contributions of $100 or less would be matched with monies drawn from the voluntary tax check‑off fund. Defeated in 1978, this proposal is still brought up during every session of Congress.

Long interested in reforming and streamlining government, Mikva was responsible for introducing the first “sunset” bill. Although never acted on, this imaginative proposal would have caused federal regulatory agencies to self-destruct – go completely out of existence – unless they could justify their continued existence. The bill gave Federal regulatory agencies seven years to prove their intrinsic worth; if they did not, they were automatically out of business.

Although a political realist, Mikva often acted more like a starry‑eyed idealist. One example was his efforts to eliminate handguns. Throughout his congressional career, Mikva regularly submitted legislation prohibiting “the manufacture, sale and distribution of handguns in the United States except for use by the police, military and licensed pistol clubs.” Each time Mikva's proposal went to committee for hearings, the National Rifle Association would make a full frontal assault on Congress to make sure that the measure never came to a vote. “No other piece of legislation, no change in our law, no amount of resources for law enforcement could have a greater impact on crime,” Mikva told his colleagues. So thoroughly did Mikva outrage the NRA that when President Carter nominated him for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the well‑heeled lobby spent more than six months and $1 million in an effort to block his nomination. During Senate confirmation hearings, an NRA spokesman claimed that Mikva's well‑known antipathy for weapons would make it virtually impossible for him to be objective in hearing cases dealing with guns. Undeterred, the Senate confirmed Mikva by a vote of 58 to 31.

Ab Mikva resigned from the House of Representatives on September 26, 1979, in order to take his seat on the second most powerful court in the land. President Carter selected him from among a list of more than two hundred prospective candidates. In nominating Mikva, Carter was returning to the old tradition of elevating members of Congress to the federal bench. After eleven years on the court, Mikva became the court's chief judge.  While on the bench, Mikva attempted to hire a young Harvard Law School graduate as a legal clerk.  The young lawyer turned him down.  His name was Barack Obama.  Later on, the two became friends.  In 2008, Mikva was one of the initialsignatories on a website called “jewsforobama.net.”

During his first congressional stint in Washington, Mikva brought his family with him to Washington. During his second tour of duty, Zoe and their three daughters remained in Evanston, where Mrs. Mikva continued teaching school. With Mikva's elevation to the federal judiciary – and with their daughters now grown – Zoe Mikva moved once again moved to Washington, taking a job with the Advocacy Institute, a Washington‑based group that helped community groups organize.  Daughters Mary and Laurie both became attorneys, and Rachel, as previously noted, a rabbi.

The United States Court of Appeals is quite often a stepping‑stone for appointment to the Supreme Court. In the past two generations, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyar have all made that transition. The closest Mikva got was portraying “Supreme Court Justice Abner J. Mikva” in the 1992 Kevin Cline comedy “Dave,” in which he administers the presidential oath of office to the Vice President, played by Ben Kingsley.  The film also had such notables as Chris Matthews, Robert Novack, “Tip” O’Neil and Senator Paul Simon playing themselves.     Realizing that he was “too old, too white, too male, and too liberal” to ever be named to the Supreme Court, Mikva shocked his colleagues by announcing his retirement in August 1994, in order to become President Clinton's White House Counsel. In assessing this development, the New York Times noted that Clinton had selected a man who would likely be “the most scholarly White House Counsel of the modern era.” Mikva remained at the White House for a little more than a year, being replaced in September 1995 by Vice President Al Gore's chief of staff, Jack Quinn. During his year as White House Counsel, Mikva was faced with the Whitewater hearings and “Travelgate,” the first major scandal in the Clinton White House. News of his retirement led conservative columnists to claim that he had seen how much trouble the President was in and decided to bail out. “Not so,” said Mikva. “It's just time to retire and spend some time with my family, write a few books, and teach a course or two.”

Mikva’s retirement proved to be anything like he had imagined.  For years, he was the Schwartz Lecturer and Senor Director of the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago.  Together with wife Zoe, they founded the “Mikva Challenge,” a philanthropic organization which “inspires Chicago high school students to participate in elections and civic activities, develop leadership skills and delve into complicated issues of public policy that affect their lives.”

In 1999, Mikva was the subject of a wide-ranging interview by Harry Kreisler of Berkeley’s Institute of International Studies.  Asked what the differences were between his years in Congress and the then-current political atmosphere, Mikva responded:

You cannot hate your opponents if you are going to sit down and work out an agreement with them.  You have to respect them.  You have to have some measure of trust in them.  And you have to appreciate that they are coming into the process with the same good motives as you are.  If you assume that they are evil incarnate, that they are doing the work of the devil, it’s pretty hard to cut a deal.      

In summing up the career of Judge Mikva, a man who had distinguished himself as a legislator, jurist and White House insider, the New Republic’s Morton Kondracke wrote, “Abner Mikva is different from many other liberals because he doesn't only love mankind; he loves individual people, too.” Indeed, Ab Mikva was a throwback to a better, more congenial time; an era where political enemies could put policy ahead of partisanship and together, forge compromises without forsaking principles.

Rest in peace Judge . . . you did well by doing good.

Copyright ©2010, 2016 Kurt F. Stone

A Brief Interview With Jefferson & Adams on the Fourth of July

An introductory note: Today, the Fourth of July, is the nation's 240 birthday.  On this day, in 1776, the Declaration of Independence - next to the issuance of the Magna Carta way back in 1215 - arguably the most important political document in human history - was unanimously adopted by the Second Congressional Congress in Philadelphia.  Its two primary authors, Virginia's Thomas Jefferson and Massachusetts' John Adams, were classically-trained men of soaring intellect and political brilliance. They were also obdurate, supremely self-confident and as personally different from one another as is a voluptuary from a prig.  Jefferson would serve as Adams Vice President and then defeat him in the election of 1800 - one of the nastiest campaigns in American history.  Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."  The venom between the two was so lethal that Adams pointedly snubbed his successor by leaving Washington, D.C. shortly before Jefferson's inauguration. 

And yet, despite the political and personal animus between these two historic giants, they eventually managed to mend the chasm between them and engage one another in what would turn out to be a most noteworthy relationship.  For the last 13 years of their lives, they wrote one another constantly.  Their dozens of letters covered topics running the gamut from the past, present and the future to religion, economics, literature, ancient languages, France, slavery and native Americans.  Chillingly, these two American icons died within hours of one another on the Fourth of July, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of their greatest joint accomplishment, the Declaration of Independence. Of course, had the two lived today, they would never have seen fit to speak to - let alone correspond with - one another.  For today, partisanship, generally speaking, eclipses patriotism, and reasoned compromise is - in most circles - considered the work of the Devil.  Then too, it is highly doubtful that either could even get elected to high office in the 21st century.  Maddeningly, we live in an era when a polymath like Jefferson would likely be rejected as being too effete and a devoted legalist like Adams for lacking the common touch.   

And so, with this introduction, what follows is a brief interview with Presidents Adams and Jefferson on the nation's 240 birthday.  Their responses are all direct quotations from their writings . . .

Question: Barack Obama is now in the final months of his presidency.  Could you perhaps sum up what he has exemplified during his eight years in office?

T.J. That nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances.

J.A.  If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.

Question: We live in an era of gross partisanship where "reaching across the political aisle" is all but impossible. Any thoughts or advice on the subject?

T.J. I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. . . .Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.

J.A. The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries

Question: Increasingly in our era, there has been uncovered a vast chasm between public protestations of faith, probity and rectitude and private venality and rapacity.  As a result, far too many Americans have lost faith in leadership.  Any thoughts?  

J.A. Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty; and this public passion must be superior to all private passions.

Question: Any thoughts about Donald Trump?

T.J. He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.

J.A. Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

T.J. Nothing on earth can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.

Question: Any thoughts on who you would endorse in the 2016 presidential election?
 

T.J & J.A. We will take this to be a question asked tongue-in-cheek, for obviously, having been deceased for 190 years, we cannot vote.  However, still having a strong stake in the country we helped to create, there is really only one choice . . . and that is our former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton. For in her, we find a person as well schooled in the art of governance as anyone in the past many generations. Although in life we did not agree on much, in this we are as one . . . Hillary Clinton for President of the United States!

Wishing one and all a Happy, healthy and meaningful Fourth of July . . . along with our eternal thanks to Presidents Adams and Jefferson.  May their conversations and debates up in the celestial balcony continue from now till the end of time. 

We conclude with the last words of history's most fascinating, illustrious and contentious of friends:

T.J. Is it the fourth? I resign my spirit to God, my daughter to my country, and

J.A. It is the glorious Fourth of July. It is a great day. It is a good day. God bless it. God bless you all. . . . Thomas Jefferson survives!

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone 

Brexit+Frexit+Texit = Ipse Dixit

Gawd, what a week:

The Trump for President campaign filed a financial report which was "highly disappointing" at best, "utterly disastrous" at worst. It showed that the Trump campaign hasn’t raised nearly enough money to run an effective presidential campaign, especially against a well-funded Democratic Party veteran like Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign raised only $3 million in May, compared with $26 million for Clinton. Even worse, the report showed that heading into June, Trump had just $1.29 million in cash on hand, as compared to Secretary Clinton's $42 million.  The A.P. reported that Trump had a maximum of 30 full time paid on-the-group staffers across the country.  (By comparison, it takes more than 30 people to fully staff a single TGI Fridays. Heck, I attended a Clinton strategy session this past Friday that had more than 30 people in a single room.) 

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows a precipitous drop in Trump's poll numbers: Trump trails Hillary Clinton by 12 points (51 percent to 39 percent) among likely general election voters. And the same survey, conducted after the mass shooting in Orlando, Fla., found 64 percent of Americans don’t think Trump is qualified to be commander in chief. As a result of all this bad news the billionaire bullyboy fired his volcanic campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who was then hired by C.N.N. to become their newest political commentator, which in turn led to"a near internal revolt" at the cable network and snarky comments from the likes of Meagan Kelly.  Along these lines, the week ended with veteran conservative columnist George F. Will announcing that he had changed party affiliation and would urge Republicans not to vote for Donald Trump, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refusing to say whether he believes his party's nominee is even qualified to be POTUS.

That's all on this side of "The Pond."  Crisscrossing over to Europe . . .

Voters in the U.K. decided to leave the European Union. Within hours, British P.M. David Cameron, who had campaigned vigorously for Britain to remain a part of the E. U., announced that he would resign his post by October. Almost immediately, speculation began to grow that former London Mayor Boris Johnson - a British version of Trump without the gelt - would become Britain's next P.M.  Global markets from Tokyo to Tunis tumbled; market analysts estimated that "The Brexit Panic" had wiped out upwards of $2 trillion in a single day. The Dow Jones 30 stock index fell 610.32 points - a 3.39% loss. The British pound tumbled to its lowest level in more than 30 years, leading more than one political wag to suggest it be renamed "the ounce." Donald Trump, who didn't have the slightest idea to what #Brexit referred on the first of June, interrupted his presidential bid to suddenly jet over to Scotland (which voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the E.U.)  in order to inspect "Turnberry," his newest golf course. In a single unscripted breath on the ninth tee of his golf course, he both took credit for the Brexit vote - if it turns out to be a  good thing - and blamed President Obama for the vote - if it turns out to be bad. (On the latter point, he said: "[Obama] is constantly dictating to the world what they should do. The world doesn't listen to him, obviously. You can see that from the vote. I actually think his recommendation…caused it to fail.")

 And, in a moment of utter tone-deafness, Trump said he was happy about this turn of events, because ". . . if the pound goes down, they're gonna do more business. . . .You know, when the pound goes down, more people are gonna come to Turnberry . . ." One wonders if Trump might be on the verge of changing his campaign slogan from "Make American Great Again!" to "Make America Great Britain Again!"  Then too, it should be noted that Trump endorser Sarah Palin added her discounted 2¢, concluding that "The Brexit referendum is akin to our own Declaration of Independence. May that refreshed spirit of sovereignty spread over the pond to America's shores! It is time to dissolve political bands that connect us to agendas not in our best interest; may UN shackles be next on the chopping block."

Humorously (shamelessly?) Trump told the world that he sees in Britain's vote to leave the E.U., validation for his campaign for POTUS: "I think there are great similarities between what happened here and my campaign. People want to see borders. They don’t necessarily want people pouring into their country — that they don’t know who they are and where they come from.’ "I think I see a big parallel," Trump said. "I think people really see a big parallel — a lot of people are talking about that. And not only the United States, but other countries. People want to take their country back." Of course, no one - save Mr. Trump - truly knows whether it was xenophobia, racism, economic disparity, paranoia, or a world-wide wave of nationalistic bravado that underlay the vote.  Then too, good old-fashioned political ignorance could have played a significant role; unbelievably, within moments of the polls closing, British voters began inundating the online search engine Google with two questions:

  1. "What is the E.U?" and
  2. "What does it mean to leave the E.U?"

Perhaps people in Britain are having a bit of "buyer's remorse."  A petition calling for another referendum on whether Britain should stay in the European Union has quickly received millions of signatures (more than 3 million as of 24 hours ago) — a level that means it must now be debated by British politicians. It was apparently so popular that the British Parliament's website, where the petition was hosted, briefly crashed.  Precisely what the vote means for the future of the U.K. - let alone the continent or the United States - is anyone's guess. 

Ever since the end of World War II, the world has become a smaller place.  Colonial entities rebelled against their masters, became impoverished countries and grew into powerful nations.  The wonders of technology further aided in the shrinking of a once vast planet, turning it into a series of markets.  Not surprisingly, these changes, while good and positive for many of the world's former have-nots, brought fear, uncertainty and a longing for "the good old days" to those who used to be on top. As such, the world has become a fertile breeding ground for demagogues; for those who are most adept at roiling already turbulent waters and lacing insecurity and uncertainty with the narcotic of fear.  hey prey on those whose knowledge of world affairs - of history, politics and economy - is slight and thus can be easily molded into an amen chorus.

 It is more than clear that what just happened in Britain is not an isolated case of political madness; it is a trend we've seen before.  As the world becomes increasingly intertwined by a network of markets and movements, a return to the political and psychological borders of yesteryear is insane.  Simply stated, tomorrow can never be like yesterday. The rise of Donald Trump is part of a nationalist trend we've seen whenever the challenges of the present make the past look like times of wine and roses by comparison. Today, there are hyper-nationalist movements galore on the continent - and even in the United States - all seriously pushing for disunion. Could this be the beginning of Frexit (France), Nexit (Netherlands), Gexit (Germany) , Dexit (Denmark), Swexit (Sweden), Grexit (Greece) and perhaps even Texit (Texas)?

Examples abound:

  • In France, Marine Le Pen, the virulently anti-Semitic leader of the Front National (FN) hailed Brexitas a clear boost for her presidential bid next spring, as well as a move that gave momentum to the party’s anti-Europe and anti-immigration line. “Victory for Freedom! As I have been asking for years, we must now have the same referendum in France and EU countries,” Le Pen wrote on Twitter.
  • In The Netherlands, MP , the far right Islamophobic demagogue Geert Wilders called for a referendum on Dutch membership of the EU. “I think it’s historic,” he told Dutch radio. “I think it could also have huge consequences for the Netherlands and the rest of Europe. Now it’s our turn. I think the Dutch people must now be given the chance to have their say in a referendum.”
  • In Germany,  Beatrix von Storch, an MEP for the right wing populist party Alternative für Deutschland, welcomed the result: “The 23 of June is a historic day. It is Great Britain’s independence day. The people were asked – and they decided. The European Union as a political union has failed,” said Storch, who was recently expelled from the Tories’ party group in the European parliament after suggesting German police might be within their rights to shoot refugees trying to cross the border.
  • In Sweden, the far right Sweden Democrats, who hold the balance of power in Stockholm, tweeted “Congratulations to Britain’s people on choosing independence! Now we are waiting for a #swexit!”
  • In Denmark, the powerful far-right Danish People’s party congratulated the British people on their “bold” choice, which, it said, was a “stinging slap to the whole system.” The DPP’s spokesperson Kenneth Kristensen Berth told Danish media: “These European bureaucrats have been unusually adept at avoiding any possible confrontation with the massive popular opposition to the project. The [British] signal cannot be overheard.”
  • Back here at home, there is even a nascent "Texit" movement in Texas.  “The win for Brexit opens the door for Texit by establishing, concretely, that it is possible to have an adult conversation on independence and letting the people have the final say,” Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement [TNM] said in a statement just hours after the British vote. Boasting 261,231 supporters on its website, TNM is calling for more Texans to join and bring pressure on Texas Governor Greg Abbott to allow a vote on independence from the US and its “sprawling Federal bureaucracy.” Failing to put its single issue on the ballot last year, and with the Brexit victory coming too late to rally support for a 2016 attempt, TNM will now aim for the 2018 mid-term election to convince voters to leave the US. The Lone Star State was the 28th to join the Union in 1845, following nine years of being an independent republic. And based on its present day $1.6 trillion economy, if it did become a separate nation, it would be among the 10 top economies in the world, Miller has repeatedly reminded his supporters. TNM 208,643 likes on Facebook, compared to 132,057 for the Texas Democratic Party anda mere 75,470 for the state’s GOP.

This is indeed scary stuff.

Donald Trump - along with the likes of Le Pen, Wilders, von Storch, Berth and Miller - are bent on turning the clock back to a time when white Europeans were in charge; on convincing their huddled masses that their very existence and future is in history's cross hairs and whatever they - the demagogues of nationalism - say is 100% true because . . . because . . . well, because they say it is. In Latin, this is called ipse dixit - literally "he himself said it."  Ever since the days of the Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero who first coined the term, it has referred to an arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker - who likely knows it not to be true - expects the listener to accept . . . merely because he says it. 

In other words, Brexit, Frexit, Grexit, Texit and Trump are all prime examples of ipse dixit, which is both highly contagious and potentially lethal . . .

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Speaking of . . . speaking

In order to get as clear a picture of the 2016 presidential race as possible, let's spend a bit of time speaking about . . . well, speaking.  For despite the fact that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have yet to put their imprimatur on precisely who their respective candidate will be, their respective strategies for victory - or defeat - are perfectly clear.  It all boils down to speaking; to words . . . words that have been spoken in the past, words spoken today, and words yet to be given voice. For the Clinton campaign, Donald Trump represents an opposition researcher's most treasured dream. For in Trump, the Clinton staff has an opponent whose nasty, vindictive, racist, xenophobic, sexist and just plain head-scratching speeches, tweets and verbal explosions are the stuff of which strategic campaign dreams are made.  In short, Secretary Clinton and her staff of advisors, strategists researchers, surrogates and pollsters are already using Trump's words against him . . . and will continue so doing until either the second Tuesday in November or the day Donald Trump announces that due to "a recently discovered, life-threatening medical problem," must "regrettably leave the presidential race in order to take care of my health." (As much out of left field as this may seem, do not, dear reader totally discount the possibility.)

And there's plenty of fodder for opposition research.  According to Politifact, in 2015, Donald Trump was the "liar of the year." A mere 2 out of 162 claims he made were true (and a combined 36 were either "mostly true" or "half true"), while 96 were either "false" or "pants on fire." By comparison, they found that out of 211 claims made by Hillary Clinton in 2015, 48 were true (and a combined 104 either "mostly true" or "half true") while 27 were either "false" or "pants on fire." And Trump calls her "crooked?"  Methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black . . .

We need neither rehash nor remind of Trump's wont for verbal inanities, self-congratulatory encomia, forensic inconsistencies or outright lies.  When all is said and done, the man is a Hall of Fame-class blatherskite.  And luckily for Clintonians everywhere, virtually the entire Trump aural oeuvre has been preserved and is thus available for use against him: everything from speaking out in favor of abortion and Planned Parenthood to being one of the founding fathers of the anti-Obama birther movement and most recently, dusting off a 1990s conspiracy regarding the suicide of former Clinton aide Vince Foster. And all these are just the tip of the iceberg; an iceberg that will be played out again and again and again in Clinton campaign ads.

Then, there are the speeches of Donald Trump's supposed supporters. When they open their mouths, they do neither themselves nor their candidate a bit of good. As but one example, the other day California Representative Duncan Hunter who, along with Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions co-chairs the Trump Leadership Committee in Congress, spent two minutes at a press gathering attempting to say something positive about his candidate for president.  An excerpt from the encounter speaks volumes:

A Washington Post reporter kicked things off by asking about Trump’s remarks at a Wednesday rally in Atlanta, where he made this suggestion to Republican leaders who are critical of him: “Be quiet. Just please be quiet. Don’t talk.”

Said Hunter, “I’m not going to comment on what he said. Really.”

The reporter followed up: “Is it wise for him to be telling Congress — ”

At which point Hunter interjected, “I’m not going to comment. I’m not going to tell him what’s wise and what’s not. It’s all about Trump.  . . . What I’m done with is trying to articulate or explain or answer for what Donald Trump says,” Hunter said. “I think he’ll be a great president. I think he’ll make good decisions on the economy, on the border, on national security, but it doesn’t mean we endorse what he says. I think what he says and what he’ll do are two different things.”

The Post reporter asked him, “So what should we believe when he says something? What should we believe when it comes out of his mouth?”

“What he said,” Hunter replied.

“But you just said you don’t necessarily believe what he says is what he’s going to do,” said the reporter.

“Right,” Hunter said. “True. But him talking about things and saying things about things is different than him saying what he’s going to do. I think he’ll do what he says he’s going to do. I’m not trying to parse words; I think he’ll do what he says he’s going to do. But he says things about things that I don’t endorse, and I’m not going to try to articulate for him.”

"It’s not my job to answer for Donald Trump,” Hunter said. “Really. I’m not even a surrogate. I’m just an endorser.”

Got that?

Trump's strategy against Secretary Clinton will also involve speaking . . . what she said, who she said it to and how much she was paid for saying whatever she said.  It is of course no secret that the Clintons are quite wealthy. Together, they have earned tens of millions of dollars on the lecture circuit as well as millions for writing bestselling books.  Secretary Clinton is represented by All American Speakers, whose other high-paid speakers include Magic Johnson, Ben Affleck, Jay Leno, Bob Dylan, Meryl Streep and. . . Donald Trump - all of whom earn a minimum of $200,000 a speech. 

Frequently, we hear from Donald Trump - and Senator Bernie Sanders as well - that Secretary Clinton is a creature of Wall Street and international bankers; that because she has given highly paid speeches before banking and investment groups, she is not and never shall be on the side of the middle class. 

Hmmm . . .

The truth of the matter is the majority of the money Secretary Clinton has made from speaking fees did not come from Wall Street. She has given nearly 100 paid speeches since leaving the State Dept., and only 8 were to “Wall Street” banks.  With the possible exception of one speech given to Deutsche Bank, all of Secretary Clinton’s 8 speeches to Wall Street were for a speaking fee of $225,000. That does not even break the top 20 of her highest paid speeches. In fact it’s not even close. For example she received over $275,000 each for three speeches she gave to The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, and Canada 2020. So apparently Canadians also “own” her.  Nearly all of her speeches were to organizations like American Camping Association, Ebay, Cisco, Xerox, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, United Fresh Produce Association, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, California Medical Association, A&E Television Networks, Massachusetts Conference for Women, U.S. Green Building Council, National Association of Realtors, American Society of Travel Agents, Gap, National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, etc.

Does Wall Street have influence with Secretary Clinton? Grow up, of course they do. Whether one likes it or not, Wall Street is one of the key engines of the American economy, and as such has enormous influence with everyone. EVERYONE. Don’t kid yourself on that point. And aside from anything else, she was a 2-term Senator of New York, and this made Wall Street an important corporate member of her constituency. The issue is not influence. The issue is whether or not paid speeches and campaign donations alone are proof of corruption. And they’re not. The last time I checked there was an important difference between association and guilt, between proof and slander. Corporations and Associations pay large fees for important speakers all of the time. And Secretary Clinton got booked fairly often because she is both interesting and popular, and because there’s a great deal of status attached to having her speak at an event. Ignoring all of this however, a large contingent of anti-Hillary people continue to insist that all those speaker’s fees from Wall Street banks were bribes, and that because of this they “own” her. But by that logic shouldn’t we all be asking what in the world the American Camping Association is up to?

Moreover, Secretary Clinton is far from being the highest-paid speaker on the circuit; Donald Trump has been paid more than $1.5 million on numerous occasions without anyone saying a word.  Then too, before he began his run for POTUS in 2007, former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani had been making in excess of $700,000 PER MONTH in speaking fees, with an average of $270k per speech. It’s estimated that in the 5 years before his run he earned as much as $40 million in speaking fees. Nobody cared, no accusations of impropriety were made, and there was almost no media interest.  And speaking of corruption, after leaving the Florida governor’s office Jeb Bush made millions of dollars in paid speeches. This includes large sums he collected from a South Korean metals company that reaped over a BILLION dollars in contracts from his brother’s presidential administration. Speaking to an Indian newspaper about this type of thing Bush said, “This is the life of being the brother of the president.” Do you remember reading all about that while Jeb was running for President? I didn’t think so. Jeb got a pass too.

So why all the concern over Secretary Clinton?  Could it be because she's a woman?

And so, the strategies seem to be set.  On the one side we have the words, speeches and pronouncements of Donald Trump - plus the halting, faltering statements of his supporters - coming back to haunt him and make him appear to be the political pigmy he is; on the other we have the accusation that because she has given speeches before groups of Wall Street bankers (and won't tell us what she said), that Secretary Clinton is really a stealth candidate representing the interests of the top 1%.  (Of course, there are also several other "minor" factors like policy, knowledge, understanding of the world, tenacity, temperament,  experience, maturity, statesmanship and, while we're at it, hairstyle. Along these lines, not only does Clinton out lap Trump by about 50,000 furlongs; she is, quite likely, the best-qualified [and most tonsorially gifted] presidential candidate in all American history.) 

I don't know about you, but if these are the strategies - i.e. speaking - I feel confident that sometime around midnight on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, the United States of America will have officially elected its first woman president.

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Take a Tip From Tevye's Rebbe

Up until about 48 hours ago, few - outside of diehard conservatives and political nerds - had ever heard of Georgia's junior senator, David Perdue.  But all that changed when Perdue, the former corporate turnaround specialist (Reebok, Pillowtex, Dollar General)  made national headlines for a brief speech he gave at a gathering of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Senator Perdue opened his remarks by encouraging attendees to pray for President Obama. But, he added in a rather smarmy tone, they needed to pray for him in a very specific way: “We should pray for him like Psalms 109:8 which says: 'Let his days be few, and let another have his office.'” The senator then stood at the dais, wryly smiling while the crowd broke into a loud cheer and gave him a thunderous hand of applause 

To anyone not knowing their Book of Psalms (or Acts 1:20 in the Christian Bible), one might take Perdue's comment as an attempt at a bit of partisan humor. However, given that the group Senator Perdue was speaking before can spout Biblical lines and verses until the cows come home, and given that Perdue's political  modus operandi involves a lot of scripture and public declarations of faith, one can fairly assume that both he and his audience were perfectly in on the real intent behind his citation: to wit, praying for the president's death. When this hit the media, Senator Perdue went from the senate's back bench to the national media's front line. Asked by a reporter from Politico whether he regretted his words, Perdue responded "Of course not!"

Now, to be certain, Perdue's staff and partisan allies claimed that all he was asking the audience to pray for was an end to the Obama Administration - not the life of the president.  "Quit being so sensitive and P.C.," more than one commentator urged.  "Get a life!"  However, at far back as 2009, there were reports ofbumper stickers and tee shirts emblazoned with the words "Pray for Obama - Psalm 109:8."  So to the folks gathered for the Faith and Freedom Coalition confab, this was nothing new.  Moreover,  given how well both Perdue and his audience know their Bible, they must certainly have been very aware that the words of the next several verses (9-13) underscore the true nature of the senator's request - and the cause of their cheers.  For verses nine through thirteen proclaim:

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread out of their desolate places.
Let the creditor disdain all he has; and let the strangers make spoil of his labor.
Let there be none to extend kindness unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generations to come, let their name be blotted out from under the heavens.

This, dear reader, is about as far away from a gentle joke as a Smart Car is from a Lamborghini Veneno. And, to make matters even worse, not a single Republican leader has taken Perdue to task - nor uttered so much as a single critical syllable.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who spoke immediately after Perdue at the coalition conference, said nary a word about Perdue's pronouncement - or the audience's response.  One would imagine that in his private life, the Senate Majority Leader does not pray for Mrs. Obama to become a widow or Sasha and Malia orphans, or for "none to extend kindness" to the president. And yet, by holding his tongue, he was signaling either his tacit support for Perdue's fervent wish, or an incipient cowardice; fear of losing the support of his party's ultra-Christian wing.  It is as troubling as Speaker Ryan deploring the racist comments of Donald Trump, but continuing to support his candidacy for president.  It would seem that in some circles, hatred of anything involving Obama, Clinton, progressive policy or the Democratic Party easily trumps patriotism or one's love of America.

Make no mistake: what Perdue, the Faith and Freedom Coalition crowd, and so-called "conservatives" without end espouse, is anything but "Christian" in the sense of Jesus of Nazareth's most important preachments:

  • "A new command I give you: Love one another."
  • "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you . . ."
  • "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
  • But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?”

 Perdue's followers are the ones who demand that government stay out of our lives - except when it comes to guns, sex and marriage; who see the needy as pernicious sponges; who believe that the President of the United States is a not-so-secret Muslim bent on destroying America while leading a conscious, Satanic war against Christianity; who spread fear and unreason; who blithely comingle religion and politics and argue that America must be a nation based on Christian principles; who pass on fables as if they were facts, and endlessly mouth bromides based on nothing but hot air. This is not Christianity as I understand it.  What it is, is base hucksterism cloaked in vaguely religious garments; a movement using the fumes of faith in the service of their temporal masters.  Christianity, like Judaism, Islam and virtually all of the planet's religious traditions, is based on love, care and the open hand- not the closed fist.  Regrettably, every religion does have its perverted radical factions, regardless of whether it be called Taliban, Khalistan, Dominionist or Neturei Karta, to name but a few.

As a member of a minority people who have indeed known what a war of extermination is really all about, I suggest that those preaching fear and praying for the death of President Obama, take a tip from Tevye, Yiddish writer Sholem Aleichem's greatest creation.  For, as those who remember Fiddler on the Roof will recall that Leibish, a neighbor of Tevye, the impoverished but irrepressible מילכיגער (dairyman), asks the rebbe (rabbi) if there was a proper prayer for the Tzar - definitely afar, far more ruthless, heartless and brutal tyrant than anyone the Christian right could ever imagine.  "A prayer for the Tzar?" the rebbe mused. "Yes, indeed there is."

"And what is it?" Leibish asks.  The rebbe responds in a singsong patter:

"May God bless and keep the Tzar . . . FAR AWAY FROM US!"  Not a prayer for the death of a real tyrant, but rather a fervent wish that he just take the next train out of town . . . and their lives.

May Senator Perdue and his ilk take a tip fromTevye's rebbe, start acting more like real Christians, and quit using Holy Scripture to call for the death of a president.

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone