Biden’s tweet reveals dangerous policies

For the duration of former President Donald Trump’s term, the news media constantly highlighted his low-brow, stream-of-consciousness tweets. Given that they represented a direct insight into the inner workings of an American president’s thought process, they were dangerous. President Biden’s tweets, not written by the president himself, come from his communications team and are vetted by the “adults in the room” widely perceived to be missing during the Trump administration. These more traditional presidential statements represent a different type of problem: the administration’s actual policies.

Take, for example, Biden’s tweet yesterday, March 11:

The Biden team's tweet. Someone wrote, on behalf of @POTUS, “I want to be clear: We will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full might of a united and galvanized NATO. But we will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War III. And something we must strive to prevent.”
President Biden’s March 11 tweet, representing official policy of the United States.

 

Someone wrote, on behalf of @POTUS, “I want to be clear: We will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full might of a united and galvanized NATO. But we will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War III. And something we must strive to prevent.”

Since this Biden tweets are official, vetted policy, not stream-of-consciousness ramblings, this tweet might have been worse than anything Trump ever thumbed.

We will defend “every inch” of NATO territory, Biden says, but we won’t fight Russia in Ukraine. Why? Because a direct fight between NATO (one has to assume Biden also means any direct fight between the U.S.) and Russia “is World War III.” This gives rise immediately to important questions. Does Biden really mean that the U.S. will participate in World War III over Poland but not Ukraine? We’ll endure a nuclear winter for Estonia, but not non-NATO Sweden? (Another obvious question is why Ukraine was never admitted to NATO, given that it gave up nuclear weapons only after the U.S. and UK signed off on a guarantee [PDF] that its territorial integrity would be protected.)

Beyond the questions of NATO and non-NATO, why did the president and his administration think it was necessary to say – again – that the U.S. would not fight Russia in Ukraine? Perhaps that is the strategy of the administration, and perhaps there is some logical merit to it. But what is the point of saying so publicly? Why announce to the world, to Putin, that the U.S. has already decided not fight Russia in Ukraine? Why not leave some ambiguity? Why give Putin this assurance that, even if he were to use chemical, biological, radiational, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons on Ukrainian civilians, America would not step in?

Putin has been making not-so-thinly veiled threats by noting that Russia is a nuclear power, and they seem to have had their intended deterrent effect on Biden. Why else would the American president respond by unilaterally taking any tool off the proverbial table? By disarming? America is also a nuclear power, and a superior one to Russia. We have a triad of air, land, and sea nuclear capabilities. Just one American nuclear submarine would be the world’s sixth largest nuclear power if counted separately, and each is virtually undetectable to the Russians. A single American nuclear submarine could potentially wipe out all of Russia’s nuclear capacity, and there is little that Russia could do to stop it. No one wants to think about nuclear war (except Putin), but taking all military options off the table destroys these weapons’ deterrent effect and makes the use of CBRN warfare against Ukraine more, not less, likely. Biden doesn’t have to threaten nuclear war; he could simply keep quiet or, if asked what the U.S. might do if Russia used CBRN weapons, simply respond, “All options are on the table,” the common refrain of American presidents when presented with such questions.

The implications of Biden’s tweet go far beyond Russia and Ukraine. Most obviously, it is highly unlikely that Putin will be content to stop with a victory over Kyiv. If he wins there, he’ll move on to other states. Beyond Putin, how are statements like this understood in Beijing? If a fight between nuclear powers “is World War III” and must be avoided for all states with which the U.S. has no mutual defense agreement, what does that mean for Taiwan? There has been no mutual defense treaty between the U.S. and Taiwan since 1979, when the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty was replaced by the much weaker Taiwan Relations Act, which only requires the U.S. to provide Taiwan with weapons. Beijing knows that, aside from a military confrontation, the United States has very few options to deter aggression by China. While the world has mobilized to punish Russia through devastating sanctions, the same would not be true after a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Vietnam, or elsewhere. Russia has oil, but China and the western world are far too economically intertwined, and the U.S. is currently far too dependent on China’s economy, to entertain any fantasy of punishing Beijing economically.

There are a remarkable number of countries who are U.S. allies with whom we have no mutual defense treaty. We only have actual defense pacts with the NATO states, most of the western hemisphere (though notably not Mexico), the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan. There is no mutual defense treaty with Israel, our strongest Middle Eastern ally, constantly under threat, including from Russian-backed forces in Syria. Nor is there any defense treaty with Sweden, Finland, the already-mentioned Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, or a host of other strategically or morally important countries.

Apparently, the U.S. will not fight militarily for any of them, at least not with Russia or China.

A single presidential tweet raises all these questions. But the tweet is not isolated; it is part of a larger problem that pervades the whole Biden administration, which seems to think that an unjust peace is better than a fight for American security, democracy, and the sovereignty of small states. All these beliefs were implied by Biden’s continuation of Trump’s plans to “end the forever war” in Afghanistan, as well as in many other instances, including Biden’s desperate attempt at an Iran nuclear deal – with Russia as the guarantor.

In 2024, we need to find someone who is neither from the “end forever wars” wing of the Democratic Party or the Trumpian populist or “national conservative” wing of the Republican Party. The former rejuvenated the Taliban and handed Afghanistan over to it before its green light by tweet to Moscow and Beijing; the latter actually supports Putin as an “anti-woke” role model.

America – and the world – deserves better.

Image: 2021 stock photo of U.S. President Joe Biden speaking at a NATO meeting. Patrick Semansky/AP

Team Biden vs. Manchin: the Democrats’ suicidal impulse

The problem isn’t Joe Manchin.

Perhaps the biggest campaigners for the Republicans in 2022 and 2024 will turn out to be America’s top Democrats. It is hard to imagine any strategy, insofar as they have one, that would better ensure Democrats’ loss of both houses of Congress and the presidency than that which the president and his allies are pursuing right now.

“If his comments on FOX and written statement indicate an end to that effort [to come to an agreement on the president’s signature Build Back Better legislation], they represent a sudden and inexplicable reversal in his position, and a breach of his commitments to the President and the Senator’s colleagues in the House and Senate,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a Dec. 19 statement.

While the statement’s blistering language sounds like something a presidential administration might have said about a member of the opposition party, Psaki was directly attacking, on the White House’s behalf, President Biden’s former colleague and co-partisan, Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.V. The White House was irritated that Manchin said Dec. 19 on Fox that he would not support Biden’s more than $2 trillion “Build Back Better” bill (BBB), citing spending and inflation worries.

Putting aside the Trumpian notion that a representative’s commitments should be “to the President and the Senator’s colleagues in the House and Senate,” the statement is still jarring. One could only look to the Trump administration to find such a blatant example of a president – Psaki speaks on behalf of the chief executive – attacking a member of his own party, especially an administration suffering so grievously in opinion polls in the run-up for what will be a desperate fight to hold onto either of the houses of Congress. It is hard to imagine Obama speaking in such a way to Blue Dog Democrats during his administration’s quest for the Affordable Care Act, or George W. Bush issuing such condemnations against other Republicans.

Not only did Biden’s press secretary attack Sen. Manchin, but Congressional Democrats piled on as well.

“We all knew that Senator Manchin couldn’t be trusted,” Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said on MSNBC. “The excuses that he just made I think are complete bullshit.”

Also on MSNBC, Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez said, “I think what Sen. Manchin did yesterday represents such an egregious breach of the trust of the president.” She went on to say that Democrats “should take the kid gloves off.”

Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont, said of Manchin, “If he doesn’t have the courage to do the right thing for the working families of West Virginia and America, let him vote no in front of the whole world,” seemingly unaware that speaking on television is much more “in front of the world” than is casting a vote in Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would schedule a vote on the bill, “so that every member of this body has the opportunity to make their position known on the Senate floor, not just on television.”

While Sanders and Schumer apparently hope to shame Manchin into voting for the bill, and while Psaki, Ocasio-Cortez, and Biden seem to think Manchin has an obligation to the president, the reason for the West Virginia Democrat’s “no” vote is clear. A recent poll of voters in his home state, where Biden lost to Trump by 40 points, shows that 74 percent of respondents support Manchin’s handling of the bill. The same poll showed Biden with a 33 percent approval rating in West Virginia, while 61 percent approve of Manchin.

In essence, the president and the Democratic legislators are vehemently condemning Manchin for representing his constituents. While Biden might think it is the duty of a senator to represent the president, one can only wonder what such thinking says about Democrats’ campaign plans for 2022. Good campaign slogans don’t usually highlight unquestioning loyalty to the party line or the candidate’s willingness to work against the stated interests of his or her voters.

This past weekend, the Democrats’ lack of strategy could have charitably been described as misguided. Now, in the light of new information, the administration and its allies seem positively unhinged.

The Washington Post reported Dec. 20 that Sen. Manchin had actually sent a new proposal to the White House the previous week. Included in it was most of what was in BBB, including universal pre-K and more than half a trillion dollars for environmental protection.

So much for the claim that the senator was merely working at the behest of evil coal companies (and, one supposes, their evil supporters who comprise most of West Virginia’s electorate).

What Manchin did leave out of his proposal was billions of dollars for the popular child tax credit, or CTC. This was also the apparent source of Manchin’s anger: someone in the White House apparently leaked to the press that Manchin wanted to do away with the credit, which explains his testy exchange with a Huffington Post reporter, in which he said, “You’re bullshit. This is bullshit.”

Shortly thereafter, Manchin was on Fox saying he’ll vote “no.”

Of course, leaking the CTC proposal in a move to embarrass Manchin was pure stupidity, as cutting it from the bill might have been good politics. The CTC is just about the only part of BBB that has bipartisan support and that could stand on its own and likely get past the 60 votes needed for cloture.

The bumbling and ineptitude of the White House in first leaking information to embarrass a senator from the president’s own party, and then going on to attack him in a public statement, along with the subsequent infighting within the Democratic Party won’t hurt Manchin. If anything, it helps him; In a state that voted overwhelmingly for Trump, public condemnation from Biden, Ilhan Omar, and others can’t help but boost the senator’s support.

On the other hand, the stupidity of the president, his administration, and legislators, help to further ensure that the Republicans win back control of the Senate and House on a scale not seen since the Gingrich Revolution.

If the Democrats start acting smarter, they might be able to maintain either the House or Senate. If they don’t, they’ll be annihilated by the voters.

Image: Stock photo of Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.V., via the West Virginia Conference of the United Baptist Church.

Endangering Arabs to spite Israel: the results of “progressive” demands

How are we to understand the recent efforts of the “Justice” Democrats to cut funding for military assistance to the State of Israel? To hear them tell it, their actions are humanitarian and would stop a powerful bully (Israel) from using American tax dollars to kill innocent Palestinian Arab civilians.

This is nonsense.

Based on their recent statements, it seems apparent that the Justice Democrats – the group energized by Bernie Sanders’ campaign – give very little worry to the lives of Israeli civilians. But what has become increasingly apparent is that they also don’t give much consideration to endangering the safety of Arabs in the area, either – so long as it means the weakening, and eventual destruction of, Israel as a Jewish state. (While the “Justice Democrats” website does not go into much detail on any policy issues, the politics of the Justice Democrats and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) overlap to such an extent that the leading members of the the former grouping are members of the latter, which has a page going into detail on their policy preferences for Israel and the disputed territories.)

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) introduced a provision into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which funds America’s military goals yearly, to ban the transfer of $725 million worth of “JDAMs” to Israel. According to the representative, writing Sept. 17 on Twitter, the reason for the amendment was to punish the “Israeli gov over the bombing of Palestinian civilians, media centers”. Ocasio-Cortez knows well enough that the “media centers” (it  should be in the singular form, as there was only one building) was actually a base of Hamas operations, and she knows that the leadership of her own party have seen and accepted the proof of this. She also knows full well that Israel goes beyond any other country in warning civilians before bombs fall. Apparently, none of this matters. Instead of being upset at the death of civilians (which happened in Israel as well during the war brought about entirely by Hamas), this new strand in the progressive movement is upset at Israel having the ability to defend itself.

Why else would anyone oppose the sale of JDAMs, if not to undermine Israel’s defense mechanisms? JDAM is an acronym for “Joint Direct Attack Munitions.” It is possible that AOC is so uninformed that she doesn’t know what these are (“I’m not the expert in geopolitics on this issue,” she said during a Firing Line interview after being questioned as to why she used the term “occupation” to describe Israel’s presence in the West Bank), but let us assume that she has done the most basic of research on the policy she is trying to influence. If she has, she knows that JDAMs are not weapons themselves. Instead, they are kits that, when attached to regular bombs, turn them into GPS-enhanced precision-guided weapons. Rejecting the sale of JDAMs, therefore, means pushing Israel to use “dumb” bombs instead of precision weaponry.

Why would anyone want Israel using dumb bombs when its military is engaged in a campaign in Gaza? The Gaza Strip has a population density of 13,069.1 people per square mile, meaning the whole area is far more densely populated than Chicago, which has a density of 11,783 people per square mile. In the most recent conflict, 243 people, both terrorists and innocents, were killed in Gaza. Without detracting from the fact that the death of any innocent civilian is a tragedy beyond imagination, it is obvious that the only way that the number of casualties could be kept this low was due to the use of precision weaponry. Those 243 people died in the course of an  11-day-long protracted fight where thousands of bombs were exchanged between Israel and Hamas. As a thought experiment, imagine a military plane dropping a single dumb bomb on a block in Chicago. Is it even possible to imagine that less than 243 people would die? A single subway car holds about 250 people. If an El (Chicago’s light rail system) station was hit in a regular business district, thousands of people could have easily died due to one “dumb” bomb. Contemplating how many would die over the course of a whole military conflict in such a populated area is indeed a grim intellectual exercise.

In essence, the proposal would have kept Israeli bombs “dumb.” Leaving Israel with only dumb bombs the next time Hamas decides to launch a volley of rockets would mean one of two things: Israel would be forced to allow rockets to rain down on it (even the Iron Dome isn’t perfect; 12 Israelis died in the most recent conflict, including children) or Israel would be forced to go into Gaza using imprecise bombs, killings either thousands or tens of thousands of civilians. Neither of these situations is good for anyone – aside from Hamas or PIJ.

This past week, this band of “progressives” convinced House Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to remove a billion dollars’ worth of support for Israel’s Iron Dome from a government funding bill. In essence, they told Pelosi, “Remove this money for Israel, or we’ll vote against keeping the federal government open.” Shamefully, Pelosi acceded to this measure. A billion dollars is, in relation to the federal budget, actually a relatively small amount, and anyone looking for pork to cut would do far better looking elsewhere. The aim was decidedly not to save money, but to cripple the Iron Dome. (The discussion of why the U.S. sends aid to Israel is long and complex; suffice it to say that the relationship is mutually beneficial, and also to point out that the U.S. sends military and other aid to many countries.)

Aside from hatred for Israel – increasingly common on the left and the right, fueled by non-factual “news” pieces from outlets like al-Jazeera – it is hard to imagine why anyone would oppose the Iron Dome. Composed of a set of purely defensive missiles, the Dome’s sole mission is to shoot down rockets fired into Israel, most often by Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). The Dome quite literally does nothing more than defend the lives of Israelis from foreign rockets.

Indirectly, the Iron Dome saves Arab lives in Gaza. Without the Iron Dome, every single missile that enters Israeli air space every single time Hamas or PIJ decides to launch them would

The Iron Dome in action. On the right are missiles launched from Gaza while, on the left, Iron Dome missiles intercept them over the State of Israel.
The Iron Dome in action. On the right are missiles launched from Gaza while, on the left, Iron Dome missiles intercept them over the State of Israel.

potentially scores of kill civilians, and Israel would have no choice but to respond. With the Iron Dome, Israeli military officials are able to monitor how many missiles are coming in at a given time, and decide whether it is necessary to respond at all. Further, without the Dome, it is highly likely that the IDF would need to enter into a costly, in terms of human lives, ground battle in Gaza either to seek out and destroy all of Hamas’s rocket-launching capabilities or to dislodge Hamas outright. Regardless of how carefully the IDF and Israeli Air Force engage in combat, this would probably kill thousands.

Eliminating the Iron Dome would mean death for countless Israelis and Palestinian Arabs. There is no question of this. The only possible explanations for these Congressional representatives – who have never expressed any desire for fiscal constraint – and their ideological allies (including a few Republicans) to oppose the Iron Dome’s funding is either stupidity or a callous disregard for the lives of Jews so intense that this group is willing to see Arabs severely endangered only to spite Israel. Note that here “hatred of Jews” is written purposely instead of “hatred of Israel,”  because eliminating the Iron Dome would not harm Israel’s self defense as a state; it has a strong military that would easily defeat Hamas. Eliminating the Iron Dome would leave the State of Israel fully intact even as it would cause the deaths of scores of Israelis and potentially thousands of Palestinian Arabs.

Thankfully, the efforts of the the Justice Democrats, in alliance with a few extremist America First Republicans, have so far ended in abject failure. Only yesterday, House Democrats introduced a resolution separate from the federal spending bill, House Resolution 5323, the Iron Dome Supplemental Appropriations Act, which passed 420-9, guaranteeing funding for the Iron Dome. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (D-Ky.) who in 2019 was the only member of the House to vote against a bills supporting democracy in Hong Kong  and condemning the ongoing genocide of the Uyghurs in China, voted against the Iron Dome funding. On the Democratic side of the aisle, Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Andre Carson (D-In.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Marie Newman (D-Ill.), and Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.)  – Justice Democrats and their allies – voted against it, as Ocasio-Cortez and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) voted “present.” 

The vast majority of the Democratic and Republican Parties voted the right way, as did the overwhelming majorities of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues. A number of Democrats made excellent speeches, including the new progressive Democrat Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), the first gay Black member of Congress, who represents the district adjacent to AOC’s. Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) said what many were thinking when he responded to one of the Justice Democrats, Rep. Tlaib, and accused her of antisemitism for her more egregious statements. It is important to note, however, that Deutch’s statements can’t be interpreted as directed solely at one member of Congress, nor should this controversy be seen only as the work of a few members of the House. Instead, it is indicative of a rise in anti-Israel – connected very strongly to antisemitic – sentiment in America on both the far right and the far left. From Massie, it represents the resurgence of right-wing antisemitism under the guise of “human rights.” From the “progressives”, it represents the encroachment into the U.S. of Soviet-style antisemitism, displayed most vividly in recent times in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, through the recently radicalized Democratic Socialists of America, the Justice Democrats, and other such groups. The influence of this group is growing and, if it is left unchecked, it could metastasize throughout the Democratic Party, potentially Corbynizing the Democratic Party. While Rep. Pelosi should be applauded for introducing the Iron Dome funding in a standalone bill, her original cowardly decision to strip it from the NDAA – and not to fight the move – is not promising.

Democrats and Republicans must clean house and replace those who hate Israel and Jews so much that they would sacrifice anything, even Arab safety, to spite Israel with better representatives – and they must combat the lie that legitimate criticism of Israel includes the vicious slander that the new “progressives” lodge.

Racist anti-racism?

Many years ago, during that terrible period before crime declined dramatically across America, I was living in an almost all-Black neighborhood in Chicago. I had a job at a cinema selling popcorn, where one of the few benefits was a pass to watch for free either of the two movies playing there at any given time. On a particular day off, I went to take in a movie and eat free popcorn, and came upon a crowd of people outside the theater. I found that they had gathered around a stabbing victim, who was lying there, knife protruding. I was perplexed to find that people were just carrying on conversation with him.

“Don’t you want me to go in and call the police or something?” I asked. I was surprised when everyone laughed at me. Seeing my confusion, a woman I had chatted with a few times before explained to me that they had called the cops, about half an hour prior. I wondered aloud why it would take so long for them to get there.

“This is a Black neighborhood,” she said. “They don’t bother with us.”

Eventually, the police and medics came and took the guy away; luckily his injuries were minor enough that he was in seeing a movie shortly thereafter. (He convinced us that, since he’d been stabbed outside our theater, we should at least give him some free popcorn.)

The incident caused me to re-think some of my beliefs. I had been part of a left-wing organization prior to that (and for a time after that as well). The Rodney King beating had happened not long before, the shooting of Amadou Diallo and the sodomizing of Abner Louima even more recently. I protested police brutality and condemned “tough on crime” politicians. I was just a kid, so perhaps I can be excused for my ignorance, but it had never occurred to me that I would find myself in a crowd of Black people who were incensed that there were too few police, not too many, in their neighborhood.

Since then, I’ve never advocated for any of the strange abolitionist, cop-free utopias many on the left dream of. Even in the cases of the worst police brutality, I’ve always called for reforms and regulations and training – never for reducing the number of cops in Black neighborhoods. I listened to what Black friends (as well as, over the years, Latinos, Asians, whites, and many others) had to say. It’s not hard to do, but it’s something that progressives still struggle with.

Take for example the New York City mayoral elections. Former Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams has just won the Democratic primary, and will likely become the next mayor. While one might expect that self-described anti-racist activists would be celebrating the fact that America’s largest city will have its second-ever Black mayor, they’re not.

On June 29, progressive darling and MSNBC host Chris Hayes accused Adams of engaging in “corrosive Big Lie conspiracy-theorizing and delegitimization of elections that Trump and the GOP have unleashed” for pointing out discrepancies in election data. Adams turned out to be right about the discrepancy, and as of this writing, Hayes has said nothing about the election results, though he has been tweeting about basketball, the Cubs, and crime polling data. Writer Matt Binder, who is popular enough in progressive circles that Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Rachel Maddow, and a host of other like-minded luminaries follow him on Twitter, could only bring himself to say of Adams, “[D]ude is a total oddball, (sic) it’s going to be an interesting mayoral run to say the least”. The list goes on.

Why no celebration of Adams’s win? What explains the animosity towards Adams from (mostly) white progressives? They don’t like what he stands for. Adams, a former police officer, ran a tough-on-crime campaign entirely contrary to the “defund the police” and “prison abolition” movements that became fashionable in 2020. On June 20, after a particularly egregious shooting in the Bronx involving children, Adams minced no words, saying, “We need to catch this bastard. We need to catch him. We need to get him. He needs to be off our streets.”

What Adams said next seemed specifically aimed at Maya Wiley, the candidate favored by the left, but could equally apply to virtually all of the Ibram X. Kendi- and Robin D’Angelo-inspired “antiracists” and prison abolitionists: “No one seems to care. No one seems to care. Everyone is using this philosophical, theoretical…theory on what we need to do long term. Yes, you’re right, but what are we doing right now? What are we doing right now that these two babies were going to the store to buy a loaf of bread and this family looked out the window and saw their children being shot at. I don’t wanna hear all this other philosophical stuff. What are we doing right now for these communities? And they shouldn’t have to live this way.”

While Adams had a multiracial and multinational coalition of Black people people, Jews, Latinos, labor unions, and others behind him, a glimpse at the electoral map will show that Adams’ victory was the result of a decisive lead in the city’s Black communities. It’s worth noting that the liberal darling, Maya Wiley, is also Black, so Black voters weren’t simply choosing someone “who looks like them.” In the areas of the city with the densest Black population, Adams victory margins in the first round of voting were extreme: in precincts around East New York and Brownsville in Brooklyn, Adams had around 75 percent of the vote, and Wiley had between 7 and 8 percent. The pattern held true outside of Brooklyn: in vast swaths of Queens, the Bronx, and in mostly Black and Latino northern Staten Island, Adams had a commanding lead as well. It was in the highly-gentrified areas of Brooklyn and Queens where Wiley received her biggest share of votes, while she battled Kathryn Garcia, who ran as something of a technocrat, in the mostly white sections of Manhattan. In historically Black west and central Harlem, perhaps ground zero for American gentrification, Wiley and Adams seemed to be battling it out in the first round, with each in first place in neighboring precincts.

The problem for the self-styled progressives who rallied around Wiley and cursed Adams is that their message simply falls flat with Black voters, the very same people “defunding the police” is supposed to help. According to a recent poll, Black voters were the most likely to want more police in the city subway system, with 77 percent voicing support, compared to 69 percent of Hispanic voters. Who wants more cops the least? White people, at 62 percent. In this, NYC is in line with the rest of the country. In August 2020, at the height of the protests against police brutality in response to George Floyd’s murder, Gallup found that, while Black people absolutely want police reform, a staggering 81 percent nationwide want either at least the same number of cops in their neigborhood – or more.

This presents a dilemma for the antiracist left. One of the most widely-read works on the new antiracism, Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, argues that the job of white people is to listen to Black people – not to speak over them or for them. DiAngelo specifically argues that if you’re white, and you say something that is criticized by a Black person, you are supposed to thank them for telling you how you had gone wrong. This presents a problem for the white liberal who both wants to abolish prisons or reduce the number of police and actually listen to Black people, who in poll after poll say in their overwhelming majority that they want nothing to do with either of those policy prescriptions.

Anecdotally, it doesn’t play out well at all. Many of my progressive friends (some of whom decided that they would become former friends) became incensed with me in late 2019. I thought that Trump needed to go (as everyone on the left and many on the right agreed). Looking at the field of candidates, it seemed to me that the best person to defeat him was former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, given his vast sums of money and how out of touch most of the other candidates appeared. (As it turns out, you can’t actually buy elections.) The response of my progressive friends was similar to the response of people in religious cults when you tell them you don’t think the sun is a god or whatever it is they believe. Some unfriended me on Facebook, some stopped talking to me, some said they couldn’t be seen in public with me (really – I’m not joking), all for the same reason: I must be a racist for supporting Bloomberg.

“Don’t you know Bloomberg is a racist who was responsible for stop-and-frisk,” they asked? I pointed out that Bloomberg had more Black support than their candidates did; in fact Bloomberg came in second behind only Joe Biden (whose campaign I had written off as not having enough money to get out the vote) in Black voter support before he dropped out.

The same dynamic was true in 2020 when “defund the police” was all the rage. Thinking back to my time in Chicago, I posted on Facebook that I thought it was a bad idea to say “defund the police,” since no one really knew what it meant and it wasn’t a good slogan for building support. “Don’t talk over Black people,” my white progressive friends said. Back then, I didn’t have any polling data, but I did know that many long-time, well established Black leaders in the Democratic Party had criticized the slogan as well. I pointed this out, but – I’m sure this will come as no surprise – it was to no avail. “Don’t tokenize Black leaders for your own goals,” more than one white progressive told me. If any of these people who thought it was racist to support Bloomberg because of stop-and-frisk are reading now, I would point out that Eric Adams, who won due to the overwhelming vote of the Black community, came out in support of stop-and-frisk, with modifications.

I’ve written here about my own experiences, but I’ve heard and read people saying similar things about their interactions with self-described anti-racism ad nauseum. All the data and information that we have suggest that the majority of Black Americans are closer in their thinking to John McWhorter than to Ibram X. Kendi. Self-described anti-racists make a point of “being accountable” to Black people or organizations, so that they, the progressive whites, aren’t setting the agenda. The very obvious problem is that Black opinion is not monolithic, and these anti-racists simply find the Black voices they agree with the most, generally from the very tiny activist class in academia who represent almost no one. In effect, they are doing the very thing they claim to hate: tokenizing Black voices.

Part of the problem seems to be that most white liberals are of an upper-middle-class background, and the further up the socio-economic ladder you look, the less Black people you see (addressing this would be a much more noble goal than abolishing the police.) It seems likely that, given their class background, most of these white antiracists simply do not know many Black people outside of their activist groups, where there is ideological conformity by design.

If progressives really believe they should “be accountable,” they will have to change some core beliefs and behaviors. Otherwise, they’ll continue to act like the left did during the summer of 2020, the 2020 elections, and the recent New York City mayoral race, i.e., they’ll continue to tell Black people: “You’re wrong; we white anti-racists know what’s best for you.” And while it’s perfectly legitimate and fine if they want to disagree with the majority of Black voters – I’ve often found myself in the unenviable position of disagreeing with the vast majority of all voters – they shouldn’t represent their views as the sole anti-racist viewpoint with which anyone who disagrees is simply a racist, expressing their white fragility, or, worse, engaged in deep self-loathing.

Image: Eric Adams expressing emotion after casting his ballot in the June Democratic primary.

On its 245th birthday, America faces most uncertainty in centuries

America is 245 years old, and it’s at a crossroads. Will American democracy survive? From both the left and the right, there has come a weird, anti-American tendency, a belief unparalleled in American history. Never before have so many people from all sides of the political spectrum questioned the belief that America’s entry upon the world scene, despite all of the new nation’s flaws and original stains, was a fundamentally good and progressive event of world historic proportions.

On the right, patriotism was once an article of faith; towards the end of his farewell speech, President Ronald Reagan said of America, “And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.” For the right, America was a land of freedom that beckoned to the world.  Now, though, a large section is either sweeping under the rug or openly defending the Jan. 6 insurrection against American democracy after years of saying that America is great no more; that it needs to be  made “great again.”

On the left, everyone from Martin Luther King, Jr., to Ho Chi Minh to Lenin acknowledged the great progress of America’s founding; the latter even called the American Revolution one of only three “truly great” revolutions in all of human history. For the left, America was perhaps unfulfilled promise, but it represented promise nonetheless. America was a work in progress, always improving, moving toward greater equality and justice. Now, though, much of the left believes that America was not so much stained by racism at the outset as racism and slavery were foundational to the American experiment; in this worldview, to fight for equality means to fight not to fulfill the American ideal, but to take up arms against what America stands for.

The nihilism of the new right and the new left is a dramatic break with the past. While they would agree on almost nothing, Reagan and Lenin and MLK were right about what the birth of the United States of America meant to the world, to the fight for both freedom and equality. But Samuel Adams was also right when he said, “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people who’s manners are universally corrupt.” Our manners have become corrupted; we now defend riots and insurrections – provided that they were committed by “our side” – and embrace ideas that are antithetical to the notion of freedom and universal equality of all people.

Will America survive as it has? We, as a country, have to determine that.  We could start by re-reading the Declaration of Independence, that document heralding a new world,  published 245 years ago today:

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Yom HaShoah: “We fought so we could die with dignity”

Now it’s Yom HaShoah, the day when Jews around the world, in both Israel and the diaspora, commemorate the 6 million Jews slaughtered by the Nazi death campaign. The machinery of evil wiped out two of every three of us in Europe, one out of every three in the world. 1.5 million of them were children. Yom HaShoah, distinct from the UN’s International Day of Holocaust Remembrance, commemorates the suffering – and the fightback – of a heroic people.

Three women with long coats and berets.
These women, members of the Jewish Combat Organisation, worked in an underground factory making grenades.

Much of the content of the UN day is focused not only on the barbarism of the Nazis, but also the benevolence of the Allied Powers, helping especially Britain and Russia to whitewash their own histories.

One of the oft-repeated slogans of those discussing the Holocaust is “never forget.” Indeed, there are many things we must always remember. Not to be forgotten is Britain’s pathetically weak response early on; while Hitler, Goebbels, and company were priming the machinery of death, Chamberlain was appeasing them. It wasn’t until Germany invaded Poland that the UK became involved; an imperial alliance brought Britain in, not any lofty desire to save the Jews. Also, despite the carnage, Britain continued to tighten restrictions on Jews in Europe moving to join their Mizrahi brethren already living in mandatory Palestine – Israel – the land  where the Jewish people first formed. Instead, they appeased people like the Nazi-loving Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who eventually went to live in fascist Germany, and was a direct cause of many of the ongoing problems between Israel and her Arab neighbors to this day.

The Soviet Union, that other member of the Allied Forces, made a nonaggression pact with Hitler, and only after the Nazis invaded the USSR did the Soviets fight.

None of this is to minimize the heroic fighting of American soldiers, or, indeed, those of the Soviet Union, Britain, and the other allies. The point, though, is that the UN holiday allows states like Britain and the USSR, now Russia, to whitewash their history. Both states have a far from unblemished record in their dealings with the Jews. Pogroms were commonplace throughout tsarist Russia, and it was the Soviet Union that deported Jews to Birobidzhan, created the “Zionism is racism” lie that is the excuse of left-wing anti-Semites, and practiced gross anti-Semitism within its borders – while refusing to allow Jews to leave. British anti-Semitism is alive and well now, and it’s part of a long record, alluded to above. Its rulers continually broke promises, backstabbed, and often refused to even allow Jews to travel to the land of Israel during the Holocaust, while the land was still under the control of the British empire. Glorifying these states’ additionally takes much of the focus off the main victims of the Holocaust – and heroism of those who fought not to be victims.

JCO poster
A JCO poster in Yiddish, reading, “All people are equal brothers; Brown, White, Black, and Yellow.”

First commemorated shortly after the end of the Shoah, or Holocaust, Yom HaShoah was officially established by a vote of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. The full name is “יום הזיכרון לשואה ולגבורה” (Yom Hazikaron laShoah ve-laG’vurah), Hebrew for “Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day.” This day marks the suffering – and heroic resistance – of Jews during the Shoah. One of Israel’s first commemorations of the day was the issuance of stamps bearing the image of Mordechai Anielewicz, leader of the Warsaw Uprising. Instead of pinning his hopes on the actions of fickle foreign powers, Anielewicz allied with the Jewish Combat Organization (a center-left coalition; there was also the revisionist Zionist Jewish Military Organization) that fought the Nazis in armed struggle, culminating at Warsaw. Starting on April 19, 1943, when the Nazi regime announced it would begin sending Jews “away,” the Warsaw ghetto stood up. Even when the Nazi police ordered the ghetto burned, the Jews continued to fight. The dead Jews numbered 13,000, but their fighting spared this world of about 150 Nazis, and they held off the fascists for nearly a month, until May 16. No one expected the uprising to win; the Jews in Warsaw knew they were doomed. One Combat Organization commander, Marek Edelman, survived. According to him, the Jews weren’t going to let the Nazis determine everything; instead, “We knew perfectly well that we had no chance of winning. We fought simply not to allow the Germans alone to pick the time and place of our deaths.” In Vilna, Lithuania, there were The Avengers, far better than any comic book heros, the last member of which died earlier this month.  The story was repeated heroically across Europe. There are at least 18 recorded uprisings in the labor camps, as well as in the extermination camps: at Treblinka in August 1943, then in October at Sobibor, and a year later at Auschwitz. Any notion of “sheep to the slaughter” is a slander.

This is important. Jews in film and popular histories of the Holocaust are often depicted as nameless entities defined by their suffering and dependent on the good will of others, as in Schindler’s List.  But these were real human beings, a large portion of whom decided that they were going to fight.  Across occupied Europe, uprisings took place in ghettos, Jews participated in partisan movements, revolts took place in concentration camps, and revolutionary Jews organized sabotages and bombings. The Jewish resistance came from all walks of life: old men carried bombs; teen girls acted as assassins.

Of course, not everyone could take part in an uprising. That would have been logistically impossible normally, more so given the circumstances. But everyone fought. For some, their fight was to stay alive, or to maintain hope. Some fought by sending their children away. Or by maintaining some form of sanity in the camps, keeping as much as possible the darkness at bay. There are countless stories of those who fought simply, by being a helping hand to someone else in the camp. Some fought just by continuing to exist at all, to act human for any amount of time in those evil conditions. Each of the six million has their own story, and each of those stories are part of a larger story, that of the Jewish people who have, over the centuries, fought, been defeated, and then continued to live, against the odds. Bari Weiss, the New York Times columnist, in her speech at the March Against Antisemitism in New York, characterized the Jewish people as “the ever-dying people that refuses to die.” That is the character of the people described by Yom HaShoah: those who died refusing to die.

There was overwhelming misery, the likes of which have been rare even for a history as bloody as humanity’s, and for that, it’s necessary to mourn, to never forget. It was the first time in human history that a modern, developed state used all of its mechanical and scientific achievements in an attempt to kill a whole people. They nearly succeeded: 2 out of every 3 Jews in Europe were killed, Jewry in Europe effectively ceased to exist, and 1 out of 3 Jews worldwide were lost (the Shoah didn’t affect only Ashkenazi Jews; it even extended into French-occupied North Africa). But the historical evidence shows a people not going quietly, instead struggling like bar Kokhba or the Maccabees – and who, in their own struggle, acted as לגוייםאור , “light unto the nations.” After the fires of the Holocaust, they brought that אור (light) to the newly-forming Israel and to the United States, now the two major centers of world Jewry. In both countries, one created for the Jews but maintaining equality for all, and the other the world’s most  successful liberal democracy, they have kept that spirit of justice and human dignity alive.

In a time when we read news daily of rising anti-Semitism, skyrocketing incidents of anti-Asian racism, and more, the lessons of Yom HaShoah are more important than ever.

Fight back.

Image: Israeli stamp commemorating the Warsaw uprising.

Where are the updates?

As you might have noticed, this site has not had much by way of updates. Several articles I’ve been planning to write are on the upcoming elections in Worcester (Massachusetts); some thoughts on the current political scene; some movie, book, and television reviews; and a few other odds and ends.

I have a lot of thoughts related to national events – the debacle of the Trump administration, the impeachment, the incoming administration, and others – but much of what I would add are things that have already been said, repeatedly. There is a glut of “content,” with partisans on all sides saying the same thing over and over. It’s all highly predictable: liberals will say this, the growing choir of leftists/socialists will say that, and the national nihilist, Trump-supporting crowd will say something else. But they’re all generally repeating talk points more than making original arguments. Indeed, much of the “news” media has moved in this direction as well. Take a look at the front page of the NY Times online, and you’ll see that the op-ed pieces make up nearly half the page. Most content now is simple talking points: leftists issue a barrage of articles on canceling student debt and their reasons that doing so is the only just, economically sound approach. Trumpians write on and on about the unfairness of losing an election, about conspiracies, etc. It’s all very boring, and, worse, it adds to the national “noise” around public discourse, causing people to either believe that they can never hope to grasp the truth or, conversely, to dig into their opinions, assured by a thousand articles repeating the same thing, that they possess The Truth.

Lost is room for dialogue between the entrenched sides. Case in point: is the new, “woke” antiracism helpful or harmful to the cause of combating racism and increasing equality? Now there are two camps: those who are “woke,” and who think that any deviations from the new orthodoxy puts one into the camp of racism; opposing them are the anti-woke like the depressing Gad Saad, a group of “free thinkers” who, with a few exceptions, seem to really just dislike any ideas of racial progress. There have been important exceptions, like John McWhorter,  who argues that racism is a problem in America, but that the way of addressing it perpetuated by people like Robin DiAngelo, whose White Fragility seems to imply that Black and white people can’t even have authentic friendships, does more damage than good. There are also some conservatives, like the writers at Commentary, who make an argument that is, regardless if one agrees or disagrees, done in good faith. How does one know that Commentary’s writers act in good faith? One important distinction is that they do not hesitate to criticize ideas from both the right and the left, avoiding the temptation to ignore the errors of those on “their side.” But people like McWhorter and the small group of writers around Commentary are a decided minority; mostly, everyone has gone to their own camps, accepting like dogma the arguments people around them are making, writing them down over and over, using different words to convey the same essence. Generally speaking, you know what someone has written before you’ve read it.

I intend to write when I feel like I have something useful to say, which hasn’t been said already ad nauseum. As you can see, I haven’t felt that to be the case very frequently. Still: quality over quantity.

Thanks for reading – when there is something to read, anyway.

Sanders, Corbyn, Anti-Semitism, and the Left’s Lack of Introspection

The spectacular collapse of the UK’s Labour Party in the December 12 elections – the party hasn’t fared so poorly since 1935 – was caused by a complex web of interconnecting factors, including feelings about Brexit, how far left is “too far”, disenchantment in working class areas such as northeastern England, and the party’s anti-Semitism crisis. It’s hard to know how much of a factor anti-Semitism played in Corbyn’s electoral disintegration, given the country’s very small Jewish population and entrenched anti-Semitism on the right. Still, it is likely to have played some role, and American progressives, if they want to retake the White House next year, should try to take that important lesson. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is more entrenched on the left than many would like to admit.

A mini-fury broke out on Twitter over the past few days after conservative commentator Noah Rothman published a piece in Commentary magazine suggesting that it is worth looking into whether the Sanders campaign has an anti-Semitism problem. The response to Rothman’s piece was far from measured. People on Twitter asked “Who’s cutting the checks?”, accused the author of donating to Klansman David Duke’s campaign (Duke, by the way, has previously accused Rothman of spreading “Talmudic” lies), and even made random accusations of child abuse.

For the most part, what happens on Twitter doesn’t matter. But the response to Rothman’s article is important, because it illustrates that the same tendencies at play in the anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party are at play in the U.S.

Ad hominem

The ad hominem condemnations of Rothman are analogous to Corbyn supporters’ attempts to pin the whole anti-Semitism row, to use the British term, on right-wing propaganda. They’ve accused even The Guardian, a British liberal newspaper, of conspiring against Corbyn. Rothman is, of course, a conservative, but he’s hardly a liar or a propagandist for Trump: he’s argued that the president should be impeached, condemned hypocrisy in the GOP, and critiqued the GOP’s entanglement with white nationalists on the eve of the 2016 election. What’s more, these kinds of responses simply dodge the questions raised, which everyone should be asking.

“Anti-Zionism isn’t Anti-Semitism”

When defending Labour or many of Sanders’ supporters, the most common refrains are, “Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism” and  “you can’t equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.” The most obvious point to make is that, in most cases, anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, and much of the time Israel has nothing to do with the discussion. Remember that Labour supporters used the same argument to defend everything that’s happened in their party, while a report to the European Human Rights Commission detailing Labour’s anti-Semitism featured quotes from anti-Zionists saying things like “The only reason we have prostitutes in the [area] is because of the Jews” or Jews should “be grateful we don’t make them eat bacon for breakfast everyday” or “Shut the fuck up, Jew” or “Hitler was right”. 

The second reply, related to the first, is that many who’ve condemned “progressive” anti-Semites in the U.S. and the UK say very little about anti-Zionism or, in fact, criticism of the State of Israel or its policies. Much of the anti-Semitism isn’t actually hidden behind anti-Zionism, or, when it is related, is only tangentially so.

The third reply is that, while normal criticism of Israel is fine, common, and even encouraged, singling Israel out as a uniquely bad actor on the world scene is both anti-Semitic and wrong. States in the very same region are committing horrific war crimes, as in Syria and Yemen. Nothing any Israel has ever done could come close to what is happening there. The fact that Israel has been condemned by the UN’s human rights body more than any other country in the world – combined – is also obviously anti-Semitic, as it is a prime example of singling out the Jewish state as the world’s worst actor – worse the than genocide-loving and democracy-smashing Chinese regime or North Korea.

And anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Aside from a tiny number of anarchists who argue for the abolition of all states and the miniscule grouping of Charedi dynasties (notably Neturei Karta and the Satmars) who oppose Israel’s statehood on religious grounds, anti-Zionists have embraced anti-Semitism. To argue that all other states in the world have a right to exist, but that Israel does not is anti-Semitic. To go further, to say that many other states are perfectly fine having laws extending citizenship to those born abroad based on ancestral membership of the nation (Ireland, Poland, etc., all have similar laws), while it is discrimination when Israel does it, is anti-Semitism.

“Sanders is Jewish and had family who died in the Holocaust”

Many have argued that Rothman and others who have criticized the Sanders campaign on this point are wrong, because Sanders can’t be an anti-Semite, since he is Jewish and had family who died in the Holocaust. This is a strange argument, because virtually no one, certainly not Rothman in his piece, has accused Sanders of anti-Semitism, and it is hard to  imagine that anyone thinks Sanders harbors such hatreds. The problem is that, for whatever reason, Sanders has brought on as surrogates and staff people who have made blatantly anti-Semitic comments at best, and who are extreme anti-Semites at worst.

The campaign’s anti-Semites

One of these anti-Semites is the wealthy (in 2017, she was paid about $70,000 by the Women’s March and about $26,000 by another organization alone) Park Slope activist Linda Sarsour, whom Sanders has made a national campaign surrogate. It is not necessary to say much about her, as she has a fairly long and well-known record of anti-Semitic comments, the reason for which she had to leave the Women’s March leadership. Speaking of progressive Zionists at a conference on Nov. 29, Sarsour said,  “Ask them this, to explain to you how can you be against white supremacy in America and the idea of being in a state based on race and class, but then you support a state like Israel that is based on supremacy, that is built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everyone else.” After being condemned for her comments, she claimed she was speaking of the recent nation state law, though the video of her speech shows this was clearly not the case.

The idea that Jews see themselves as a superior race is a long-standing anti-Semitic trope, closely related to the ideas that Jews are puppeteers pulling the world’s strings. Beyond that, Sarsour’s implication is that a person cannot be a Zionist and a progressive. Given that Zionism means only supporting the right of the Jewish state to exist, and that polling shows 90 or 95 percent of American Jews support Israel, Sarsour’s was effectively saying you can’t be a Jew and a progressive, because you support a form of racial supremacy. In other words, “You don’t belong here, Jew.”

On Dec. 4, the Sanders campaign had to rid itself of new hire Darius Johnson, who’d been tapped for the position of Deputy Director of Constituency Organizing, because in prior years he’d tweeted anti-Semitic (and homophobic) content, including a message relating to “Jew money.” The campaign’s deputy press secretary, Belén Sisa, said that Jews seem to have a “dual allegiance to the State of Israel.” 

Another Sanders ally, Rep. Ilhan Omar has also made blatantly anti-Semitic statements recently. She and her allies have sought to cast any criticism for her statements as “Islamophobia, simply because she is a Muslim woman from Somalia. But this is a smokescreen; she also deserves to be condemned when she speaks hatefully against Jews or any other persecuted group.

Why are anti-Semites so visible in the campaign?

Bernie Sanders is not an anti-Semite. He advocates a different U.S policy towards Israel, but does not seek its destruction or abolition; he supports a two-state solution, as does most of the American Jewish community. On top of that, Sanders has shown over the years that he legitimately believes in a more humane society, and has demonstrated over and over again that he sees the oppression of any group as anathema to the “democratic socialism” that he advocates. It is not necessary to support or embrace his beliefs to see that he is a true believer in them. But his campaign has given a national platform to anti-Semites. Why?

Having worked in campaigns off and on for a couple decades, I know that one person is pivotal: the campaign manager. The best candidates hire a good campaign manager, and then listen to that manager’s orders. Politico Faiz Shakir, who has previously worked for Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, is Sanders’s campaign director. Shakir had already been criticized for anti-Israel bias when he was brought on board. He was the editor of Think Progress when that online outlet, a product of the Center for American Progress, came under fire for bias against Israel. The anti-Israel animosity was so pronounced that the Obama White House announced that it was “troubled” by the tone of the blog. Shakir seems to have a penchant for stumbling into anti-Semitism controversies. Whether or not Shakir is himself an anti-Semite, he is not much on guard against anti-Semitism. And, as the American left is currently configured, not purposely locking the doors on anti-Semites means that they will enter your organization. 

My own best guess as to “Why?” is that the Sanders’ campaign is as much a product of the overall modern American left as it is of Sanders himself. Having spent time in this milieu myself, I know that anti-Semitism is much more prevalent than most people would assume; one often only needs to scratch the surface. The Women’s March meltdown, in which Sarsour played a leading role, is a salient example of anti-Semitism in progressive spaces, as was the banning of the Star of David at the DC Dyke March.

Anti-Semitism is a unique form of hatred that fits on the left and right equally well: the idea of the Jew as the rich globalist comports easily enough with the loathed capitalist. The multinational banks that pushed Latin America into a global debt crisis fits snugly into the Jewish banker trope.

Beyond easy parallels, the notion that “Zionism is racism,” an idea manufactured in the Soviet Union to fit foreign policy aims and adopted for several decades by the United Nations, became commonly accepted by progressives, as it is to this day, long after the Soviet Union disintegrated and the UN reversed itself on Zionism. If you don’t want to take my word on Soviet anti-Zionism’s relationship to anti-Semitism,  simply check out this article from an early 1980s issue of Australian Left Review, the official journal of the Communist Party of Australia. Even Pravda acknowledged in 1990 that the Party had erred, and that the anti-Zionist campaign had given new life to anti-Semitism: “Hiding under Marxist phraseology,” Pravda stated, the leaders of the campaign “came out with coarse attacks on Jewish culture, on Judaism, and on Jews in general.” Unfortunately, no one in the West appears to have read the editorial; perhaps more leftists need to read later issues of Pravda. Keep in mind that the Soviets spent millions of dollars spreading their anti-Zionist campaign throughout the world.

Now we are left with a left that believes Zionism is racism. To believe that, one must logically believe that Israel, the product of Zionism, is a racist creation. Trace this horrific logic a step further, and supporters of Israel – including about 90 percent of American Jews – become racists (as Sarsour alluded).  

For the first time in decades, a major political campaign is openly left-wing. This is a step forward for progressives, but it brings with it all the baggage that had been easily hidden from view by an unwatchful public before. Sanders himself seems to have an early Socialist Party mentality, in that he sees the class struggle as paramount, above all else. According to this logic, fighting racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and other social maladies are laudable, but come second to winning the class struggle, i.e. putting the working class into political power. Doing that, these early socialists argued, would automatically lay the conditions that would naturally cause these social ailments to disappear. Of course, none of that is true, as the experience of all socialist societies, from Sweden to the Soviet Union, shows. Still, Sanders seems to have long embraced this principle and is only now slowly moving away from it; the class reductionist approach is the reason Sanders has found himself in trouble with, among others, the African American community.

The need to get rid of anti-Semitism

Some defenders of Sanders’ campaign argue that there is far more anti-Semitism on the Trump side of the political aisle. Whether or not that is true, it doesn’t excuse anti-Semitism anywhere, just as racism and sexism are inexcusable on the left, even if they are more extreme on the right. This is a moral issue of justice; it is incumbent upon Sanders to purge his campaign of anti-Semites. Rothman, the conservative columnist, is right: everyone should bring up the anti-Semitism issue with Sanders. Hopefully, this will move him to get rid of Sarsour and other anti-Semites on his team.

For anyone aiming to oust Trump in the coming election, it should be obvious that anti-Semitism cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Jews have been a vital component of the Democratic Party, and are one of the most solid Democratic-voting demographics. Hundreds of thousands of Jews happen to be clustered in Florida, a swing state. All of Florida’s 29 electoral votes were awarded to Trump in 2016, who won the state by only about 113,000 votes. The most heavily Democratic section of the state is Broward County, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade Counties. This is also an area with a huge concentration of Jewish voters. It’s unlikely that Jews would in majority switch to Trump, but it is not out of the question that a perceived Corbynization of the Democratic Party, or at least the Democratic presidential campaign, could depress enough people into staying home.

Ensuring the maxim turnout against Trump is important, especially given his growing popularity.

Do the right thing

Sanders has a shot at winning the nomination, as he has been polling well. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is not currently likely a deal-breaker for the Democratic primaries, but it can do real harm in the national election. Besides that, it is a major moral stain on any campaign that allows it, and, if not immediately, a dangerous threat to American Jews and to America itself in the long term. It’s up to Sanders to get rid of the the stain on his campaign, and it’s up to all people of good will to push him to do so.

Image: Anti-Zionist display at a 1972 Soviet parade. Photo by Vladimir Sychev, assumed to be public domain.

“Scandal” around Joe Early is an extremist witch hunt

The ongoing campaign against District Attorney Joe Early has much more to do with the far right in Worcester County trying to gain its political foothold than it has to do with any “corruption” on the part of our DA. It is vitally important that all people of good will – Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike – understand that the ongoing calls for trials and resignations have more to do with votes than they do with a few lines in a police report.

The reasons for the anti-Early campaign

While Worcester has long voted Democratic and moderate Republican, the city had a few Trump-style Republicans in its elected leadership, and there are a couple of representatives of that faction of the GOP elected to office in other parts of the county as well, notably Ryan Fattman in the Worcester and Norfolk district State Senate seat, among a few others. That faction has been represented by the Turtleboy Sports blog (TBS), which publishes juvenile townie fare mixed with Trump-style propaganda messages.

Now, however, this faction of the Republican Party is losing what grip it had on power. In 2017, its leader, Michael Gaffney, was handily defeated in the Worcester city council elections, as were the other candidates it fielded for that body; Donna Colorio, its sole representative to the city’s school committee, was pushed out by Dante Comparetto’s youth- and grassroots-powered candidacy. In the process, the influence of TBS was dramatically reduced.

This year, the extremist faction’s representatives outside of the city are facing tougher-than-expected battles for re-election. There’s a very real chance that the 17th Worcester district could go Democratic, as current Rep. Kate Campanale leaves that seat to run for Register of Deeds. Even Jen Caissie, the Trump-style Republican in this district’s oft-overlooked Governor’s Council seat, is facing her strongest challenge yet, and from an uninspiring candidate at that.

In short, the Trump faction of the local GOP could potentially lose everything in the upcoming elections – and they’re willing to do anything they can to maintain relevance. Knocking out a Democrat in a county-wide seat with a TBS-aligned independent candidate would serve that purpose well. Challenging Early would deprive moderate Democrats of a county-wide seat on the one hand, and the fight to keep Early in office, on the other, would drain Democrats of both the money and people-power necessary to win grassroots elections to defeat local Trump clones.

The anti-Early campaign

The campaign to smear Early, started when some state cops fed information to the TBS blog, which then published it, albeit partially incorrectly. According to their “reporting,” a young woman named Alli Bibaud was picked up for driving under the influence of heroin and alcohol, and the police filed an arrest report. Among other things, the police report noted that Ms. Bibaud stated that her father was a judge and was going to be very upset with her, and that she had performed sexual acts to obtain heroin.  Her father, TBS said, Judge Timothy Bibaud, decided that he was above the law, and called – this is what TBS wrote – Early and asked the district attorney to do him the favor of having the police report altered to redact those statements.

How incendiary! Except…it’s not. While Early’s opponent is calling for him to resign, there’s simply no reason for anyone to be upset about anything the D.A. did.

If one looks fully into the facts of the “scandal,” studies up on the history of Joe Early’s stances on arrest reports and what should and what should not be included in them, and reads the report put out by Attorney General Maura Healey’s office after an investigation, one comes away with the view that this is all, as the saying goes, much ado about nothing.

Early’s history on related issues

Several things in Early’s work as a DA are important to note in this controversy.

First, Early has been increasingly concerned about stigmatizing those who are addicted to opiates and other substances. Just over a year and a half ago, I attended a public forum on opiates, at which Early spoke. There he stated that he, in his office, would do what he could to shield those addicted from unnecessary scorn and embarrassment. That, he argued, would help to create a climate in which people experiencing addiction would look for help.

Second, Early has been on record now for several years in arguing that documents used in court proceedings should contain only information salient to the charges being filed, that police reports shouldn’t be used for probable cause in applying for a criminal complaint, and that salacious information in such documents is problematic, in that they can generate adverse publicity and undermine the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Not holding people up to unnecessary scorn, advocating that only necessary data be included in court records, trying to ensure that negative publicity isn’t generated, thus affecting a person’s right to a fair trial: these are the exact ingredients that should lead one to expect that the DA would complain about a police report including someone’s statement that she had to offer a blowjob for heroin. How could such a fact help to indicate whether someone was or was not driving under the influence at that moment?

No similar cases?

Despite all the above facts, which exonerate Early entirely, people like his opponent, as well as newspaper writers, argue that there are no instances similar to Early’s or his office’s actions in this case. However, Early’s office released documents on more than 90 instances it considers similar.

While it is true that there isn’t one that is exactly the same, there are a couple of redactions of documents, and many impoundments (in which a document is temporarily hidden from public view). Regardless of a lack of an exact match, there are many dozens of examples in which the DA’s office acted to remove information from the public’s eye when the office judged that negative pre-trial publicity could, as Early has often worried about publicly, negatively affect a person’s right to a fair trial.

Most of these impoundments were for violent criminals and others who might be a danger to the public. Some were impounded to protect witnesses, but in other instances, to avoid pre-trial publicity. If the DA’s office was going to worry about their right to a fair trial, why would Early not be concerned about the right to a fair trial of a woman accused of a lesser charge? And why would he not be concerned about a report that needlessly stigmatizes exactly the population that he’s stated publicly he wanted to help de-stigmatize?

Ms. Bibaud’s father, a trained legal expert, knew what should and what should not go into a police report. If there is an unfairness, it is one that Joe Early cannot control: most people do not know that certain things shouldn’t be made into public information, should not be included in police reports or other legal documents. Judge Bibaud knew that the report included embarrassing information that, because it was impertinent, simply should not have been there. He knew that he had good grounds to complain to the DA’s office. There is no more corruption in this than knowing that, if there is a pothole in front of your house, you can and do call your city council member to ask that s/he do something to get it fixed.

What’s the difference?

Another important question to ask is simply, “What’s the difference?” Some act as if Ms. Bibaud is exonerated by the change of the report. But what, really, is the difference? The report still notes that she was picked up for operating under the influence, that she was extremely intoxicated, and that she had admitted to using heroin. Why does removing talk of blowjobs and angry fathers indicate justice not being served? Neither of these statements can be used against her to prove guilt; they are simply embarrassing. According to the AG’s report, a judge even agreed separately that the statements in question shouldn’t be shown, but instead sealed away.

As it turned out, Early was right: the statements in the report were completely unnecessary to establish guilt. Ms. Bibaud pleaded guilty, received inpatient treatment, and lost her license for a year – the same thing that happens to others who drive under the influence.

To sum up

Joe Early did nothing wrong. Instead, he acted as a district attorney should: he ensured that justice is served, but without needlessly embarrassing and stigmatizing a young woman suffering from heroin addiction. Given the ravages our communities are seeing from opiate addiction, Early’s actions are a reason to vote for him, not a reason for him to resign.

The “scandal” around the DA’s office is nothing more than a political smear, the flames of which are fanned by a Republican Party faction desperate to maintain power.

In crafting schools’ new strategic plan, a grassroots approach

WORCESTER, Mass. – On Jan. 24, local residents will again have an opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns about the future direction of the Worcester Public Schools (WPS), as an unprecedented, community-driven data gathering process continues, the ultimate goal of which is to create the schools’ first new strategic plan since Will Smith was still The Fresh Prince.

The need for a new plan

“One of the shocking realities is that we have not had a strategic plan for the district since 1992,” said Jennifer Carey, executive director of the Worcester Education Collaborative (WEC), the community organization spearheading, along with the Worcester Regional Research Bureau, the drive to create the new plan.

“That was the year before education reform, which changed the landscape for education dramatically in this state,” Carey told me, explaining why she and WEC thought a new plan was so urgent. “It was before No Child Left Behind, it was before the Every Student Succeeds Act, it was before a lot of changes in the approach to education, the policy approach to education. It was also before the changes in technology with respect to education, the changes in the composition of our student body both in terms of ethnicity and in terms of income, and in terms of special education. So there really has not been a considered plan on how we’re going to move forward as a district.”

An opportunity arises

A transition in WPS leadership, the departure of former superintendent Melinda Boone in 2016, was seen by the WEC and the WRRB as an opportunity for the city to create a new plan. While it was initially hoped that a plan could be created before a new superintendent was hired, the school committee quickly appointed Maureen Binienda to the position. However, Binienda agreed that a new plan was a worthwhile undertaking.

Starting the process

In its efforts to create the document, WEC has employed a process that is a radical departure from the way a strategic plan might have been created in the past. Previously, administrators would likely meet with education experts, study statistics and the literature, and create a plan, which would then be shown triumphantly to the public. Now, however, the experts and quantitative data remain, but the community is directly involved with, and a key part of, creating the plan.

WEC created an advisory committee of nearly 50 people, which is composed of community representatives, parents, business leaders, the teachers’ union president, faith leaders, and recent WPS alums. More than a third are from communities of color. A coordinating committee was created, as well as several subcommittees, each of which focused on different areas that the plan must address. Each subcommittee has advisory committee members as well as additional community members, and is at least as reflective of communities of color as the overall committee.

Next, WEC brought on the Rennie Center, a Boston-based education consultancy to ensure that best practices were followed, as well as to help analyze and organize the data gathered into a coherent plan. The data is both quantitative (statistics and numbers) and qualitative (stories and comments from community members).

A grassroots approach

Three community forums were held, in July, October, and, most recently, in December at Doherty High School. The first forum, held at the MCPHS Worcester campus, helped to set the agenda: the Rennie Center took public comments made at that forum, and divided them into different “themes” that community members – parents, students, nonprofit and faith leaders – found important. They included social and emotional learning, continuing professional development for teachers, academics, and technology.

“Interestingly for the folks who had been doing education for a number of years,” Carey reflected, “the themes that are coming up are the themes that you would expect to come up.”

Still, however, the planners wanted to dive even deeper, and, concurrently with the community-wide listening sessions, organized 15 focus groups, composed of WPS parents and students. The focus groups were created so that students and parents could freely speak their minds. According to Carey, “We wanted to get into the real, lived experience, which is much more personal, and sometimes can be very emotional. We wanted to provide a more intimate, safer space for people to be able to talk about their real experiences with the schools: their hopes, their expectations, and their frustrations.”

Students and parents in the groups were separated into different rooms, so that young people felt they could speak freely. Part of the reason for hiring an out-of-town firm, the Rennie Center, as a consultant, was so that the groups could be run by people that participants “would not run into in the grocery store,” thus providing an even safer space for unfiltered discussion. Carey said that, while statistics are highly important, they are “cold without the story that goes with the data. We thought it was important to have the story, to have the lived experience, that goes with the numerical indicators.”

Ensuring diverse opinions

In order to reach communities that are often overlooked and ignored, organizers worked intentionally with specific community organizations to find participants. These organizations included African Community Education, Latino Education Institute, Belmont AME Zion Church, the Citywide Parents Planning Advisory Council, the Worcester Youth Center, the Southeast Asian Coalition, the Worcester Community Action Council, and others.

posing
November: Worcester students after delivering results of “Schools we deserve dialogue

The organizers are also looking at any other data they can obtain, including the transcript of the “Schools We Deserve” dialogue, which was independently organized in August by an ad hoc group of WPS high school students.

The results of the discussions, as well as the data, will be the constitutive parts of the plan, which is hoped to be presented to the administration, the school committee, and city council by the end of February. Carey hopes that the community will take ownership of the plan, as it will require advocacy, especially in securing Chapter 70 funding that the state owes Worcester and other Gateway Cities.

New process, inevitable confusion

Despite all the public participation, the planning process has garnered some criticisms. While they are generally vague, some have suggested that the planners ignored communities of color.

“I woke up this morning an African American woman, just like I have for the past 61 years,” Carey said when I asked her about this charge. Given the process, she said, “I’m stunned that people are saying that.” She added that anyone is free to get in touch with her.

Some frustrations were evident at the Dec. 20 forum at Doherty Memorial High School, which was to have been the final. However, it was apparent that many of those frustrated thought that some plan had already been created, and were disappointed that organizers weren’t more forthcoming with the details. However, there is no plan yet.

Moving forward

In light of the confusion, and hoping to get ore community input, another forum is being organized for Jan. 24 at 6pm at Claremont Academy. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to show up and provide input as to what they want to see in the public school system.

Those who have not been able to attend a forum or a focus group are still able to give their thoughts on what the schools should look like in the coming years, by completing a survey here.