Are You an ABT Voter—Anyone But Trump?

Are you an ABT voter—Anyone But Trump?

Wait. Before we get into the original subject of this blog, let me aver that I believe The New York Times, specifically columnist Bret Stephens, must have hacked my iPhone. Heck, if Jeff Bezos’ iPhone could be hacked, who am I to think mine couldn’t, especially when it contains a really juicy story idea about ABT voters. And to show you how nefariously ingenious The Times’ caper is, the paper also ran an Op-Ed piece entitled “Jeff Bezos’ Phone Hack Should Terrify Everyone” (https://nyti.ms/37oujrL), directly above a Stephens article on ABT voters. How cunning to try to misdirect the scent of the crime from its editorial room.

Late last week I started writing a blog on ABT. As I often do, I wrote the beginning on my iPhone in bed before sleep stopped my progress. But I couldn’t fall into deep slumber. Too much on my mind. Too many tasks to accomplish. So I wrote a To Do list in my iPhone before finally allowing zzzz’s to overwhelm my consciousness.

Not suspecting any skulduggery I posted a Friday blog on my recent purchases of cardigans instead of the Anyone But Trump theme.

Imagine my excitement then when Saturday afternoon I opened The Times to see the following headline:

“Anyone But Trump? Not So Fast,” a column by Bret Stephens printed directly under the aforementioned opinion piece on Jeff Bezos (https://nyti.ms/2Rnl0mc). 

I quickly checked my iPhone for literary comparisons to what Stephens wrote. After all, it is not uncommon for good ideas to simultaneously formulate in the minds of several journalists. That’s when the hacking was “revealed” to me. Revealed might not be the right term, for my ABT story and my To Do list were nowhere to be found in my iPhone.

Now, some of you might be thinking I just forgot to save the ABT story. You know, you’re thinking he’s already admitted to being “old,” another synonym for forgetful or just plain tech-challenged. Yeah, true on all counts. But why would I lose the To Do list, as well? I’m thinking The Times hackers stole that file to really mess with my sanity.

I’ve no proof for these wild allegations. Just a deep-seated journalist’s hunch. Or more probably, a pixieish imagination. Anyway, time to talk about ABT and Stephens’ analysis.

I am an ABTer, though I admit I am not enthusiastic about any of the choices Democrats are proffering. There’s goodness in most of them and cautionary traits as well. Unlike many punsters on the left and right I do not fear a Warren or Sanders presidency tilting our government too much to the extreme. None of the Democratic candidates has the bellicosity Trump has displayed to cower the party into cult-like submission. Any Democratic president will have to work with Democrats in Congress to forge consensus, middle of the road changes that first and foremost restore progress achieved in the Obama years to environmental, civil rights, labor, health care, and abortion rights causes, to name a few initiatives. 

Anyone, I believe, would be better than Trump. 

In offering a defense against Trump’s impeachment, Stephens wrote, “First, the argument (for impeachment) overstates the extent to which this presidency has eroded the foundations of liberal democracy at home and abroad. Has Trump abandoned NATO? No. Has he lifted sanctions on Russia? No. Has he closed the borders to all immigrants? No. Did the president steal the midterms, or stop Congress from impeaching him? No. Has he significantly suppressed the press? Again, no.”

I disagree.  Has Trump weakened respect for the judiciary? Yes. Has he weakened our constitutional checks and balances system of government? Yes. Has Trump strained relations with allies? Yes. Has he eroded the credibility of our intelligence and law enforcement services? Yes. Has Trump strengthened the dark forces of white nationalists? Yes. Has he emboldened despots and autocrats around the globe? Yes. Has Trump corroded America’s historic values? Yes. Has he debased the bond our word used to be throughout the world? Yes. Has Trump made lies and falsehoods the new standard of presidential speak? Yes. Has he made Americans and the rest of the world lose trust in what America stands for? Yes.

But all of those actions do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. They just show he is a bad, dangerous president. 

What are impeachable offenses are his attempt to extort Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election by announcing a corruption investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden, in return for a White House meeting and the transfer of withheld military aid approved by Congress, and the obstruction of the House of Representative’s probe of his actions by refusing to release documents and allowing his aides to testify about the Ukrainian affair. 

Stephens and I shared an editorial construct. But we diverged in our execution. I prefer mine to his. I hope you do, too.

Wimping Out: While I’m blasting away at The Times, let me also opine that the flagship newspaper of American journalism wimped out when it came to its dual endorsement of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar as the best choices for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. 

I’m not against the failure to choose a singular candidate. Rather, what immediately struck me as cowardly is the decision to publish the joint endorsement on a Monday, not on Sunday. 

I know that Monday, January 20, coincided with commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and was exactly one year prior to the inauguration of our next president, but if The Times wanted the biggest bang for its buck it would have printed its choices in the issue with the largest circulation of the week (1,087,500 copies)—the Sunday edition—which enjoys readership almost double that of the weekday issues (571,500).  

Hip, Hip, Hooray to the Queen's History Lesson

Let’s give a traditional British cheer to the Queen—Hip, Hip, Hooray; Hip, Hip, Hooray; Hip, Hip, Hooray—for her nuanced yet clearly distinguishable and distinguished public rebuke of Donald Trump’s disruptive attacks on global institutions that have safeguarded democracies since the end of World War II.

Speaking in what the Daily Mail called “code,” Queen Elizabeth II’s toast during the formal state dinner for her visitor included the following: “After the shared sacrifices of the Second World War, Britain and the United States worked with other allies to build an assembly of international institutions, to ensure that the horrors of conflict would never be repeated. While the world has changed, we are forever mindful of the original purpose of these structures: nations working together to safeguard a hard-won peace.” (https://mol.im/a/7100721)

It could hardly go unnoticed that Trump has questioned the value of NATO, has sharply criticized several of its members including the leaders of Germany, France and even Great Britain, has sided with NATO’s chief adversary, Russia, and has sought to undermine the European Union. 

The queen’s foray into tactful but forthright diplomacy was a deviation from her normal, at least in public, arms-length distance from politics. Contrast that long held behavior to that of Prince Charles who has been reliably reported to be eager to confront, or shall we say, educate, Trump about the realities of climate change. 

For his dinner toast, Trump  lavished praise on the 93-year-old monarch who has provided “seven decades of treasured friendship.” He called her “a great, great woman.” 

“On behalf of all Americans, I offer a toast to the eternal friendship of our people, the vitality of our nations, and to the long-cherished and truly remarkable reign of her majesty, the Queen,” he said. 

Trump also said he was toasting the “common values that will unite us long into the future—freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, the rule of law and reverence for the rights given to us by Almighty God.”

By including “self-determination” Trump may have been signaling his support for Brexit, a stance he has openly endorsed. 

How Trump will react to the gloved hand rebuke by the queen is unknown at this time. It is doubtful he will call her “nasty,” as he did her granddaughter-in-law, the Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle). Trump loves pageantry, even if it casts a shadow on him. All he will remember is the sumptuous surroundings of a state dinner in Buckingham Palace, with all eyes on him and the queen.

Supreme Court Aside, Why Do Evangelicals and Republicans Stay Silent on Trump?

Ever the showman Donald Trump is expected to reveal Monday night his next conservative, court-packing nominee for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is his constitutional imperative to select a nominee; it is within his rights and privilege to choose a jurist he believes will decide the law based on the values and principles he espouses. Forget for a moment that Trump waffles on principles and displays no values, especially as they relate to family. 

I don’t agree with them, but I can understand why evangelicals support Trump. He promised them a conservative federal court. He is delivering on that promise, thanks in no small measure to Mitch McConnell’s obstructionist strategy to deny a hearing to President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. 

Support, however, does not mandate blind, unswerving allegiance. It does not prohibit conscientious objection to policies that are aberrant to their Christian faith. They should not have to twist Scripture inside out to justify abhorrent behavior. 

The Catholic church, after all, is just as dedicated to the abolition of abortions, yet its leadership, all the way up to the pope, has been intensely vocal in criticism of Trump’s behavior towards migrant families. 

So I am puzzled by the silence flowing from an evangelical community that is accustomed to hearing fire and brimstone penalties to anyone who acts contrary to god’s and Jesus’ admonitions.  

Let me reiterate: While I do not condone one-issue voters, I recognize their right to follow their narrow public consciousness. I have too many friends who voted Trump because they perceived his support of Israel stronger than the alternative, reinforced by his shift of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. 

They remain friends. We try not to talk politics, as I cannot condone their silence, and that of millions who I do not personally know but who profess to be god-fearing, in the wake of Trump’s flagrant abuses and miscalculations. Those millions include elected Republican officials. 

Where is the outcry, the condemnation, or at least an expressed revulsion at a zero-tolerance policy that ripped children from their parents? Should they not be repulsed by the ineptitude of their government not being able to expeditiously reunite families?

Even Democrats acknowledge industry is weighted down by too many regulations. But where is the sense of outrage from Republicans over the revocation of laws that protect our water, land and air quality? 

Do rank and file Republicans, along with Independents and Democrats who voted for Trump, not see that the tax bill provides meager relief to the vast majority of Americans while rewarding the wealthy and corporations with riches beyond their expectations? 

As other countries respond to Trump’s tariffs by targeting products from states he won, why are they silent when their livelihood is at stake? It’s not “America right or wrong” time when it is painfully obvious to all but Trump that winning a tariffs war is not easy.

Do they not see Trump was snookered by the North Koreans, that his boast that we could sleep more easily now because Kim Jong-un agreed to denuclearize was as empty as his claim to educate the gullible and desperate at Trump University? 

And what about our stature in the world? Do they not understand that “America First” runs counter to the principles and leadership embodied by the United States after World War II? That it was that global, communal ethos embodied by NATO and the Marshall Plan that enabled Western European civilization to reconstruct itself after the war’s devastation, that it forged successful economic and political recoveries in Japan and South Korea after two devastating conflicts? 

How do they square Trump’s campaign rhetoric that he is a big builder who will draw up a huge infrastructure investment list with the reality he not only has not initiated a building program but he also has stymied perhaps the most important project, construction of a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River critically needed to support the Northeast which represents more than 10% of the nation’s economy?

Despite Trump’s repeated efforts to hamper it, the Affordable Care Act remains popular. How can they justify a disregard for the health needs of millions? Isn’t caring and concern for the sick part of their religious creed? How can they remain silent when the Trump administration, in support of infant formula manufacturers, disregards scientific data that breast milk is better than baby formula, and compounds the heresy by blackmailing other countries to follow its dictates at the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly? How humiliating that Russia—Russia!—had to save the day for truth and science! (https://nyti.ms/2J0WJuV)

And speaking of Russia, how can evangelicals and ordinary Republicans acquiesce to the bromance Trump has with Vladimir Putin? Democrats are not demanding an invalidation of the 2016 presidential election. They are demanding admission that Russia interfered with it. They are demanding Trump instruct appropriate federal agencies insure it doesn’t happen again. To date Trump has not. 

With all that Trump has accomplished in undermining the values and doctrines of America, Republicans have steadfastly stood behind him. It is foolish to presume they will abandon him in the 2020 election. 

The only way to unseat him will be if enough citizens who failed to vote in 2016 realize their voices can and must be counted to avoid a decades-long descent into despair. 

In 2016, roughly 100 million eligible voters stayed home. 

Kasich Is All Cuddly But at Heart a Conservative

You have to hand it to John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, who failed in his attempt to secure the Republican Party presidential nomination but who continues to try to present himself as a reasonable, humane, thoughtful, non divisive alternative to Donald Trump should there be a vacancy, for any reason, at the top of the 2020 GOP ticket. 

Kasich appeared on Late Night with Seth Meyers a day before Trump delivered his State of the Union address Tuesday. He sounded soooo normal. And Meyers, usually a sharp observer of the political landscape, fell into the trap Kasich set. 

You see, Kasich is a conservative. His tone might be different, more pleasing, than Trump’s, but his substance, the outcome of his actions, were he to inhabit the White House, would not be materially different.

Like an old sweater one wears around the house, Meyers felt comfortable talking kumbaya with Kasich. (Here are two clips encompassing the totality of the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ4sZY_RowM

and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnd-dyL5SIE) 

But Meyers never asked him any nitty gritty questions about what the Trump administration has done and if he would have done the same or acted differently.

What, for example, is Kasich’s position on coal? Is he in favor of softening environmental regulations on coal mining and burning? What’s his position on alternative energy sources? Would he permit oil and gas exploration along our coastlines?

Would he have nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court? In general, what criteria would he use in selecting federal judges?

How would he have fixed Obamacare? 

What are his beliefs on abortion and funding of Planned Parenthood for non abortion related activity?

What are his positions on NAFTA, the Paris climate accords, NATO, the Keystone Pipeline, the Trans Pacific Trade Pact, the United Nations, Jerusalem as the location of our embassy in Israel, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the Iran nuclear deal?

How would he resolve differing views on the Dreamers? Would he build a southern border wall? What, if any, changes would he like to see in our immigration policy?

Does he believe Russia interfered in our 2016 election? 

Is he comfortable with the influence the religious right is having on government? 

Is the new tax plan acceptable to him?

Many of these questions can be answered by looking at Kasich’s Web site (https://www.johnkasich.com). For example, Kasich champions his opposition to abortion and funding of Planned Parenthood. 

We live today in a sound bite world. For Meyers (and, to be honest, lots of other TV hosts) to give Kasich and other politicians a soapbox to sound statesmanlike without providing specifics would result in saddling us with another Trump, albeit with a more teddy bear demeanor.

We would be shaking our heads and wondering how we got duped again. Meyers is an entertainer. I get that. But he has injected himself five nights a week into the political dialogue so he needs to step up from one dimensional attacks on Trump’s behavior to offer constructive alternatives. 

Have more respect for, and confidence in, his audience, that viewers want not just jokes but hard information when interviewing Kasich et al, as he has done with his Closer Look segments. 

Alternative Universe: What alternative universe does Donald Trump live in? Prior to delivering his State of the Union speech he said his goal would be to end the divisiveness that has existed in the country for many years. 

It’s a laudable objective but does he not recognize that he is a prime reason we are a polarized society? 

From his despicable advocacy of the birther movement questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency to his abusive comments, delivered live and in tweets, mostly about women but also about anyone who disagrees with him, to his embrace of neo-Nazi and alt-right leaders and members, to his denigration of national organizations such as the FBI and the CIA, Trump has done more to divide our country than any president of the last century. 

It’s no wonder that Kasich thinks being a “good guy” might be enough to propel him forward. 

He's No Anti-Semite But Sean Spicer Is A Peter Principle Poster Child

I don’t believe Sean Spicer is anti-Semitic. I think he is a living, breathing example of the Peter Principle in action, someone who has risen to his level of incompetency. 

By all accounts, Spicer served ably as a PR flak for Republican organizations before being named White House press secretary. He even founded his own public relations firm. But the daily glare and grind of having to justify, explain and defend a president and administration that is constantly shifting positions and oftentimes tweeting out falsehoods would trip up even the most agile wordsmith. Spicer got caught up in a moment of downward momentum. Who among us has not been tongue-tied when confronted by a penetrating inquiry from a boss or spouse or partner? Have you ever stood before television cameras under bright lights for 30 minutes answering question after question from skeptical, cynical interlocutors? 

No, Spicer was no anti-Semite. He was regrettably, for him, exposed as incompetent and more than a little ignorant. So send Spicer to a Holocaust study camp. Instruct him in the details of the Holocaust. 

Spicer’s ignorance of history fits the pattern of ignorance exhibited by Donald Trump’s appointments. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos doesn’t know basic education theories. Rick Perry has no knowledge of, or background in, nuclear energy which he is empowered to control as energy secretary.  Environmental Protection Agency commissioner  Scott Pruitt thinks he knows more about climate change than the overwhelming majority of scientists. 

I don’t think Sean Spicer does his job well. He should resign or be fired. But not because he is anti-Semitic. 

Trump 2.0?: Now that he has fulfilled his promise to restore a conservative balance to the Supreme Court with a probable anti-abortion stance, Trump may just may be on the verge of transitioning toward a more centrist presidency. At least that’s what numerous political analysts are spitting out these days. They cite his admission that running the government is more complex than candidate Trump thought it could be and that many of the positions he took on the hustings are just not viable or appropriate now that he’s in office. 

On Thursday the AP included the following list in a story on his reign (of terror—my descriptor): 

“Over the past 48 hours, the outsider politician who pledged to upend Washington has:

“- Abandoned his vow to label China a currency manipulator.

“- Rethought his hands-off assessment of the Syrian conflict - and ordered a missile attack.

“- Turned his warm approach toward Vladimir Putin decidedly chilly and declared U.S.-Russia relations “may be at an all-time low.”

“- Decided NATO isn't actually obsolete, as he had claimed.

“- Realized the U.S. Export-Import Bank is worth keeping around.”

Those are all fine and good transitions, but he remains a mean-spirited executive of uneven temperament, especially towards issues that affect women and the health of Mother Earth. Last week Bill Maher’s New Rules segment included a scorching rebuke of Trump administration actions. See for yourself: https://youtu.be/P2QXMGYluzo

Trump has declared war not just on American women seeking control over their bodies but on women throughout the globe who need affordable, attainable health care. On Thursday, he signed a bill rescinding an Obama-era rule prohibiting states from denying federal funding to organizations like Planned Parenthood if they also provide abortion services. Federal law already restricts funding for abortions. Trump’s signature now imperils the ability of organizations to have sufficient monies to offer preventive care to women including breast examinations, family planning and reproductive health services for mostly low-income families and the uninsured. 

In late January women the world over took a hit from Trump when he re-instituted a Reagan-era ban prohibiting foreign aid to health care providers who discuss abortion as a family-planning option. Those put at risk by Trump’s actions include many of the poorest women in the world who live in countries where abortion is legal. 

Low-Tech Protection: Here’s a low-tech way to protect pedestrians from terrorists driving trucks into crowds as has happened in France, Sweden, Israel and Germany—Erect cement or metal barriers in front of buildings such as department stores, museums, government offices, theaters and tourist attractions where people are known to congregate. 

After The Oklahoma City federal office building bombing in 1995, real estate owners began placing barriers in front of their structures. They were placed there to stop car bombs from getting too close to the buildings. But the barriers could serve the additional function of keeping trucks and other vehicles from mowing down people on the sidewalk. Though a test in Germany found concrete barriers to be less than ideal, they would limit the havoc from a terrorist attack (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/791193/Terrorist-truck-attack-German-researchers-test-concrete-barriers). 

European cities already fence off parts of sidewalks where they don’t want pedestrians to cross. It would not seem to be too cumbersome an effort to shield areas where crowds gather. 

Speaking of crowds, Ted Bernstein, the legendary copyeditor of The New York Times, must be rolling over in his grave given the excessive mistakes that find their way into print on paper and on line. Since the Internet sharply reduced the time from article conception to distribution mistakes have skyrocketed. 

They’re not all typos. Many times they are the wrong words correctly spelled, as in this example from an article on the size of the inauguration crowd I read in the print edition of The Times earlier this week:

“Upon being sworn into office, the president began to silence federal agencies from speaking out on the social media platform after the National Park Service’s official Twitter account posted side-by-side images comparing the size of the crows at Mr. Trump’s inauguration.” 

Did you catch the mistake? Spellchecker didn’t as “crows” is spelled correctly. The online version of the story published the intended word, “crowd.” 

Change of Phrase: It used to be Israel was said to be the only true democracy in the Middle East. Now, with elections in Tunisia and Lebanon, among other states, Israel has begun identifying itself as “the Middle East’s only haven for free speech, women, and minorities.” 

It’s a commendable position but not nearly as solid as its former claim, made all the more slippery by its control over 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank.

Did You Know Dilbert creator Scott Adams is a conspiracy theorist?

On April 6, Adams posted an article on his website claiming that the fatal Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in Syria two days earlier was a “manufactured event” designed to provoke a response (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159264981001/the-syrian-gas-attack-persuasion?utm_source=blog.dilbert.com/share-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=brand-loyalty).

That’s enough to make the bottom of my necktie stand up and shriek, “Noooooo, don’t make me put Dilbert on my no-read list!” 

Foreign Affairs and Christian Charity

I feel like Michael Corleone in Godfather III: Every time I try to distance myself from Donald Trump and write about something or someone else, he does another unimaginable act that pulls me back in. (Dedicated readers might remember I used that analogy once before: http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2013/06/godfather-iii-and-supreme-court.html)

So, the soon-to-be 45th president has startled the foreign relations community by talking directly with the president of Taiwan, what international experts are saying will be interpreted by China as an affront.

I don’t know enough about Sino-American relations to comment beyond what I read. But I do recognize that unilateral surprise actions by our president-elect have the potential to unhinge diplomatic ties around the world. Remember how his casual comments during the campaign questioning support for NATO members caused tumult throughout the alliance? 

It has been reported that Trump has disdained receiving global security updates and has preferred having his daughter Ivanka sit in on meeting with foreign delegates rather than State Department experts. This is no way to run a country, at least not a nuclear power considered the bulwark of western civilization.

During the campaign wacky pronouncements from The Donald were commonplace, dismissed by his handlers as electioneering bravura. But now, even before he has nominated a secretary of state, Trump is upending decades of bipartisan United States foreign policy relations.

He was blindsided into talking with the president of Taiwan. He answered her congratulatory telephone call. Looks like his ego, the chance to have it stroked, got the better of him.

He compounded the diplomatic faux pas by tweeting—what else is new—about it. In his tweet Trump called Tsai Ing-wen the president of Taiwan, a title American presidents have resisted using for decades because of our tangled relationship balancing China and Taiwan as the true representative of more than 1.4 billion people.

Of course, this controversy is not the first set off by the next president. He has ruffled feathers in regard to India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Russia and Japan (http://nyti.ms/2gwOZX3). 

Well, he will be president and have the power and authority to set foreign policy, but I would feel a lot more comfortable if Trump discussed his moves with qualified experts before thrusting them on the public. Could he at least have the decency to maintain the status quo until after January 20 so President Obama doesn’t have to clean up any messes his successor creates? 

Christian Charity: Now that evangelicals can claim they helped elect Trump, I am wondering how much pressure they will exert to further Christian charity toward the needy?

Presumably, they will get their election reward in the form of an anti-abortion Supreme Court nominee. But once Roe v. Wade is overturned, or, at the very least, restrictive state measures are condoned and upheld, making more unwanted babies a reality, will evangelicals be willing to lobby for more social services for them and their mothers?

Evangelicals have been welcoming to refugees fleeing Mideast conflicts. But will they be able to soften Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-Muslim stances?

Trying to discern the thinking and values of the religious right is an exercise somewhat beyond my ken. Consider the case of Liberty University, a Christian university in Lynchburg, Va., and its quest to become a college football powerhouse.

It displayed a greater belief in football excellence than Christian values in selecting a new athletic director tainted by a failure to appropriately respond to charges of multiple gang rapes and sexual assault by members of the football squad at Baylor University, his last employer (http://nyti.ms/2gYinCd). 

It is easier to figure out Republican values in saying that after they repeal the Affordable Care Act a new health care plan to replace Obamacare would not be ready for three years. They clearly want to avoid having to answer for lost coverage by millions of Americans until after the mid-term elections of 2018. 

The GOP is simply abiding by the first and most important tenet of any politician—get re-elected.

More Help for Lester Holt: A New Set of Questions for the First Clinton-Trump Debate

Less than a week until the first presidential debate. The pressure must be excruciating on … Lester Holt of NBC News, the first moderator. Two weeks ago I suggested questions Holt should ask both candidates. 

They were almost exclusively designed to elicit differences between Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s policy positions. It wouldn’t necessarily make for good television, but it would be educational (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2016/09/policy-questions-for-first-clinton.html).

But TV, if anything, is about ratings and keeping an audience engaged. So here’s a different list of questions I believe Holt should ask of them individually and sometimes together (you’ll notice I have more questions for Trump because, in my humble opinion, he has more explaining to do). 

Trump and Clinton:  What is the greatest threat facing the United States?

T: What information changed your mind about President Obama’s birth in the United States? When did this information reach you?

C: What made you think the public did not have a right to know about your recent pneumonia?

T: Why do you feel the public does not have the right to see your tax returns as all presidential candidates, and many seeking lower offices and judicial positions, have released them over the last four decades?

T: You have called Hillary Clinton crooked. Can you point to any examples of crooked behavior?

T: You have called for paid family leave. Do you already provide it in your own companies, and if not, why not? Also, you have promised paid family leave but Republicans in Congress have not supported such a measure. How can the public expect you to fulfill that promise?

C: If Republicans maintain control of one or both houses of Congress how will you be able to get your platform passed?

C: Why should the American public trust you when time and again you have not been totally forthcoming when explaining your email server and your recent illness?

T: You have called Secretary Clinton “lyin’ Hillary,” yet time and again independent fact checkers have labeled more of your statements as untrue by a wide margin even though you have promised never to lie to the American public. Why should they believe you?

T: Almost all reputable scientists believe sea levels are rising due to climate change. Your property, Mar-a-Lago, sits on the beach in Palm Beach, Fla. Do you believe in the forecasts by the scientists and if not what evidence have you to the contrary? 

C and T: What can be done to stop sleeper cell terrorists, many of whom would be natural or naturalized citizens, from attacking Americans on our homeland? 

T: You have said “to the victor go the spoils,” that we should have taken Iraqi oil and left troops in Iraq to guard the oil wells and that to combat terrorism we should torture suspects and kill the families of terrorists, all violations of international law. Is that the standard you want to set for the United States?

C: The Clinton Foundation accepted donations from foreign governments and citizens. Why should we believe you have not been influenced or would not be influenced by such funding?

T: Why do you believe right wing and racist fringe organizations have expressed support for your campaign?

T: Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than American citizens. What would you do to reduce crime in America?

C: What went wrong in Iraq, Libya and Syria under your watch as secretary of state and why should we believe you would handle future crises differently and better?

T: You have said your response to threats against NATO allies would be dependent on their financial support of our troops. Is that a prudent plan in dealing with Russia?

C: Time and again you advocate a cautious, measured response to events and the status quo in government. Yet the American public appears interested in decisive leadership that would break up the status quo, which you seem reluctant to provide. Why should they expect you to be an agent of change?

T and C: Which three presidents or world leaders, living or dead, do you admire and why?

T: Our greatest economic gains over the last 40 years occurred under Democratic administrations that advocated and passed higher taxes on the wealthy, while lower taxes under Republican administrations did not produce the promised gains for the middle and working classes. Please explain why your tax strategy would reverse this reality?

C: As a senator you voted for the Iraq war. As secretary of state you advocated involvement in Libya and Syria. What is your standard for military intervention by the United States?

T: You recently said if Irani planes or boats interfere with our ships we should shoot them. Are you willing to risk a war over such provocations?

T and C: Almost all of our domestic terror attacks have been perpetrated by lone wolves. Is there any way to prevent such attacks?

C and T: How would you change the Affordable Care Act? Would you reduce or eliminate benefits that the ACA  provided?

C: Do you endorse a path to legalization for illegal immigrants? Would they earn the right to vote?

T: Clarify your position on who and when deportations of illegal immigrants would occur. What is your position on dreamers, the children of undocumented aliens who were brought here as children?

C: A Clinton administration to many would seem to be a continuation of the Obama administration. What would be different?

T and C: After you are sworn in what executive actions would you take within your first week in office?

Policy Questions for First Clinton-Trump Debate

The first Clinton-Trump presidential debate is September 26, a scant three weeks away. There are lots of gotcha questions that could be asked and I am sure the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC, is under extreme pressure to come up some of those on embarrassing topics such as Donald Trump’s attack on Mexicans and Hillary Clinton’s email server shenanigans. Let’s hope he doesn’t fall for the bait but rather chooses subjects that will illuminate the policy differences between the candidates. 

With that in mind, here are questions I would recommend to him, questions to be asked of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump so that they might provide substantive answers with limited opportunities to dodge with generalities or obfuscations or hyperbolic attacks on their opponent.

1. How specifically would you change the Affordable Care Act? Which provisions would you keep and which would you jettison?

2. Would you continue federal funding of Planned Parenthood and why?

3. Would you continue funding overseas programs that include birth control measures?

4. Would you continue federal support of stem cell research?

5. Do you support a woman’s right to choose? Should Roe v Wade be overturned, leaving to individual states to decide the right to an abortion? Should anyone who participates in an abortion, be they patient or medical professional, be subject to prosecution if abortion is declared illegal?

6. Should clergy be permitted to advocate politically from their pulpits?

7. Do you support or want to overturn the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court?

8. Do you favor a federal minimum wage and, if so, at what level?

9. Given the low interest rate on borrowings do you favor increasing the federal debt to fund infrastructure spending projects?

10. What test, if any, would you have in determining your response to any aggression against a NATO ally or against Japan, Korea or The Philippines?

11. Are there any government departments or agencies you would close down? Are there any new ones you would create?

12. What would happen to undocumented immigrants during your administration?

13. How would you restore confidence and good relations between the police and minority communities?

14. Should there be any limitations on the type of weapons ordinary citizens may possess, and, if so, how would you implement such restrictions?

15. What specific changes would you make to NAFTA and the proposed TPP?

16. What is America’s role during humanitarian crises in foreign lands? Under what circumstances would you engage our military during these crises? 

17. What is your position on American support, both financial and philosophical, for the United Nations?

18. Explain your position on the Iran nuclear deal and how your administration would handle relations with Iran?

19. Do you believe in global warming? Scientists have charted the rise in sea levels? What steps should we take, if any, to protect our shorelines?

20. Do we need to raise the age eligibility for Social Security and Medicare? Should we means-test for Social Security and Medicare benefits?

21. What guidelines would you impose on legal access to immigration?

22. Does the United States have any interests in helping solve the refugee problem from Africa and the Middle East?

23. How confident are you that the election will be a fair one, and do you have any evidence of past voter fraud that would lead you to believe the results would be rigged?

24. Are Americans better off today than they were when President Obama took office in January 2009?

25. To balance the budget and reduce the deficit, program cuts would have to be enacted and tax loopholes would have to be closed. Please provide specific areas that would be affected under your next budget?

26. What role would alternative energy programs play within your administration?

27. What is your position on equal pay for women?

28. Should Americans 18 and older be required to perform some form of public service, be it in the military or some other program that benefits us all, such as the WPA programs of the New Deal?

A Party Platform Worth Considering

Here’s a party platform I could support, with some tweaks:

• Reject additional tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year, but expand breaks for low- and middle-income workers through tax credits for children, the earned-income tax credit or a new wage subsidy using tax dollars to bring low wages toward the local median level.

• Promote the benefits of global trade agreements, but help displaced workers.

• Rule out fully privatizing Social Security and Medicare, and reassure workers they will be exempt from cost-cutting.

• Acknowledge that universal health care is here to stay, but push for market-oriented changes.

• Disavow mass deportations and promote the economic benefits of legalizing longtime workers who are in the country illegally, but reduce the legal entry of less-skilled immigrants.

It might surprise you that these platform planks are part of the “Reformocon” movement of disenchanted conservative Republicans, as described in a New York Times article Friday (http://nyti.ms/2an1YbR)

It’s a long-shot that any of these more sober thoughts will become anything more than heresy to Grand Old Party poobahs (second time in a week I’ve used that mildly deprecating description of Republican leaders, but who cares, it fits). Yet it is revealing that some within the party are even thinking it is common sense to make the GOP appeal more universal.

Democrats should welcome such an overture. Perhaps the country would be able to return to what truly were “good old days” when politicians reached across the aisle to forge legislation that benefitted all, not just the rich and entitled. Back in those “good old days” the Second Amendment didn’t mean a gun, especially not an assault rifle, in every home. Nor did it mean taxes couldn’t be raised to fund infrastructure projects and other needs. Nor did it mean Roe v. Wade was the litmus test for Supreme Court appointees. Nor did it mean a presidential candidate could suggest not complying with NATO treaty defense obligations, or suggest Russia spy on an opponent, or suggest the military engage in torture. 

Yes, those were good old days. Trumpsters, however, will not go down easily in defeat. Donald Trump is seeding thoughts of a rigged election, oblivious to the facts that voter fraud has been found to be almost non existent. Federal appeals courts have repeatedly invalidated tighter voter identification laws enacted by states based on the alleged premise that voter fraud has been rampant. 

Elections at the state level are a supervised by appointees of each governor. There are 31 Republican governors, 19 Democrats. In the 11 so-called battleground states that may decide the presidential election, Democrats are governor in just four: Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Their states account for 51 Electoral College votes. Republicans are governors in Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin. Those states have 100 Electoral College votes. 

For Trump to claim the election is rigged, his own party’s election machinery would have to be conspiring against him. If only that were so …

Trump Is Running to be Alienator-in-Chief

It is hard keeping up with the alienator-in-chief. He’s not the presumptive AIC. He won the actual title from the moment he declared his candidacy for president. Or maybe four years ago with his advocacy of the birther movement to delegitimize the presidency of Barack Obama.

Donald Trump believes in shooting the messenger while ignoring the message. His preferred tactic is to ridicule anyone opposed to him, as if diminishing their stature would somehow reduce or eliminate criticism of his actions or words. His latest salvo pins the label of “devil” onto Hillary Clinton. If that doesn’t stick, maybe he will mine literature and biblical history for some equally dismissive appellation, such as Lady Macbeth, Cruella de Vil, Jezebel or Salome. 

To small-minded America, to those who hate his opponents, to those whose bigotry he has given cover to, Trump’s in-your-face tactic exudes strength and refreshing leadership, qualities that politically correct politicians do not harbor, they believe. Should he win, and obviously I hope he does not, Trump would be the alienator-in-chief of an alienated nation.

At what point, however, will Trump say something so outrageous that even his most ardent supporters see him as the boob he is, unfit for the highest office in the land? Would it not be a delicious irony if Trump was taken down by a Muslim?

Sadly, I don’t think the Khan affair surrounding Trump’s defamation of the family of a Muslim American U.S. Army captain killed in Iraq will be his undoing. Trumpsters—I can’t claim authorship of this term for Trump supporters, though I swear I had not heard it before it popped into my head recently—anyway, Trumpsters are so entwined in his candidacy that rational arguments cannot and do not work on them. 

While public figures on both sides of the political spectrum sees Trump as a neo-dictator in style and substance, Trumpsters only see positive aspects of his authoritarian style. Like dumpster divers who believe hidden gems can be found among the detritus of society, Trumpsters view him as the fulfillment of their dream for a new American revolution that lowers taxes, removes the burden of government regulations, strengthens the already strongest military in the world while signaling Russia that NATO isn’t to be considered a deterrent to its Baltic and Black Seas expansionist desires, reduces entitlement programs but god forbid does not touch their Social Security or Medicare, builds a protective wall around our country to keep out criminal illegal aliens and cheap goods that will now be built in America but cost more, restores law and order by putting minorities back in their place behind white America, and appoints judges that will halt, maybe even reverse, the last 60 years of progress toward social equality in the country.

Trump is a factual chameleon, changing positions day to day, denying statements made in print and the airwaves. Yet Trumpsters don’t care about the truth. 

Apparently, neither do Republican Party leaders. They may cringe at what he says, but they are betting their future, and that of the country, on their ability to control him should he take the oath of office. They are as foolish as the voters and government leaders who thought they’d be able to contain Hitler, Mussolini, Hamas, and other dictatorial movements. Trump’s pronouncements, as offensive as many may be, such as limiting entry to America by select foreigners, oftentimes are within constitutional grounds. The CIA director has said he would not re-institute torture, but if Trump wants to, no doubt he would find some acolyte who would do his bidding.

In Monday’s New York Times Paul Krugman refuted reasons why Republicans cannot support Hillary Clinton (http://nyti.ms/2aVCiQN) . He cited three areas they find fault with her: economic policies, national security and the fear of executive overreach. In each case Krugman argued Trump would be worse. As cogent as his arguments were, he failed to mention the key impact this election may have on the coming decades. The next president will most likely nominate two to four Supreme Court justices. Presidents set policy for four to eight years. Justices influence lives for decades. 

Perhaps that is why GOP poobahs like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and John McCain and Mike Pence have not abandoned their support of Trump. To their shame and lack of patriotic duty. 

Five and six years ago I wrote that Profiles in Courage should be required reading for public officials. It is John F. Kennedy’s 1955 Pulitzer Prize-winning account of eight U.S. senators who, at different times in the history of the Republic, acted on their conscience rather than succumb to political pressure to conform to party politics or the majority of their constituents. They did so at great risk to their careers, in the interest of serving country first.

Republicans want to go back to the “good old days.” Those days included times when public servants truly put the public good ahead of their own self-interests.

Here’s your election witticism of the day, courtesy of whowhatwhy.org:

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation. —James Freeman Clarke

Hillary's Nomination Inspires Awe, Trump's Pronouncements Inspire Fear

Unfolding on the television screen Tuesday night—jubilation, repressed for almost a century. A major political party had just nominated a woman as its presidential candidate for the very first time, four years shy of a century since women were granted the right to vote.

Anyone with a sense of watching history in the making, regardless of their belief in Hillary Rodham Clinton, could not help but be moved. More than one lump had difficulty finding its way down my esophagus. I turned to Gilda, sitting beside me. Her face was contorted in tears.

Politics took second place to history, just as it did eight years earlier when Barack Hussein Obama captured the Democratic Party nomination by acclimation, thanks to a magnanimous gesture by his then rival, Hillary. Now it was her primary competitor, Bernie Sanders, who moved that party rules be set aside and all ballots be reflected to show support for Hillary as the party’s nominee. 

It was a moment to savor, another milestone on our nation’s sometimes halting march to total equality.

Earlier in the week Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton separately addressed a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Charlotte, NC, to different reviews. Trump was reported to have received a warmer reception, but I wonder how anyone who has served in our military could applaud a candidate who insulted a war hero (Senator John McCain) during the primary season by saying he prefers heroes who do not get captured and who has given Russia indications that he would not quickly and decisively respond through NATO to any infringements on the sovereignty of our allies, and that he would consider recognizing Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula inside Ukraine and lifting the sanctions imposed on Russia because of its actions. Plus, Wednesday he invited Russia to hack Clinton’s email server to “find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” 

Trump has been savaged by Democrats, naturally, and Republicans for suggesting that a foreign power inject itself into our election process by cyber-attacking an American citizen, presidential candidate and former secretary of state. If Trump doesn’t believe the missing emails were all personal but contained government data, he has effectively asked Russia to seek out and peer into classified U.S. documents. 

Some of his backers defend his comment by saying they were made in jest, but as the saying goes, “many a truth was said in jest.” In Trump’s case, many a truth about his true feelings have been said extemporaneously.  

Now that he’s the Republican nominee, many of his comments are scripted, vetted by staff so they are politically correct. But when Trump says it’s time to chuck political correctness, his true colors come out. His opinions on immigrants, Muslims, our prisoners of war, our allies, the use of torture, his admiration for dictators, reveal his inner thoughts, ideas that are counter to many of our nation’s cherished ideals.

Trump says we need new plans but he gives few details, arguing he doesn’t want to tip his hand. But why should the public trust Trump when he has filed several bankruptcies that have enriched him while financially hurting creditors, suppliers and their employees? It makes no sense to trust he will do what’s right for America. His history shows he does what’s right for Trump.

Pillow Talk: Let’s talk spouses—It’s no secret that the closest confidantes of presidents have been their spouses, from Abigail Adams to Edith Wilson to Eleanor Roosevelt to Nancy Reagan to Barbara Bush to Hillary Clinton to Laura Bush to Michelle Obama. 

The choice of the next first spouse to whom the next president will seek counsel is between a former model-loving mother-businesswoman and a former president of the United States. 

Hands down, I know which person the country needs at the next president’s side.

Republican Convention Edition

Full disclosure: I find it hard to watch all of the Republican National Convention proceedings, what with all the Hillary bashing and the almost comical ways security and ordinary attendees are trying to muzzle protesters’ voices and faces. I suspect I will find it similarly difficult to follow the Democrats chance next week.

Unless, unless Hillary Clinton and her convention planners have absorbed lessons from the Republicans and focus their remarks not on a continuous assault on Donald Trump’s lack of qualifications to be president but rather on how she and a Democratic Congress would invigorate the economy, safeguard the homeland and the freedom of our allies, protect healthcare and social security benefits, and rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. They will need to provide specifics, not just lip service. 

Any intelligent Democrat or objective-thinking Independent, and even some Republicans, already know the danger of a Trump presidency, so an anti-Donald-day in-day-out convention to pump up the faithful is not necessary. What would turn on undecided voters and recalcitrant Bernie Sanders supporters would be a message of populist change. 

On MSNBC’s Monday night coverage of the Republican National Convention, Nicolle Wallace, the former communications director for President George W. Bush, said the election will boil down to a choice between a candidate (Trump) whose temperament to be commander in chief is questioned versus a candidate (Clinton) whose honesty and integrity to be commander in chief is questioned. 

I think that’s a fair assessment. 

Trump’s Twitter response to Melania-gate (“Good news is Melania’s speech got more publicity than any in the history of politics especially if you believe that all press is good press!”) is validation of a quote attributed to P.T. Barnum: “I don’t care what you say about me, just spell my name right.” 

FYI, Stephen Colbert has got his mojo back. If you haven’t seen his live broadcasts after each convention session, complete with a resurrection of his arch-conservative Colbert Report alter ego from Comedy Central, download segments on YouTube or from The Late Show with Stephen Colbert site. 

Monday night he brought back his “Tonight’s WØrd” bit with a twist. Instead of “truthiness,” Colbert lampooned “Trumpiness.” Truthiness, he explained, “is believing something that feels true even if it isn’t supported by fact,” such as the statement “The Rio Olympics will be fine.” 

“Truthiness comes from the gut because brains are overrated … Truthiness has to feel true, but Trumpiness doesn’t even have to do that. In fact, many Trump supporters don’t believe his wildest promises and they don’t care … If he doesn’t have to mean what he says, he can say anything …

“Truthiness was from the gut, but Trumpiness clearly comes from much lower down the intestinal tract, and his supporters know this.” 

What Ailes Ya? Twenty years ago, Roger Ailes teamed up with media mogul Rupert Murdoch to launch Fox News, the conservative-leaning cable news channel. Eight years earlier, in 1988, working as Vice President George H.W. Bush’s media advisor in his bid to succeed President Ronald Reagan, Ailes helped develop the signature ad of that election campaign, the Willie Horton spot. Under a Massachusetts plan backed by Bush’s opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, Horton received a prison furlough during which he raped a Maryland woman and assaulted her husband. The ad portrayed Dukakis as soft on crime. The ad helped propel Bush into the White House.

Dukakis’ campaign manager was Susan Estrich.

Fast forward to July 2016. Estrich is Roger Ailes’ lawyer in his defense against allegations of sexual harassment that has cost him his job as head of Fox News. 

Is there a better example of interlocking, incestuous interests among the power elite?

Where’s Geraldine When We Need Her? Comedian Flip Wilson’s in-drag character Geraldine sought forgiveness when she violated cultural norms by saying, “The devil made me do it.” Apparently, one-time presidential hopeful Ben Carson has a problem acknowledging the devil.

As described by The New York Times, “Ben Carson got a prime speaking slot at the convention on Tuesday evening, and he took a different approach at questioning Mrs. Clinton’s integrity. Digging into her college thesis about Saul Alinksy, the left-wing community organizer and radical, Mr. Carson suggested that Mrs. Clinton admired him. Then he pointed out that Mr. Alinsky had acknowledged Lucifer on the dedication page of one of his books, suggesting that such an association was somehow damning for Mrs. Clinton.

“‘Are we willing to elect someone as president who has as their role model someone who acknowledges Lucifer?’” Mr. Carson asked. “Think about that.” (http://nyti.ms/29PinRt)

So what’s wrong with acknowledging the devil exists? Don’t most organized Western religions include the existence of Lucifer as one of their basic beliefs? One would think the Bible-loving Republican crowd would not have a problem with Alinsky’s acknowledging Lucifer.

Israel Beware: In 1973, President Richard Nixon bolstered the defense of Israel after it was attacked by Syria and Egypt on Yom Kippur by shipping tons of war materiel to the Jewish state. Under a President Trump Israel might not have similar replenishment support given his comments about the backing the United States is obligated by treaty to provide NATO members.

During a 45-minute conversation (with The Times), “he (Trump) explicitly raised new questions about his commitment to automatically defend NATO allies if they are attacked, saying he would first look at their contributions to the alliance. Mr. Trump re-emphasized the hard-line nationalist approach that has marked his improbable candidacy, describing how he would force allies to shoulder defense costs that the United States has borne for decades, cancel longstanding treaties he views as unfavorable, and redefine what it means to be a partner of the United States.” (http://nyti.ms/29PSiSo)

As Israel has no mutual defense treaty with America and receives billions of dollars in foreign aid, Trump may be indisposed to help Israel should another war break out. He might also drastically reduce foreign aid as part of his “take care of America first” platform.

Here’s your political witticism of the day courtesy of WhoWhatWhy.org:

“I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.” —Adlai Stevenson

2016 Election Will Test Voter Intelligence

Whither America? Whither the conscience and soul of America? 

A campaign based on negativity leavened with bombastic claims without details of how we are going to fix our problems and how we would pay for any fix, yet all will be terrific, has all but officially captured the nomination of a once proud and revered Republican Party. Voters in GOP primaries and caucuses, including many independents and disaffected Democrats, have latched onto the proverbial “pig in a poke.” 

Most reality shows last about four months. The danger this election cycle is that Americans, so used to viewing The Bachelor/Bachelorette or The Amazing Race, might think they are watching a season of Survivor or The Biggest Loser while the true reality is that the United States would be the biggest loser if Donald Trump ascends to the presidency. The founding principles of the country might not survive his term of office.

To many, Trump is a candidate to be scorned and derided, to be ridiculed, but mostly, to be feared, not because he is so unqualified and peripatetic in his views and opinions,  but rather because of what it says about the American public’s willingness to support someone who appeals not to their hopes and aspirations but to their prejudices, anger and resentments. 

Instead of a nation of laws and equal opportunity, we are descending into a nation that reviles any institution that differs with our individual views. The misogynists among us have been emboldened by Trump’s attacks on women. Those opposed to marriage between the races have blasted Old Navy’s use of a photo of an interracial family in an ad (http://nyti.ms/26UWLMQ). Religious extremists of varied faiths decry the Supreme Court decision permitting same-sex marriage. They believe the Bible supersedes the Constitution. Unless you are descended from Native Americans, you are the progeny of immigrants. Yet Trump has stoked xenophobia. Respect for our military suffered a blow when Trump demeaned Sen. John McCain and other prisoners of war for being captured. Trump has questioned long-standing alliances such as NATO and raised doubts about the supremacy of civilian control over the military (according to The New York Times, he would empower “military leaders over foreign affairs specialists in national security debates” (http://nyti.ms/23pBN3X).  

It is indisputable we have bifurcated into a nation of haves and have nots. Equally true is that the population has segmented into groups with no memory or historical context for the evil demagogues, both foreign and domestic, can perpetuate and those who recall or remember the history of the not too distant past. 

This campaign will test the intelligence of the electorate. It will pit against each other stark differences in tone and substance. Will the public vote to roll back decades of progress in equality and economic opportunity, environmental and product protection, American leadership in the world, or will we opt for barriers and repeal based on a demagogue’s populist rantings?

Sadly, our nation has a history of turning its back on the future. Jim Crow laws followed emancipation. Isolationism and anti-Semitism stoked by the likes of Father Coughlin’s radio broadcasts followed victory in World War I. McCarthyism followed our ascendancy as the premiere power in the world after the second world war. 

The central question of the November election will be, which group of Americans will tip the balance—those who reject the last 80 years of American leadership, or those who continue to believe the United States can be an example for all nations?

There Is Such a Thing as a Good War

I am, by nature, anti-war. A non belligerent. A pacifist. Yet, I am increasingly finding myself comfortable with the notion that some wars may be justified, that some wars are good.

Take what’s happening in the areas controlled by ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Are we willing to just sit by and watch our television or computer screens convey the evil being inflicted on people and their heritage merely because they do not share the same religion as ours or their conquerors? 

Slaughter, genocide, is being perpetrated in the name of God. Holy shrines are being blown up and toppled. We are witnessing tribal behavior abhorrent to 21st century mores, but apparently acceptable to those who seek a return to 8th century customs (I’m not sure if that’s 750 CE or 750 BCE, but either way, the treatment of the vanquished is not what rational man has evolved into, though there are many recent examples—Rwanda, Serbia-Croatia, Cambodia, to name a few—that would argue against such a enlightened state). 

ISIS has engaged us in a battle of cultures. We would be foolish to trust these fanatics to soften their extremism once they subjugate all of Iraq and Syria. They seek domination throughout the world.   

So the question becomes, is there such a thing as a good war?

For sure, peaceful coexistence is the desired state for all but the most unbalanced mind. But we do not live in a perpetual nirvana. Conflict has become part of mankind’s daily ritual. I’m not happy with that reality but short of God installing a miracle fulfillment to our eternal wishes we are destined to kill and maim.

Another question is, can we morally justify combat even when we know for certain civilians will be injured or killed?

By the way, I did not say “innocent” civilians because not all civilians can be exempt from responsibility. Many, after all, may have voted in a regime intent on war. While they may not be soldiers, they empowered the military to act on their behalf. They are not innocent. Non combatants? Yes. Innocents? No.

My rabbi pointed out an interesting, applicable verse from the beginning of Exodus 22 last Saturday. The verse states, “If a thief be found to be breaking in and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.” The sages interpreted “breaking in” to mean tunneling at night, with the intent to kill if discovered.  Furthermore, it was postulated that if you are aware someone is planning to kill you, act precipitously—kill him first.

Hamas with its tunnels had murder in mind. No legitimate government could not respond as Israel did to protect its citizens.

Sadly, too many non combatants died in Gaza, even if they were Hamas sympathizers and empowerers. But let’s not trot out any doctrine of equivalency. Wars are waged to win, not tie. A country, a legitimate government, doesn’t put its own people at risk.

Here’s an interesting idea for equivalency: In Israel, tens of thousands have gathered to lobby for peace. When was the last time Palestinians marched for peace? The answer is never. When has Hamas recognized Israel’s right to exist? Never. When has Hamas chosen construction instead of destruction, except, that is, to carve out tunnels meant to inflict casualties on Israel? If the 1.8 million residents of the Gaza Strip want peace, let them march for peace. They have permitted their homes, mosques, schools and hospitals to be shields of war.

It used to be fashionable to exempt ordinary German citizens from the butchery of the Holocaust. But recent scholarship has revealed that ordinary Germans were complicit. Israel is within its historical and current rights to vigorously defend itself, even if civilians suffer in Gaza, for they are not blameless or powerless to demand a safer, better life from Hamas.

Hamas wants the blockade lifted. No doubt to import more cement for more tunnels and for more rockets. Hamas spent billions on weaponry, virtually nothing to shelter and provide for the population of Gaza.

It is beyond irony for the U.S. and Europe to castigate Israel for civilian deaths in defense of its borders. I don’t recall Israel issuing any tsk-tsks after U.S. or NATO missiles mistakenly killed Afghani or Iraqi civilians over the last 10 years. Israel recognized that in the fog of war mistakes happen. Civilians may be killed. Not intentionally, as terrorist organizations like Hamas pledge to do, but rather because war is still an unmanageable, imperfect science. 

Let’s be clear. Israel is in a war of survival. Even as a truce held for a third day in Gaza, a leader of Hamas, Mushir al-Masri, told a rally of supporters, the group’s arms will not be “relinquish(ed) until all our lands are liberated.” In other words, until they destroy Israel and kills all the Jews.

The Iraqis may be too cowed and cowardly to resist ISIS. Israelis have no illusions about Hamas. Residents of the Gaza Strip should have no illusions about the Israeli response to future aggression.