The defeat of Senator Richard Lugar in the primary yesterday, sent signals that the traditional American two party system indeed may have entered a new and distressing phase. Hopefully, the American people will not let it happen, but Lugar’s loss yesterday by a staggering 22% seems to suggest otherwise. The six term Indiana senator did not merely come to the end of his political career—as all 81 year old mares eventually do—but he was defeated by an exceedingly well financed Tea Party onslaught against him. .
Lugar’s career could not have lasted forever. The other Republican moderate who faced a similar challenge, Olympia Snowe, retired rather than endure the embarrassment of being defeated after an equally fine legislative career. It is, however, the manner of how Lugar went down that ought to send shudders through the hearts and minds of Democrats as well as Republicans.
As was reiterated during last night’s celebrations, Lugar was defeated not because he took social and economic positions which were not conservative enough for today’s Republican Party. His opponent, Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, --even in victory—made it clear that Lugar lost because he was too willing to compromise in the Senate, too willing to work with other Senators who disagreed with him, too willing to work across the aisle with Democrats (perish the thought.) In other words, Lugar was defeated because he understood that the role of being a Senator (a legislator) was to legislate and not to obstruct; to participate in the governing process; and to facilitate its ability to function, not to disrupt and block it.
Democrats need to be very careful themselves how they respond now to the implications of the Lugar defeat. Democrats need to avoid letting the Tea Party rupture of the Republican Party lead to a similar polarizing effort within the Democratic Party. If the play their cards right in Indiana, they might even be able to conceivably takeover Lugar’s Senate seat in November, an hysterical result after all this Republican effort.
If the Democrats move too much to the left now, however, they too ultimately will bear responsibility for moving the Government into an ungovernable condition. In addition, party politics could then evolve into a condition which has historically failed in this country; having two ideologically extreme parties and not two centrist parties. Not since the days of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists have there been ideological based political parties; even not during the ante-bellum period. Such action could challenge and even destroy the uniqueness of the American two party system.
The sudden turn overnight in Israeli politics presented political analysts and journalists with a field day of speculation. Netanyahu’s decision to broaden the governing coalition into a Government of national unity; to not call the general elections he was about to announce; and to agree to address revision of the Tal Law, election reform, and the peace process constitute a slap at some of the current members of what is now a huge coalition of 94 members out of a 120 member Knesset. At the same time, for Shaul Mofaz it is an absurd turnaround following his Kadima victory after which he had told an Haaretz interview that he would never join the Netanyahu Government, despite his extremely close personal relationship with the entire family.
Mofaz, despite his military record, has been seen as a political opportunist. Yes, the Tal Law will be changed, but the Court had already ordered action by August 1; there will be some discussion with the Palestinians for which he may well be the point person to appease the U.S. and the Quartet but they are unlikely to move anywhere until after the U.S. elections in November and the Iran picture gains greater clarity and/or finality. As for electoral reform—which Israel desperately needs—there may well be some tinkering with list percentages and the primary systems or an electoral study commission established, but single member districts or party responsibility or major overhaul are exceedingly unlikely. Mofaz is motivated in all likelihood by an opportunistic sense of the moment to permit him time to build himself up and Kadima prior to the October 2013 elections.
While Bibi knows all this full well, bringing in Mofaz gives the Prime Minister political cover in almost all segments of the electorate where he may be soft. It also permits him to demonstrate to Washington that he is more open and sensitive to differing views; with more than three-quarters of the Knesset now in the Government. He can show that he brought in another former Chief of Staff and Defense Minister who himself was born in Iran and has not supported the more hawkish views advocated to date by the current coalition. Within the security cabinet, moreover, Bibi now has a possible foil for Barak and a force to quiet the recent array of former military and intelligence critics who have been attacking the Netanyahu Government’s policy direction on Iran.
The real losers are the other coalition members who now will either have to live with the centrist Kadima Party or bolt. Lieberman and his Yisrael Beitanu Party will probably stay the course, while the religious parties may leave over the Tal Law, since they can oppose it better outside the coalition and obstruct implementation more effectively. Meanwhile, the Labor Party and its new leader, Shelley Yachimovich, will be literally alone in the wilderness; just when they believed that new elections in September might boost them back to being a more significant opposition party.
There is one final dimension to these machinations. If Bibi now turns statesman and uses Kadima to seriously engage the Palestinians it would be huge, and would clearly challenge his older coalition partners especially the pro-settlement forces. (If there is such a turnaround by Netanyahu in the cards it will be readily evident this summer as the Government is under court orders to commence the dismantling of illegal settlements; something which Netanyahu of late has been seeking ways to circumvent.)
Over the past five days France elected a new President, Greece a new Parliament, and Great Britain selected largely pro-Labour (anti-Government) local leaders. For the Jewish communities in Europe these results present a bit of disquietude within the particular countries as well as for European Jewry in general. It likely will also have an impact on European relations with Israel and its acceptance of Israeli moves on a peace process with the Palestinians.
In all three countries the trend was to the left. Objecting largely to the economic austerity measures which existing Governments were imposing, the voters voiced their dissatisfaction with how the continuing debt crisis was being addressed. Movements to the left as well, always tend to feed pro-Palestinian voices. In addition, it is very significant to note that in both Greece and France there was also a sizeable vote for the extreme right.
In the first round of presidential voting in France, Marine Le Pen, the leader of Front National (FN) Party came in third in the first round of the presidential election, but with 17.9% of the vote. Despite not even being on the ballot, she held a large rally of her supporters in Paris on the day before the run-off. Meanwhile in Greece, the anti-Government vote from the left dominated the turn-out, but with hardly enough support to form a Government. At the same time, as in France, a right wing fascist group, the Golden Dome, a neo-Nazi Party gained entry into the new Parliament with over 6% of the vote. The sight of Nazi salutes and swastika like symbols made for a shuddering picture for the small Greek Jewish population as well as for Jews everywhere.
The Socialist Francois Hollande defeat of President Nicholas Sarkozy by over 3% of the vote appears likely to produce anxiety and questions for the French Jewish community of over 500,000. They are worried that a Socialist Government would be overly sensitive to Muslim demands in France. There was an even greater concern that a new Socialist regime will encourage even more the pro-Palestinian voices which are ever-present in France. While there will continue to be a normal working relationship between Israel and France, the positive atmospherics which pervaded between the two countries under Sarkozy is likely to move to into a much more critical view of Israeli actions in the Middle East. It was also not clear whether there would be any change in how a new French Government will address the Iran sanction program and the boycott of Syria, given the focus on France’s serious economic problems.
Meanwhile in Britain, the major exception to the anti-Tory vote throughout England last Thursday occurred in the one place where there was a clear Jewish issue. The incumbent London Mayor Boris Johnson defeated the former mayor Ken Livingstone by more than 3% of the vote in an ugly campaign during which Livingstone once again demonstrated his clear pro-Palestinian position and which included some negative stereotypic comments by him about Jews and money.
For the Cameron Government overall these local elections, as was the case in France and Greece, demonstrated public dissatisfaction with the Conservative Party’s dealing with the debt crisis and austerity measures as well as the leadership of this coalition Government with the Lib-Dems. For Jews, however, despite the fact that London is traditionally pro-Labor and that Labour increased the size of its control on the London Assembly, Johnson’s defeat of Livingstone was a relief.
President Obama cannot create jobs by himself and his re-election campaign is likely to be very tight with the unemployment numbers at the end of the summer. As is evident from the employment numbers released today, the United States has hardly moved into a full recovery mode. While private sector job growth is climbing slowly, public sector jobs have declined. While the unemployment rate dropped from 8.2% to 8.1% these number do not instill much confidence in a public which already has too large a percentage of people who are no longer even looking for work. For the Obama campaign the need to show consistent positive movement is growing more and more critical, and perhaps unlikely.
The rhythm of the fall campaign always follows the same beat. Romney needs to select a non-Palin running mate or else he will alienate, as did McCain, the large centrist voters. Then it will come down to the candidates’ two acceptance speeches and the first face-to-face debate (most of the public only focuses on the first one except if there are major guffaws). These are all events that the candidates can control.
At the same time both Obama and Romney know, for many even the debates will not have much influence as much of their debating was already done at the beach and poolside in August. Most voters have made their presidential choice before the end of the summer.
Baring a major foreign policy event (which Romney cannot control) the election contest will be decided by the unemployment numbers and the economic trend that exists by Labor Day (something the President can do little at this point to affect). It will be the trend not on November 1 but on Labor Day. Last minute numbers—even a gush of positive ones-- do not turn around many voters, 90% of whom have already made up their mind. For the White House, that was why the figures released today are politically so troubling.
From the Romney side these numbers make his appeal to the Independents so much easier. He can let the figures speak for themselves and urge the public to try another brand as the current one is not working.
On the other hand, it’s only May and in spring....
As the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney has entered the next phase of his campaign. Unfortunately, he seems to have begun it with as much finesse as he demonstrated during the primary season. All campaigns make mistakes, mis-speak, and fall all over themselves, but the Romney campaign and the candidate himself have so far surpassed even the worst expectations.
The primary campaign contest necessitated—as was understood from the beginning—that Romney cast his appeal to the Party’s right-wing base. It was understood as well, that he would need to broaden his appeal to the center and towards independent voters once the general election campaign began. He needed to accomplish this without alienating or antagonizing his primary support base, at least not too much.
As this was the Romney game plan from the beginning, it is not very impressive to watch how the campaign got itself into such a pickle surrounding the nomination of the new director of his foreign policy team, Richard Grenell. After being touted by his former boss and Romney supporter former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, Grenell’s appointment became totally distracted as the fact that he was gay and a supporter of gay marriage became public. The attacks were so strong that he resigned even before he managed his first Romney press event. The uproar from the Republican base in the weeks following his appointment made it impossible to keep Grenell in his new position, regardless of his qualifications.
For the Romney campaign overall, the substance of the attacks on him that he is gay will pass—eventually. The fact that Romney’s staff and Grenell himself did not anticipate this type of a pushback from the Party’s support base suggests a serious managerial problem which appears to continue to plague the Romney team from the top down.
More problematic for Romney is the dilemma which this staffing issue exemplifies. Unless Romney believes he will be able to separate himself from the right wing, Tea Partyers so that he can broaden his base of support, his entire campaign may be in serious trouble. From the middle and among Democrats, Romney will pick up those absolutely opposed to Obama, but that will not give him sufficient support to win in November. If Romney adopts the waffling strategy, he is likely to continue to find himself falling into traps for the next six months. Finally, if Romney tries to make believers out of the Independent voters based on the notion that the public should not worry about the campaign rhetoric, but have faith that he will do the right thing once elected-- as he did in Massachusetts--Romney is taking an enormous chance. It will then come down to trust and here Romney will need to insure that the right wing does not then stay home or walk away.
It seems that there is an unspoken reason for Netanyahu to call elections now rather than wait until 2013. Admittedly, within a parliamentary system there always is a notion in a parliamentary system, that a Government in power seeking re-election should permit the timing of an election to be dictated when it assumes it can win its largest percentage of seats. The current internal debate within the Government over the re-writing of the Tal law concerning compulsory military or national service is important, but it is not a reason to go to the voters now. The question is especially annoying to the secular or one side and the charedim on the other, but not enough on its own to dissolve the Knesset and push ahead with elections now.
At this time, however, there appears to be a critical leadership issue both within Israel and with the United States that Netanyahu wants to be addressed by the Israeli voters, before Americans vote in November; the response to Iran. The Prime Minister, when he finishes the shiva for his late father, probably will ask for elections to be held in September before Rosh Hashanah or later in October following Sukkot. By doing so he will let a public vote of confidence immediately quiet the recent emergence of his security and intelligence critics--who have been plentiful of late and have attacked his aggressiveness on the Iran nuclear issue.
Netanyahu will also place the U.S. on notice that they will have to accept his policy and direction over the next several years (and not possibly only until the previously scheduled 2013 elections). Bibi will be able to tell both Romney and—specifically from his perspective Obama—that after November he will collect on the U.S.-Israeli understanding reached in March, with respect to who will take out the Iranian nuclear capacity and/or how.
By November, his political deck –and the American one as well--will have been cleared. He will have silenced his political and military critics and rallied the nation with a bigger mandate for his Party. Barring a miracle on the diplomatic front, Bibi will be able to tell the world that it is now Showtime for Iran.
As he prepares the country for early national elections moving them up from October 2013 to this fall (between September and November), Netanyahu is trying to hit all the political buttons at the same time; including or especially the Iran button. So in the midst of a political debate over extension of the Tal law on required national service which exempts Arabs and full-time Yeshiva students in the charedi (ultra-Orthodox) community, Bibi has announced his intention to propose a change that would require Israeli Arabs to also perform a year of national service, but seemingly not the charedim.
While in principle this is a sound and legitimate proposal, one is struck by the fact that for 64 years—until recently—no effort even had been made to require national service from the charedim. Now facing the demand from Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beitanu Party to amend the Tal law to require all citizens to do national service, Netanyahu can push the Arab button and let Lieberman walk.
The politics of his making such a demand especially prior to the run-up to an election will be political suicide to his coalition (which he is dissolving anyway); a slap at the secularists (who want the charedim to serve and do not support him); a challenge to the opposition to respond (either way they do will be to their political disadvantage); and having the foreknowledge that he can drop the proposal after the election in order ultimately to keep the charedim in a new coalition.
At the same time there is something outrageous about this decision as far as the Arabs are concerned, considering the fact that his Government certainly has not distinguished itself in their overall attitude to Arab needs throughout the country. This does not even take into account the generally limited interest it has demonstrated towards the Palestinians and the peace process.
The passing of Benzion Netanyahu and the shiva period will undoubtedly postpone any movement on the pending legislation. Once Bibi returns to the political stage, one can expect even more of these machinations as he maneuvers to increase his mandate in a new election.
Chief of Staff Lt. General Benny Gantz’s interview with Haaretz two days ago raised a number of interesting issues concerning Israel’s policy intentions vis-à-vis Iran. Gantz clearly was challenging the policy direction and intentions expressed even last week by Prime Minister Netanyahu and seconded by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Unlike the Head of Government and his boss (who once held Gantz’ job) who have been using every opportunity—even a Yom HaShoah address—to reiterate the imminent danger toward which Israel was moving with Iran, Gantz appeared to take a totally different tack.
Gantz spoke in his interview in a relatively temperate manner about the threat that Iran presented. He suggested that Iran was not yet at the point of making a decision to produce a nuclear weapon; that Iran and it leaders were rational actors and would not act irresponsibly; and that the current wave of economic and petroleum sanctions imposed by the West were indeed beginning to work.
This obvious difference within the highest ranks of the Israeli security circle raises a number of questions. Should the Chief of Staff even be giving interviews and does he not work for the Prime Minister? Is he being insubordinate and ought he be reprimanded? While one may agree with his analysis, can a Government tolerate such a wide public divergence of views over such a critical issue? Even if the Government wanted a “good cop” –“bad cop” debate to be depicted, is this good for the morale of soldiers preparing and maneuvering for an engagement; for them to see their military leader appear to be at odds with their political leader? No one assumes there is unanimity within any government’s highest decision making chambers, but why was such a critical difference aired in public?
There are two less than satisfactory answers which can be given, beyond the obvious ones. The Netanyahu Government wanted this debate to be publicized and to be recognized. It planned it this way. Bibi wanted Iran and the world to see the debate and then to watch and see who wins and how a democracy works. Alternatively, Gantz was so frustrated with the nature of the military discussion and “public planning” that he threatened to resign if he could not make know his own views.
Regardless of the answers that are given to these questions, it seems that there is a very basic systemic matter that has served the U.S. military and American politics very well and which Israel could adopt. We tend to seriously separate the public role on defense matters played by the Secretary of Defense from the strategic and tactical military roles played by the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff of U.S. Armed Forces. American commanders—even major field commanders-- have spoken out and not all have been dismissed like MacArthur; but they generally do not engage in polarizing debates. Gantz’ actions and his future behavior as a general operating within the political world will bear serious attention as much as how Israeli policy on Iran emerges.
Meshoe Attack on the Israel Commits Apartheid Allegation
The attached youtube cut was referred to me by a colleague. In it the Reverend Kenneth Meshoe delivers one of the most articulate responses—by an African—to the charge that Israeli policy against the Palestinians is a form of apartheid. Meshoe has been the President of the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) since 1993, a member of the African Parliament, National Assembly, since 1994. This may not be the only one, but he certainly makes a strong case against the analogy charge.
His presentation was delivered at the International Israel Allies Caucus Foundation meeting of pro-Israel legislators held in November 2011 in Budapest, Hungary.
Campaign 2012 has come so far, but it still has so far to go. Hard as it may be to believe now that the Republican nominating slugfest is over, there are still four months before Mitt Romney accepts the nomination in Tampa. Then it is more than two more months until Election Day. The thought alone is exhausting.
The amount of copy that will pour out of journalists and bloggers machines over this period is totally insane. Talking heads will fill the airwaves with more dribble than usual because on most days there truly will not be any political news. They and the American public will dissect and parse every word uttered and every action taken by Obama and Romney and their surrogates until everyone will be so bored they will have to vote to end this ridiculously elongated campaign “season”.
To say that the system needs reform is stating the obvious. There is a preposterous, potential $2 billion price tag already being attached to this year’s campaign, suggesting that the campaigns and the superPACS will be able to keep the creative geniuses in advertising employed; the television ads plentiful to fill the stations’ coffers; and most of the public learning to make maximum use of their TIVO machines.
Obama will spend the time governing, controlling the news cycle, and fund-raising. Romney will make news by attacking the President’s governing, attempting to invade his command of the news, and fund-raising. (Romney also will need to select his running mate, but how many days or weeks can that story keep the American people curious.) All of this effort will be done between now and the end of the conventions by which time most political scientists agree almost 90% of the American people will have decided for whom to vote.
The American people should hope that there are lots of funny bloopers to emerge from one or the other campaigns and that the late –night talk show hosts have some good material to keep the public focused on the election. The only other hope is that the NBA and the NHL playoffs are long enough and exciting enough that they will drag along until the baseball season really gets going in the summer. Otherwise, there may be many Americans considering going on a long fishing trip.
Follow NJJN
E-Newsletter Signup