Home Rule Blues

Happy 4th of July.

Since it's the day our nation celebrates its freedom, I thought I'd talk a little politics for a change (stop smirking).

It's mostly a truism that Republicans and conservative-leaning citizens believe the best government is the smallest, one that is as local as possible. In other words, federal statutes should not take precedence over state laws, state laws should not supercede municipal ordinances, for after all, who knows better than the people closest to the ground what is right and appropriate for them. The corrollary is Democrats prefer big government—the greater the scheme, the more universal the import, the happier liberals and progressives are, for the common folk cannot be trusted to know, much less do, the right thing.

For example, Democrats believe in universal health care. Republicans want to limit at the local level federally sanctioned abortions.

At least that's how I've always seen government explained. The GOP wants less big government and more local home rule, Democrats want more, period. But now, it seems, Republicans are caught up in a seemingly hypocritical position. They are working against home rule when it comes to home fries and other fattening foods. GOP-controlled state houses and governorships are passing laws restricting a municipality's freedom to regulate food within its borders to control obesity and other health-related concerns (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/business/01obese.html?ref=health).

It's a classic sop to business interests that moan the burden of regulations, some of which may differ from one community to the next, thus driving up the cost of adherence. It's a logical argument to make, but it really flies in the face of the grassroots-knows-best mantra the GOP normally espouses.

I guess it's another example of Republican thinking that business knows better than local citizens or their representatives. Business, it seems, can fatten its wallet by fattening up the rest of America.

OK, enough speeches from my soap box. Get out and enjoy the day. Hot dogs for everyone.

More Than One Issue

I resent the Republican Party trying to cast me as well as other Jewish voters as one-issue voters, that issue being support for the State of Israel.

Israel is important. Very important. But it is not the end all and be all of why and how I choose candidates. Social issues, budget issues, judicial issues, foreign policy issues, economic issues, all these and more figure into my calculation.

I’m steamed as I write this because I just fielded a call from the Republican Jewish Coalition trying to cast the GOP as more favorable to Israel than Democrats and particularly President Obama.

Israel should not be a wedge issue. Democrats as well as Republicans may disagree with Obama. That’s their right.

But according to the young man who called me, Obama wants Israel to return to pre-1967 borders.

Wrong! Obama’s position as explained anew during his speech to AIPAC, the Israel lobbying group, earlier this week, has been borders should be “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” after negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. It’s a position that corresponds to those of past presidents going back to Clinton, along with past prime ministers of Israel.

Obama called for a “sovereign, non-militarized (Palestinian) state.” He rejected efforts to de-legitimize Israel. He demanded Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence and adhere to all existing agreements before it could be considered worthy of being a partner in negotiations. He called for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped five years ago.

If Israel is to be an issue, let’s get beyond the usual bromides of support. Just what type of support does the GOP want to provide? Unlimited, uncritical acceptance of whatever Israel does? Israelis can’t always agree on the right policy. It would be foolish to believe anyone in Washington knows better than those in the vortex of the conflict.

For the last two years I met 16 trauma care first responders from the communities bordering the Gaza Strip. You would think that with constant bombardments from Hamas and its cohorts they would be hawkish. No. They favored peaceful resolution of the conflict, with dignity and respect on both sides. They empathized with Palestinian families who shuttered at the retaliatory strikes by the Israeli Defense Forces.

It is callous for Republicans (and Democrats) to try to make political gain out of the Israel issue. And let’s be clear—it is not just Jewish voters who are in play. Israel enjoys wide support among evangelical Christians.

But as I told my young caller, I would be more susceptible to Republican overtures if the GOP exhibited more Judeo-Christian concerns for the needy, the more vulnerable members of our society. Though he tried time and again to bring the conversation back to Israel, I wouldn’t let him. I want a president and a Congress that respects the rights of all, cares for the downtrodden, provides opportunity for all, endorses and expands educational opportunities, builds and repairs infrastructure for today and tomorrow, invests in science and technology, leads global efforts on climate change and human rights, provides universal health care. These and much more. And yes, I want a president and Congress that supports Israel in reaching a just and lasting peace with its neighbors.


(Editor’s note: From time to time—which means when I remember—I will include the following disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my dear wife, Gilda.)